✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court

T.Nagesh v. Corporation Limited, Hyderabad & Anr.

Writ Petition No. 19487 of 2000M VENKATESWARA REDDY

Case at a glance

Bench
M VENKATESWARA REDDY

Outcome

Dismissed

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as unnecessary

Provisions considered

Judgment

Operative part

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATESWARA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19487 OF 2000 ORDER: None appeared. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: the action of

…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring respondents in declining to consider the case of petitioner for promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer from Asst. Executive Engineer on the ground of the nonpassing of the account Test as totally arbitrary illegal and violative of Art.14 & 21 of Constitution of India and also contrary to G.O.Ms.No.200, dt.12-9-1985 of social welfare Department and also rules 16 and 17 of A.P.State Subordinate Service Rules and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer without insisting the passing of account Test for the present….

On 17.10.2000, the following order was made in WPMP No.24705 of 2000. to consider the case of “There shall be a direction to the respondents petitioner for promotion of Deputy Executive Engineer on condition that the petitioner passes the Account Test within the period prescribed by the respondents” The relief sought for in the writ petition was granted in the WPMP itself. No further orders are necessary in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as unnecessary in view of the directions already granted. _______________________________ M.VENKATESWARA REDDY,J. Date: 05.07.2006. GS

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as unnecessary

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 19487 of 2000). ← Search more judgments