Telangana High Court
WP/28851/2008 of R. Srinivasa Rao Vs The A.P. Residential Education Institutions Society on 31 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 28851 of 2008 Between: R. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Tirumul Rao Andhra Pradesh Gurukula Girls
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAWRIT PETITION NO : 28851 of 2008
Between:
R. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Tirumul Rao
Andhra Pradesh Gurukula Girls School,
Nerella Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The A.P. Residential Education Institutions Society (Regd.) rep. by itsSecretary, Gagan Vihar, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. Secretary, Gagan Vihar, M.J. Road, Hyderabad.
2 The Principal, Andhra Pradesh Gurukula Girls School, Nerella Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. Nerella Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1strespondent in not passing any orders on the representation dt. 8.12.2008submitted by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequentlydirect the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner forregularization of his post as Attender.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.VENKAT YADAV
Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD
The Court made the following :
Page 1 of 2
O R D E R:-
When this matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by thelearned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent-A.P. ResidentialEducational Institutions Society, that the petitioner only on apprehensionthat the respondents would appoint outsiders without considering hiscase for absorption on permanent basis, has filed the writ petition, and asof now, no cause of action has arisen for the petitioner to file the writpetition.
Since as of now, nobody has been appointed, the petitioner cannothave any grievance, and as such, the present writ petition filed by thepetitioner under apprehension is premature, and the same is thus closed. However, if the petitioner’s services are affected/discontinued in any wayby the respondents, the petitioner is at liberty to question such action byfiling writ petition. No costs.
______________
N.V.RAMANA, J
31[st] December, 2008
bcj
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…