IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17031 of 1999 Between: V. Venkat Ram Narsaiah, S/o. Govindaiah, R/o.18-4-202, Karimabad, Warangal District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh (Edn.) Department, Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh (Edn.) Department, Rep. by its Commissioner and Director of School Education, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh (Edn.) Department, Rep. by its District Educational Officer, Warangal. 4 Sri Markandeya Primary School, Rep. by its Secretary, Karimabad, Warangal 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 may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the entire action of the respondents in preventing petition to discharge his duties as Secondary Grade Teacher Telugu Pundit in the 4th Respondent recognized School only orally informing the petitioner in the month of June, 1999 that his services have been terminated with retrospective effect w.e.f. 29-5-95 and not considering his case in pursuance of notification issued dt. 29.5.1995 in the S.G.T. Post for which the petitioner is entitled as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law contrary to the statutory provisions of Education Rules and Act and also in violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and further by directing the respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization in the S.G.T. aided post in pursuance of the notification issued dt. 29.5.1995. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P. SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: GP, SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for Respondent No.4: Mr. Serla Pandari The Court made the following: Order: As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 11-06-2008, the writ petition was directed to be listed today, under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, when the matter is taken up, none appears for the petitioner and there is no representation. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. June 13, 2008 MRR