Dismissed

Kondaveeti Satyanarayana, E.G.District v. Commissioner of Endowments and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Dec 2023WP/11606/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh closed the writ petition filed by Kondaveeti Satyanarayana seeking promotion to Pradhana Archaka post, holding that the case does not survive as the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was closed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions also stand closed.

Kondaveeti Satyanarayana, E.G.District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11606 OF 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kondaveeti Satyanarayana, S/o Krishna Murthy, aged 43 years, Upa Pradhana Archaka, Sree V.V.S.S.Devasthanam, Annavaram, East Godavari^District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of A. P.Hyderabad 2. The Executive Officer, Sri V.V.S.S.Devasthanam, Annavaram, East Godavari District

¶12

P.Bhaskara Sarma, Poojari, Sri V.V.S.S.Devasthanam, Annavaram, East Godavari District.

¶13

Sri. S.Varadaiah, S/o Sri. S. Veerayya, Hindu, aged 55years, Occ: Upa Pradhana Archaka, Sri V.V.S.S.Devasthanam, Annavaram,^EastGodavari District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the on Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Petition, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Pradana Archaka inspite of recommendatory report submitted by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/1943/2000, dated 17-5-2004 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.261, dated 20-5-2002.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP. NO: 14761 OF 2004)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Pradana Archaka as per report submitted by the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/1943/2000, dated 17-5-2004.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. G.V. SHIVAJI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI. T. BALAJI, SC^{FORENDOWMENTS}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: —

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI. K. B. RAMANNA^DORA

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

g I

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. 11606 of 2004

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and the

¶30

casue in the Writ Petition does not survive.

¶31

Considering the same, the Writ Petition is closed. No

¶32

order as to costs.

¶33

As a sequel, pending miscellaneoi^s petitions, if any,

¶34

shall stand closed.

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

Sd/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i 4-SEC*f^IONOFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

One CC to SRI. G.V. SHIVAJI, Advocate[OPUC] 2. TwoCCsto GP FOR ENDOWMENTS .High Court Of Andhra^Pradesh. [OUT] 3. One CC to SRI. K. B. RAMANNA DORA Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. T. BALAJI, Advocate SC FOR ENDOWMENTS [OPUC] 5. Three C.D.Copies nm gi

r-'

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/12/2023

ORDER

WP.No.11606 of 2004

O'-
O
Cj
f!=^
\ 0 6 MAY 2C2^ irti.

¶45

GLOSSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Kondaveeti Satyanarayana, E.G.District v. Commissioner of Endowments and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondaveeti Satyanarayana, E.G.District v. Commissioner of Endowments and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Ramachandraiah, Vs the Asst. General Manager

A.v.Balaji, Vs The Regional Manager

P. Ramachandraiah, Chittoor District. Vs Government of A.P. Hyderabad. and 4 Others

P. Ramachandra Reddy Vs Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam

M. Narasimha Rajulu, Kurnool Dist. Vs State Bank of India, Sec'Bad and 2 Others

B.Mangaraju and 9 Others Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transprot Corporation