IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14018 of 2008 Between: Kum.Chintada Mounika D/o.Krishna Rao Damma Peta(V&M) Khammam District rep.by its her Father Ch.Krishana Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P rep.by its Secretary Department of Technical Education, Secretariat Hyderabad-22 2 The Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Techonologies Rep.by its Dean Registrar Ladikapoor, Hyderabad 3 The Director Board of Secondary Education Saifabad Hyderabad 4 The District Collector Khammam District Khammam 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahasildar Dammapeta, Khammam 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 will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent rejecting the case of the petitioner for admission into IIIT of RGUKT Programme by the Admission Committee stating that the You are from an urban School, which is illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice that though she is from a Rural School and consequently direct the 1st & 2nd respondent to enable the petitioner vide Roll No.1000114 for admission into IIIT programme of the 2nd respondent without referring to the Rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KARRI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Kum. Chintada Mounika assailing the action of the second respondent in not including her name in the selected list for admission into IIIT course. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 2.07.2008. The respondent ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. The learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner’s name has been included in the selected list and a communication has been sent to her accordingly. In that view of the matter nothing survives in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 10th September, 2008 Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Government of A.P rep.by its Secretary Department of Technical Education, Secretariat Hyderabad-22 2 The Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Techonologies Rep.by its Dean Registrar Ladikapoor, Hyderabad 3 The Director Board of Secondary Education Saifabad Hyderabad 4 The District Collector Khammam District Khammam 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahasildar Dammapeta, Khammam District 6 2 CCs to G.P. for Education, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT) 7 2 CD copies.