The petitioner, a lecturer, challenged the termination of her service and non-extension of superannuation age. The cause of action was held to have survived no further, leading to dismissal as infructuous.
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 :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 18250 OF 2011
Between:
V. Lakshmi, W/o. Late Dr. G. Sarangapani, aged about 58 years, Occ: Lecturer R/o. D.No. 58-15-7, Raghavachari Street, Santhapet, Ongole, Prakasam District.
...PETITIONER
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 any appropriate Writ, order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not acting upon the directions of UGC in extending the age of superannuation to 65 years and the action in service the notice dated 03-05-2011 fixing the date of retirement as 30-06-2011 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and also against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 65 years as directed by UGC.
%
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011fWPMP. NO: 21974 OF 2011)
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service, pending disposal of the writ petition.
^'Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI Y V RAVI PRASAD
^The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010036032011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 18250/2011
Between;
V. Lakshmi, Prakasam District.
...PETITIONER
AND
The Govt Of A P Hr Education Dept Hyderabad 2 Otrs and Others
...RESPONDENT{S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
2.Y V RAVI PRASAD
The Court made the following:
Sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive any further.
- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.Noorderasto costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,shallstandclosed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
To.
TF
i
HIGH COURT
DATED:07/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.18250 of 2011
X 03 MAY 2025 Current Secuon ^
DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS, WITHOUT COSTS
V. Lakshmi
The Government of A.P.
The Commissioner of Collegiate Education
The Secretary & Correspondent, C.S.R. Sarma Collge
Harinath.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
