Petitioners sought consideration for contract appointments with TTD on par with similarly situated persons. At hearing both sides jointly submitted that the cause did not survive; the court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 11348 OF 2005
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,orderordirectionmore in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedingsactionofthe respondents in not considering the cases of the petitioner for appointment by extending the benefit on a par with the similarly situated persons as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14and16oftheConstitutionof India, consequently direct the respondents to considerthecases of the petitioners for appointment on contract basis on a par with the similarly situate persons who were appointed through the proceedings dated 27.1.2005 in Proceedings Roc.No. D6/16695/DEO/2003 of the 3 rd respondent and pass such otehr order sor orders asaredeemed fit and proper.
/ /
LA. NO: 2 OF 2005(WPMP. NO: 28418 OF 2005)
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order ofdismissalfordefault dt; 23-9-2005 and restore the Writ Petition to file and dispose of the same on merits
LA. NO: 1 OF 2005fWPMP. NO: 14535 OF 2005)
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondentstoconsiderthecases of the petitioners for appointment on contract basis on a par with the similarly situate persons who were appointed through the proceedings dated 21.1.2005 in proceedings Roc.No. D6/16695/DEO/2003ofthe3rd respondent pending disposal of the above WP.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MEHERCHAND NORI
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 &3: A. SUMANTH (SC FOR TTD)
The Court made the following: ORDER
v
//
APHC010622242005
■I’JI" \sim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3504]
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 11348/2005
Between:
Dr. T. Suresh & 2 Others and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.MEHERCHAND NORI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1 .A SUMANTH ( SC FOR TTD)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard Sri Battula Sanjaiah Gandhi, learned counselrepresentingthe learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-TTD Board.
- At the time of considering the matter, it is representedbythecounselfor both sides jointly that the cause in the lis does notsurvive.
2
Recording the above said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as 3.
infructuous.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending
applications shall stand closed.
/'
To,
Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// PsEcSr OFFICER
%
HIGH COURT
csb
DATED:29/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.11348 of 2005
X 20 MAR 2025 Current Section ^
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking appointment on contract basis on par with similarly situated persons remained live, given both sides reported the cause no longer survives.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. T. Suresh
Dr. N.Venkata Subba Reddy
Dr.G.Ramesh Babu
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, rep.by its Executive Officer
S.V.Ayurvedic College, rep.by its Principal
The Devasthanam Educational Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
