IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.65 of 2008 Between: 1 R.Sudarshan Goud S/o.late Saya Goud, R/o. 8-182, Ram Nagar, G.P. Mavala, Adilabad. 2 I.Ashok S/o.Atchaboy, R/o.Pedda Peta village, Dondapalli Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Redhills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chief General Manager (COMML). 2 The Superintending Engineer (Operation Circle), Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Adilabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the call letter to the petitioners for interview and pole climbing test to the post of contract Junior Lineman scheduled to be held from 3.01.2008 to 6.01.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to attend interview and test to the post of Contract Junior Lineman scheduled to be held from 3.01.2008 to 6.01.2008 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.65 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not issuing call letters to the petitioners for interview and pole climbing test scheduled to be held from 03.01.2008 to 06.01.2008 for appointment to the post of Contract Junior Lineman. Though the writ petition was admitted, no interim orders were passed by this Court. Today, Mr. P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the entire selection process was completed. In view of the above, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 18th October, 2008. IBL