Telangana High Court
WP/15556/1999 of D.MURALI AND ANR Vs THE DIV ENGR. AP TRANSCO. KAMAREDDY ANDANR on 24 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.15556 of 1999 Between: D.Murali and another. … Petitioners And
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)
PRESENT:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OFDECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY
WRIT PETITION No.15556 of 1999
Between:
D.Murali and another.
…Petitioners
And
The Divisional Engineer (Electricals)O & M Division, A.P. TRANSCO,Kamareddy, Nizamabad district and another.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Mrs.V.Hima Bindu for SriP.Veera Reddy.
Counsel for the respondents: Sri K.NagbhushanaReddy for Sri P.R.Balaram Reddy, standing counsel for AP
TRANSCO.
This Court made the following:-ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus todeclare the action of the respondents in placing thepetitioners at serial Nos.25 and 18 respectively in theseniority list of junior linemen and at serial Nos.87 and80 in the category of assistant linemen below SriS.Balaraj Gowd and Sri T.Srinivas at serial Nos.9 and10 respectively in the junior linemen category and atserial Nos.71 and 72 respectively in the assistantlinemen category, as illegal and arbitrary.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitionerssubmitted that though the said two persons were juniorsto the petitioners, they are placed higher in the senioritylist above the petitioners. In view of the fact that thepetitioners failed to implead Sri S.Balaraj Gowd and SriT.Srinivas, whose interest will be directly affected if theprayer in this Writ Petition is allowed, the Writ Petitiondeserves to be dismissed without going into the meritsof the case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
------------------------------------
C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY,J
Date:24-12-2008MNR