THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.9748 of 2009 & WPMP No.12677 of 2009 Date : 11-4-2011 Between : Sukka Deena Sunitha .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : None appeared Counsel for respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri C.Sudesh Anand Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief : “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the provision of 25% weightage to the marks secured in the relevant group subjects namely, Biology, Physics, Chemistry in Intermediate Public Examination in G.O.Ms.No.8, Higher Education (EC.II) Department, dated 27-1-2009 on the file of respondent No.1 and instruction/condition No.XI 2(a) r/w. Annexure IV of Instruction booklet on the file of respondent No.3 as irrational, illogical and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same or alternatively to direct the respondents not to apply the condition of giving 25% weightage marks for at least to the EAMCET 2009 Batch (AM Category)…” WPMP No.12677/2009 is filed to suspend the rule providing for 25% weightage to the marks secured in the relevant group subjects in Intermediate examinations, in the EAMCET-2009. The petitioner sought for an alternative direction to the respondents not to apply the condition of giving 25% weightage in the EAMCET-2009 (AM category). When WPMP No.12677/2009 came up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner in the pre- lunch session. Therefore, the case was passed-over. Even in the post-lunch session, there was no representation for the petitioner. Even though, ordinarily the application should have been disposed of having regard to the nature of the relief claimed in the Writ Petition, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition itself has become infructuous as the relief claimed by the petitioner pertains to EAMCET-2009. At the hearing Sri Sudesh Anand, learned counsel representing respondent No.2, submitted that EAMCET-2009 was already conducted and that the academic year for which admissions were made following the said examination has already been completed. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner either in the Writ Petition or in WPMP No.12677/2009. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition and WPMP No.12677/2009 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 11-4-2011 AM