IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11747 of 1995 Between: M.S.Venkatachalam S/o.K.Krishna Pillai Translator, Additional Dist Judge's Court, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The High Court of A.P., Rep. by its Registrar (Management), High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Dist & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 D.Seshagiri Rao, Translator, Additional Dist Judge's Court, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 4 K.S. Ravendra, Translator, Additional Dist Judge's Court, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion in Category-2 post on the ground that his service were not regularised in the category of Translator, as wholly arbitrary, highly illegal, unjust and unconstitutional, being violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.681, Home (Courts-D) Dept, dt.5-11-1986 and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the category-2 post in the existing and future vacancies and promote him to the said category prior to the respondents 3 and 4 as per the proceedings R.Dis.No.71-A/95, dt.21-2-1995 issued by the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.D.RAMESH ( Not Present ) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : None appeared. The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: ( per Hon’ble The Chief Justice ) …… When writ petition is taken up for hearing, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. From the cause title, it appears that petitioner has since superannuated as of today. That alone appears to be the reason for the absence of the counsel for the petitioner and it appears that writ petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. _____________________ DEVINDER GUPTA. C.J., _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY. J., Dated: 23.12.2004. VRK. To 1 The Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The Section Incharge, Legal Cell, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 4. Two CD copies. HON’BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY. W.P.NO. 11747 OF 1995. ( Order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble The Chief Justice ) Dt: 23.12.2004.