The High Court dismissed the writ petition for default as the petitioners failed to appear on multiple dates, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter.
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 :: AMARAVAT (Special Original Jurisdiction)
V
'f'
THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ''
fo.
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 33442 OF 2015
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2 nd Respondent in rejecting the case of the Petitioners vide proceedings dated 26-02-2015 and subsequent proceedings dated 19-06-2015 & 14-08-2015 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent to consider the case of the Petitioners for appointment to any suitable posts in the 2"'^ Respondent Devasthanam
T
W
A
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 43128 OF 2015)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the 2"^^ Respondent to referthePetitionerscaseto the 3rd Respondent board for considering of their appointment in any suitable posts in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.787, dated 5-6-1982, pending disposal of Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI G. RAVI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI A. SUMANTH,SCFORTTD
The Court made the following: ORDER
\
APHC010081602015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3333]
THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 33442/2015
Between:
P. Geetha Rani, and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others
Counsel for the Petitloner(S):
1.GRAVI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
4.0 SRINIVASA BABA
The Court made the following:
m
ORDER:
At the time when the matter was taken on 28.08.2024, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and the matter was posted to 04.09.2024. Even on 04.09.2024, when the matter was called, there was no representation and the matter was posted to 12.09.2024, under the caption “For Dismissal”.
Though the matter was listed today under the caption “For Dismissal”, none appeared for the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners are not evincing any interest in the present case.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for default. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY// Sd/-U.SRI DEVI assistant registrar
To,
OFFICER
Cnr
HIGH COURT
DATED:12/09/2024
ORDER
WP.No.33442 of 2015
rfj
S 2 8 FEB 2025 S
l-i
Current Section . ^
^S&S?ATCH«gr^
DISMISSING THE W.P. FOR DEFAULT WITHOUT COSTS
P. Geetha Rani and Others
The State Of Andhra Pradesh
V. SUJATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
