B Prasanna Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

B Prasanna Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition No. 21720/2025 dismissed as withdrawn at the petitioner's request (letter dated 10.11.2025 routed through counsel); no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed as a sequel.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 3rd respondent in seeking to repost the 6th respondent in the petitioner's place, by reverting her from the post of Printing Technician at R and B Division, Dharmavaram, is illegal and arbitrary. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Recording the petitioner's request (communicated by learned counsel's letter dated 10.11.2025 enclosing the petitioner's letter seeking permission to withdraw), the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, were directed to stand closed (this covers IA No. 1 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC).ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 21720/2025 (decided 13-11-2025), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Nyapathy Vijay, J: B Prasanna Kumari, working as Printing Technician, R and B Division, Dharmavaram, challenged as illegal and arbitrary the action of the 3rd respondent (Superintending Engineer, R and B, Ananthapuramu) in seeking to repost the 6th respondent (Mekala Mohan Krishna) in her place by reverting her from the post of Printing Technician, invoking Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution; interim protection was sought via IA No. 1 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC. Before any adjudication on merits, learned counsel Shaik Jahangeer Basha, by letter dated 10.11.2025 to the Registrar (Judicial), enclosed the petitioner's letter dated 10.11.2025 seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. Recording that submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, with no order as to costs, and as a sequel directed that pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. The merits of the reversion/reposting grievance were left unadjudicated; no precedent was cited or considered; no dissenting or concurring opinion.

APHC010420292025

[3460]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21720/2025

Between:

B PRASANNA KUMARI,, W/O LATE K SIVA SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC PRINTING TECHNICIAN R AND B DIVISION, DHARMAVARAM , R/O. 25-585-5, PARTHASARADHI NAGAR, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VEIAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF R AND B, ADMINISTRATION, MG ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER R AND B, CIRCLE OFFICE, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B DIVISION, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B DIVISION, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT

MEKALA MOHAN KRISHNA, , S/O. MALIIKARJUN AGED NOT KNOWN, R/O. BEHIND MAHINDRA KALYANA MANDAPAM, TIIAKNAGAR GUNTAKAL ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in trying to repost the 6th respondent in petitioners place by reverting her from the present post of Printing Technician at R and B Division, Dharmavaram, as highly illegal, arbitrary, improper and violation of principles of natural justice apart from violate of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent not to revert the petitioner by reposting the 6th respondent and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 3'^^ respondent not to revert the petitioner by reposting the 6^^ respondent in the post of Printing Technician at R & B Division, Dharmavaram, pending disposal of main writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SHAIK JAHANGEER BASHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in trying to repost the 6^th respondent in place of the petitioner by reverting her from the present post of printing technician at R&B Division, Dharmavaram, as illegal, arbitrary.

In view of the letter dated 10.11.2025 addressed by Sri Shaik Jahangeer Basha, learned counsel for the Petitioner to the Registrar (Judicial) enclosing a copy of the letter dated 10.11.2025 addressed by the Petitioner seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition.

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, pending if any shall stand closed.

____________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

Date: 13^th November, 2025 RKS