Telangana High Court
WP/17777/1999 of N.V.V.Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Dist. Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17777 of 1999 Between: N.V.V.Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nageshwar Rao, R/o. Raidupalem,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 17777 of 1999
Between:
N.V.V.Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nageshwar Rao, R/o. Raidupalem, Kakinada, E.G.Dist.
AND
.....
PETITIONER
1 The Dist. Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., rep.by its GeneralManager, Kakinada, E.G.District.Manager, Kakinada, E.G.District.
2 The Branch Manager, D.C..CLTD., Nagamallithota Branch, Kakinada, E.G.District. Kakinada, E.G.District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.M.SUBHAN
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
“For the reasons stated in the affidavitaccompanying, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issuean order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1[st]Respondent herein in issuing the Proceedings in Esst.99-2000 dt.6.8.1999 in giving reversion from the post ofofficiating Staff assistant to the post of Messenger as illegal,without jurisdiction, arbitrary, unjust and as such set asidethe same with a consequential direction to continue thepetitioner in the post of officiating Staff assistant forthwith inthe interest of justice.”
At the hearing, Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for thepetitioner, submitted that the cause in the writ petition does notsurvive for consideration, as the petitioner is no longer inemployment.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.
Dated:26.12.2008
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
GJ