The High Court clarified that once the grievance regarding denial of promotion due to pending criminal proceedings is resolved during the pendency of a writ petition, the matter becomes infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. The judgment upholds the practical approach of rendering the writ petition disposed of when the relief sought is granted to the petitioner, reaffirming existing precedent and serving as binding authority for future cases involving similar issues in public sector employment.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/33384/2016 of S. Srinivasa Sekhar Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited |
| CNR | APHC010697392016 |
| Date of Registration | 28-09-2016 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding upon subordinate courts and authorities within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Sector Employment |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court observed that once the petitioner is promoted pursuant to the interim order and the DPC meeting, the primary grievance stands redressed. As a result, the writ petition becomes infructuous and is disposed of, making the order of promotion part of the record. This approach reflects the practical application of writ jurisdiction, ensuring that once the grievance is resolved during litigation, judicial resources are not expended unnecessarily. There are no directions as to costs. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner’s promotion was withheld by the respondent corporation solely on the ground of pending criminal proceedings in FIR No. 115 of 2015. Pursuant to interim orders, the petitioner was considered and promoted to the post of Line Inspector. Confirmation of this was placed on record by both parties, leading to the conclusion of the writ petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Andhra Pradesh’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court confirmed that when a grievance (such as denial of promotion due to a pending criminal case) is resolved during the pendency of writ proceedings, the petition can be disposed of as infructuous.
- The order of promotion is explicitly made part of the record via judicial notice, clarifying the legal position and serving as proof of redressal.
- Lawyers can cite this case when arguing for dismissal of petitions on grounds of infructuousness after redressal of grievance during litigation.
- It reaffirms that no further relief or cost orders are warranted in such circumstances.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The matter was taken up and parties jointly represented that, due to interim orders, the petitioner has already been promoted after consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
- The respondent corporation placed on record the proceedings confirming the promotion, acknowledged by counsel for the petitioner.
- The Court found that the relief sought by the petitioner was already granted, making the writ petition infructuous.
- Therefore, the petition was disposed of, making the promotion proceedings part of the record, and all pending applications were closed without order as to costs.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The denial of promotion was solely based on the pendency of a criminal case.
- Sought direction for consideration for promotion without reference to the pending FIR.
Respondent:
- Pursuant to interim court orders, DPC was conducted, and the petitioner was promoted.
- Placed official documents regarding the promotion before the Court and acknowledged compliance.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a lineman employed by the Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, was denied consideration for promotion to the post of Line Inspector solely due to the existence of a pending criminal case (FIR No. 115 of 2015). During the pendency of the writ, pursuant to interim directions of the Court, the DPC was convened, and the petitioner was considered and promoted. The respondents produced documentation of this promotion before the Court, and both sides acknowledged that the grievance had been addressed.
Statutory Analysis
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus. The judgment reflects the use of interim orders within writ proceedings to effectuate relief and clarifies the scope of judicial discretion in disposing of petitions once the relief is granted during litigation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment adheres to established principles regarding the disposal of writ petitions rendered infructuous by redressal during proceedings.