Dismissed¶30

Seeram Ravi kumar, v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Sept 2025WP/17316/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 17316 of 2025; decided 08.09.2025 by K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.; ITI 1st year exam Hall Tickets withheld due to changed mobile number given at Aadhar Card Seeding; writ of mandamus; Articles 14, 21 and 226; Union of India, DGT, Director of Employment and Training, Government ITI Rajamahendravaram, Jaswanth ITI; dismissed as infructuous; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None. The Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶30

Seeram Ravi kumar, Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010345742025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 17316 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Seeram Ravi kumar,, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 20 years, Occ- Student, R/o. D.No. 2-58 Krishnudi gidi Street, Dosakayapalli, Korukonda, East Godavari.

¶8

Purri Pandu,, S/o. Purri Jalachandrudu, Aged 18 years, OccStudent, R/o. DNo. 4-45/2, Main Road, Near Peda Ramalayam, Thantikonda, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavri District.

¶9

Mentumu Rishi Kumar,, S/o Late Ramesh Kumar, Aged 17 years, Occ- Student, Rep. by his mother cum Natural Guardian, Mentumu Vijaya Lakshmi W/o Late Ramesh Kumar, Aged 35 years, Occ- Coolie, R/o. D.No 4-65/1, Patha Peta, Arikirevula Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶10

Bhedampudi Prasanth Kumar,, S/o. Prasanth Kumar Aged- 19 years, R/o. D.No. 3-266, Sanjeeva Nagar, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶11

...Petitioners

¶12

AND

¶13

Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt. Ministry of Skill Development, and Entrepreneurship, 7th Floor, DGT, Kaushal Bhawan, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi - 110023

¶14

Controller of Examination/Director General of Training, 7th Floor, DGT, Kaushal Bhawan, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi - 110023.

¶15

Director of Employment and Training, Ramesh Hospital Road, Vijayawada.

¶16

SRK, J WP No.17316 of 2025

¶17

¶18

4. Principal and Dist Convener, Government l.T.I, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 5. Jaswanth l T I, Rep. by its Principal, Korukonda East Godavari District

¶19

...Respondents

¶20

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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents in not issuing Hall Tickets to the petitioners to appear for their 1st year Industrial Training Institute Exams on the ground that there is a change in mobile number which was given at the time of Adhar Card Seeding and thus Hall Ticket is not generated on this technicality, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue Hall Tickets to all the petitioners to appear for their 1st year Industrial Training Institute Exams.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: BARREE ANANDKUMAR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents:ALEKHYA TADASINA(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶24

SRK, J WP No.17316 of 2025

¶25

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not issuing Hall Tickets to the petitioners to appear for their 1^st year Industrial Training Institute Exams on the ground that there is change in mobile numbers, which were given at the time of Aadhar Card Seeding, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to issue Hall Tickets to the petitioners to appear for their 1^st year Industrial Training Institute Exams.

¶28

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Ms. Pallavi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Barre Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners, submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication and the matter has become infructuous.

¶29