Writ petition challenging the appointment of a principal as illegal was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner's counsel admitted the cause of action no longer survives.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
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 AMARAVAT (Special Original Jurisdiction) J
J
FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 31312 OF 2016
Between;
Dr.A.J.Pratapa Reddy, S/o. Lakshminarayana Reddy, aged 55 years, Occ: Lecturer in Chemistry Department, Kakani Venkataratnam College, Nandigama, Krishna 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 writ order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondents in permitting the 6th respondent to work as Principal (FAC) of the 5th respondent College contrary to the qualifications prescribed in the revised appendix-ill issued in G.O.Ms. No.38 dated 23.6.2016 issued by 1®* respondent as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Principal of the 5th respondent College in the place of the 6th respondent in view of his qualifications as prescribed in the revised appendix-illissued in G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 23.6.2016 issued by 1st respondent in the interest of justice.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO; 38737 OF 2016)
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying thatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Principal of the 5th
A
respondent College in the place of the 6th respondent+ in view of his qualifications as prescribed in the revised appendix-ill issued in G.O.Ms.No. 38 ^^dated 23.6.2016 issued by 1®* respondent pending disposal of the writ petition in i the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI. S SUDARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent No. 6: SRI. P PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.31312 of 2016
ORDER;
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous. Learned counsel made an endorsement on the bundle, to that effect.
In view of the said submission, the Writ Petition is
dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingin
the writ petition shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI&OFFICER
To,
MBT
HIGH COURT
•f
DATED: 12/01/2024
ORDER
WP.No.31312 of 2016
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
Dr.A.J.Pratapa Reddy
The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh
The Regional Joint Director, Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry
The Nandigama Educational Society
Kakani Venkataratnam College
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
