Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Nov 2004
- Bench
- B PRAKASH RAO
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the form of writ of Mandamus, declaring that the impugned proceedings Proc. No: 500/C25-2/95-a dt.12.2.1996 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioners debarring them from any remunerative work connected to the board for a period of 3 (Three) years without serving show cause notice and without conducting enquiry are illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.D.V.REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: G.P. FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following :
ORDER:
It is represented that having regard to the fact that the impugned proceedings are effective only for a period of three years and the said period has already been expired, the writ prayer has become infructuous. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. Dated 30-11-2004. ……….…Registrar. To 1 The Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 Regional Inspection Officer, Guntur. 4 Joint Secretary (Examinations-I), Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad. 5 N.Winner, Junior Lecturer in Zoology, G.J.C.,Vinukonda.
2 CCs to G.P.for Education, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, (OUT).
2 CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30 Nov 2004. The bench was B PRAKASH RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.