IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT APPEAL No.757 of 2001 Between: A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, rep., by its Managing Director & others. … Appellants And N.V.M. Manoj Kumar & others. … Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-14 : Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.15 : GP for GAD This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 757 of 2001 JUDGMENT:- (Per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) This writ appeal arises out of order dated 02.11.2000 in WP.No.13204 of 2000, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents. In his order, the learned Single Judge held that transfer of the respondents under order dated 19.07.2000 and posting of non- technical personnel in their place was contrary to the norms and guidelines of the appellants' Corporation. The learned Judge directed to fill up the vacancies of Work Inspectors (Technical) only by the persons appointed as Work Inspectors (Technical) as prescribed by the rules and guidelines. A further direction was given by the learned Judge that the respondents shall be considered for appointment as Work Inspectors (Technical) in the vacancies in which they were posted earlier. At the hearing, Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the appellants, submitted that during the pendency of this writ appeal, the State Government introduced a housing scheme under “Indiramma Programme” and that this scheme required deployment of Work Inspectors (Technical) at Mandal level. He further submitted that in view of the work need, all the respondents have been posted as Work Inspectors (Technical) and have been working in the said post. He further stated that in view of these changed circumstances, the cause in the writ appeal does not survive for consideration. Placing on record the above statement of the learned Standing counsel, the writ appeal is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the writ appeal as infructuous, WAMP.No.1572 of 2001 filed by the appellants for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.08.2009 ES