IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20285 of 2005 Between: The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Director of Intermediate Education, Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah. 3 B.L.Prasad, S/o.B.venkataramana, R/o.Government Jr.College, Penugonda, Anantapur district. 4 K.venkataramana Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, R/o.Government Junior College, Kuppam, Chittoor district. 5 T.Raja Reddy, S/o.T.Konda Reddy, R/o.Government Junior College, Guramkonda, Chittoor district. 6 T.govindu, S/o.T.Nagappa, R/o.Government Boys Junior College, Puttur, Chittoor district. 7 S.Rupavathi, D/o.Samraj Papaiah, R/o.Government Girls Junior College, Punganur, Chittoor district. 8 Ramakrishna Rao, S/o.M.Mangapathi Rao, R/o.Government Boys Junior College, Palamaneru, Chittoor district. 9 S.Subbaiah, S/o.B.Khadar Vally, Government Junior College, Kuppam, Chittoor district. 10 K.Krishnamaiah, S/o.K.Gopal, Government Junior College, Chittoor, 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 may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare action of the respondents No. 1& 2 in redeploying the respondent 3 to 10 to another colleges from the petitioner college without making alternative arrangement and even in spite of their services are required in the college as arbitrary illegal and direct the respondent No.1 & 2 to transfer the respondents 3 to 10 to the petitioner college forthwith in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R : When this writ petition came up for hearing on 11.06.2009, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, it was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’ on this day, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:26th June, 2009. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}