Telangana High Court
WP/31441/2012 of Sri P.Murali, Vs The APSRTC., on 29 December 2016
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31441 OF 2012 ORDER: This petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as ‘Shramik’ in Kadapa Region in pursuance of the Notification No.R3/684(23)/2010-HRD, dated 01.11.2010,
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.
Conclusion
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31441 OF 2012
ORDER:
This petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as ‘Shramik’ in Kadapa Region in pursuance of the Notification No.R3/684(23)/2010-HRD, dated 01.11.2010, by insisting for production of All India Trade Test Certificate, which is not required as per the notification, though the petitioner has completed apprenticeship in APSRTC to the post of ‘Shramik’, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner by giving preference to the apprentices of APSRTC.
This Court on 28.11.2012, while admitting the writ petition granted interim direction to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Circular No.PD.55/2010, dated 21.10.2010.
In pursuance of the interim order, vacate petition is filed and this Court ordered the said petition by observing that in pursuance of the interim orders the case of the petitioner was considered and proceedings dated 18.01.2013 were issued and in that view of the matter, the interim order has worked itself out and as such, no further intervention is called for at the interlocutory stage.
Heard Sri A.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.
As the respondents has already considered the case of the petitioner and passed orders, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 28.11.2012, passed by this Court in WP.MP.No.40089 of 2012. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the writ petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J29.12.2016 tk