IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 11051 of 2000 BETWEEN: 1. A.Gopal Rao, S/o. Bhaskar Rao, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District. 2. Shaik Saida Vali S/o.Kasim Ali, Anumula Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, Hyderabad City Region, JBS, Picket, Secuncerabad. 2 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the illegal action of the respondents not following the circular of APSRTC and G.O.Ms.No.115 dt. 21.2.1997 of General Administration (Services-A) Department and earlier decision in W.P.No. 2566/97 by not reserving posts of conductor Grade - III in Hyderabad Region to sportsmen to be extent of 1% of total posts and appointing the petitioner as conductor Grade - III in Hyderabad Region is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to follow the APSRTC circular orders by reserving 1% of the total posts ot the sportmen of Hyderabad Region and to appoint the petitioners as conductors Grade - III under Sports quota in persuance of the interview conducted on month of June, 2000. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.KOONA REDDY ANJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER : No representation on behalf of the petitioners. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus to reserve one per cent of the posts of Conductor Grade-III in Hyderabad Region of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, to the sportsmen, and to appoint them as Conductors Grade-III. 3. When the matter is taken up, it is represented by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation that the circular instructions, which were in force at the time of filing of this writ petition, and on the basis of which this writ petition was filed, are not in force now, and by subsequent proceedings, the same were cancelled. 4. In view of the above submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, and since there is no representation for the petitioners to controvert the same, the writ petition is dismissed for default. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th November 2008 ajr