Justice Harinath.N dismissed a writ petition challenging appointments in a special education department as infructuous. The court held that the matter did not survive further without ordering costs.
No petition for relief granted.
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 :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
%
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N ..
WRIT PETITION NO: 26522 OF 2011
Between:
Dr. CH. Sudarsan Raju, S/o Satyavedam, Unemploee R/oDoorNo.9- 13-11/1, New Resapuvanipalem, P & T Colony (Post) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
•r!«' V-S
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or direction more particularlyoneinthenatureof Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in selecting and appointing the 6*'' and 7*'' respondents as Teaching Associates in B.Ed., M (Special Education) (Mental Retardation), in pursuance of the press note dated 19.06.2009, and converted the 8'*^ respondent as Psychologist subsequent to selection even though they do not possess the requisite qualifications as per the norms issued by the 3'"' respondent council is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to set aside the appointments of respondents No.6, 7 and 8 and further directed the respondents to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Teaching Associates in B.Ed., (Special Education) (Mental Retardation), as the petitioner fulfill all the qualification as per the 3'”'^ respondent council Act, 1992 with all consequential benefits.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 201irWPMP. NO: 32729 OF 20111
Petition under Section 151 CPC 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 consider the case of the Petitioner to the post of Teaching Associates in B.Ed., (Special Education) (Mental Retardation).
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L V S NAGARAJU
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN,
(SC FOR UNIV)
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E V VENUGOPAL
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K JYOTHI PRASAD (SC FOR ANDHRA UNIV.)
The Court made the following order:
APHC010005282011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 26522/2011
Between:
Dr. Ch. Sudarsan Raju,
...PETITIONER
AND
Dr B R Ambedkar University and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.LVS NAGARAJU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
2.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 3.BATHULA RAJ KIRAN(SC FOR UNIV)
4.E VVENUGOPAL
The Court made the following:
2
Order:-
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit thatthecauseinthe Writ Petition does not survive any further. Hence,thematterhasbecome infructuous.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.Thereshall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shallstandclosed. SdZ-SHAIK MOHD RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
RAM
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.26522of2011
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives any further given the current circumstances.
Dr. Ch. Sudarsan Raju
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University
The Government of Andhra Pradesh
The Member Secretary, Rehabilitation Council of India
The Secretary, University Grants Commission
Dr. J.L.Sndhya Rani
Harinath.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
