SRI K. S v. SUBBA RAO

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitr.rtion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a)declaring the action of Respondents 3, 4 & 5 in amending Rule 3 ll by inserting the ratio of 2:1 tor promotion to the post of DEE between AEEs / AEs in the service rules of APSC Finance Corporation and DSCSCS Ltd., as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 & 1 6 of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to Go Ms t'1o.200, dated 12.9.8s, b)direct the Responderrts to foilow the unamended Rule 3 ll of Draft Service Rules of Engineering wing or,Apsc Finance corporation and DSCSCS Ltd., as approved by the 2nd Respondent c)Direct the Respondents to fill up the posts of DEE by strictry foflowing the ratio of 1:1 between AEEs / t\Es, d)direct the Respondents 3,4 & S no1 to proceed in pursuance of the proceedings Lr. No.A2l675/Apsc/2000, dated .1 1..10.2000 of the 3'd Respondent. t.A. NO: 1 0F 2000(WPMP. NO: 24805 0F 2000 ) Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumst;ances stated in the affidavit filed in sr.rpport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to refrain from filling up the post of DEEs by follorirring the ratio of 2:1, between AEEs./AEs working under the contror of the 3'd Resp.ndent pending disposal of the above Writ petition. l.A. NO: 2 O F 2000( WPMP. NO : 24806 OF 2000) Petition under Section '1 51 cpc praying that in the circumsternces stated in the affidavit filed in sr-rpport of the petition, the High court may be prr:ased to direct the Respondents 3i,4 & 5 not to proceed in pursuance to thr: proceedings Lr.No.A2I675/APSC/2000, dated 11.10.2000, pending disposar of the above writ Petition. l.A. NO:3 oF 2000(wP MP. NO:26340 oF 2000) Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pr.ased to direct the 3rd Respondent corporation to recafl the orders of promotions issued in favour of the Assistant Executive Engineers promoting them as Deputy Executive Engineers on 19-10-i2000 pending disposal of the W.p. l.A. NO: 1 0F 2001 WPMP. NO: 8040 oF 2001) Between: 1 B. Ratnakar Flao. S/o. S,,ryg tro, Ag^ed about 37 years, Crcc: Assistant Society Ltd., Engineer, District Scheduled Ca;te "S-"rt-Jt"-_;perative Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. -- -- "-- vv vr'

2. Y-V.V.V.Prasad, S/o. Chakradhara Rao, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Assistant Engineer, District S.C. Service Co-operative Society Limited, Eluru, West Godavari District' ...pETrroNERS AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner for Co-operation & The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad.

3. A.P.'scheduled Caste Finance Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, T.S. Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

4. The District Collector & Chairman, District Scheduled Caste Co-operative Society Ltd., Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

5. The District Collector & Chairman, District SC Service Co-operative Society Ltd'' Eluru' west Godavari District- ...RE''.NDENTS 6. K. Vijay Kumar, Deputy Executive Engineer, District S.C. Co-op Society Limited, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

7. R. Krishna Reddy, Deputy Executive Engineer, District S.C. Co-op Society Limited, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

8. P.V.V. Satyanarayana, Deputy Executive Engineer, District S.C. Co-op Society Limited, West Godavari District.

9. E. Ram Babu, Deputy Executive Engineer, District S.C. Co-op Society Limited, West Godavari District. (Respondents 6 to 9 S/o. and age not known to the Petitioners) ...PROPOSED RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 16(4) writ Rules praying that In the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to implead the proposed Respondents as Respondents Nos. 6 to I in W.P.No. 19568 of 2000. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K. S. V. SUBBA RAO (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents No.l & 2: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M. GANGA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE DRJUSTICE G.RADHA RAI\II wRIT PETITION No.1956E of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Pel.ition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi4 is filed seeking the following reliet "...-to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly ote in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (a) declaring the action ol Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in amending Rule j II by inserting the ratio of 21 for promotion to tle post of DEE between AEEs / AEs in the service rules of APSC Fitunce Corporation and DSCSCS Ltd as arbitrary illegal and violative of Articles t4 ond 16 ofthe Conslittttion of India and contrary to Ct.O.Ms. No.200 dated 12.9.85, (b) direct the Reslnnde.nls to fotlow tlu unomended Rule j II of Drafi Service Rules of Engircering Wing of APSC Finance Llorporation and DSCSCS Ltd as approved by the 2nd Respondent, (c) Direct the Respondents to fill up the posts of DEE by strictly following the ratio of 11 berween AEEs / AEs d direct the Respondent Nc's. 3, 4 and 5 not to pro,:eed in pursuance of the proceedings Lr.No.A2/675/APSC/2000 dated I1.10.200(t tf the 3rd Respondent and pass such other or further order or orfurs as are deemedft and proper in the Circumstarces of the case....

2. When the matter came up for hearing ol 15.10.2024 and 03.01.2025, there was no representation by the leamed counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be posted to 10.01.2025 under the caption for dismissal. Even today also, when the matter is taken up fbr hearing, there is no representation by the leamed counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. . l

3. As the petitioner is not evincing any interest in proceeding wittr tlre matter, it is considered fit to dismiss the petition.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI K. S. V. SUBBA RAO, Advocate [OPUCI 2. Two CCs to GP for Cooperation, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to SRI M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRI ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI M. GANGA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies MP GJP a"q I I I I j HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ,^,Y :) L) ,-1.. y E S-TA 1€ B 4 i$li 20?5 C \-'"-\-a_- * ORDER WP.No.19568 of 2000 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS I,slolr'S