Telangana High Court
WP/26725/1995 of T.Janaradan Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradesh Health and Medical Housing 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 SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26725 of 1995 Between: 1 T.Janaradan Reddy S/o T.Somasekar Reddy R/o 7/86,
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.26725 of 1995
Between:
1 T.Janaradan Reddy S/o T.Somasekar Reddy R/o 7/86, Jayanagar Colony, Cuddapah 2 P. Dhanunjaya Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy R/o. 7/86, Jayanagar Colony, Cuddapah.
3 G. Sreenivasa Rao S/o. G. Ganga Rao R/o. 28-130 1st Floor, B-Cross, Ramnagar Colony. Chittoor.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1 The Andhra Pradesh Health and Medical Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation, rep by its Managing Director, Pioneer House, 5th House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh
rep.by its Secretary, Medical, Health and family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
3 The Executive Engineer, The A.P. Health and Medical Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation, 7/86, Jayanagar Colony, Cuddapah......RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writof Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing theservices of the petitioners on the ground that they have not completed 5 yearsof service as on 25-11-1993 as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22-4-1994as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially direct the respondents toregularize the services of the petitioners by giving relaxation to the condition ofcompletion of 5 Years of service as on 25-11-1993 and as per therecommendation of the 1st respondent vide Letter No.APHMHIDC/F.63/Vol.VI/94-95, dated 28-3-1995 in their respective posts withall consequential benefits etc., and to pass.
Counsel for the Petitioner: NONE APPEARED
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: SMT.A.P.LAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G.P. FOR MEDICAL & HEALTH
The Court made the following :ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
“to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in not regularizing theservices of the petitioners on the ground that they havenot completed 5 years of service as on 25-11-1993 asstipulated in G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22-4-1994 asillegal and arbitrary and consequentially direct therespondents to regularize the services of the petitionersby giving relaxation to the condition of completion of 5Years of service as on 25-11-1993 and as per therecommendation of the 1st respondent vide Letter No.APHMHIDC/F.63/Vol.VI/94-95, dated 28-3-1995 in theirrespective posts with all consequential benefits etc.,and to pass such other order or orders”
At the hearing, there has been no representation for thepetitioners both in the Forenoon and Afternoon Sessions. It is, therefore,reasonable to presume that the petitioners are not interested in pursuingtheir cause in the writ petition.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J