Disposed¶35

M. Ananda Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2025WP/5164/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court, Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 5164/2019; M. Ananda Rao v. State of A.P.; decided 06.03.2025 by Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; superannuation age dispute 58 vs 60 years; amended Section 78-A, A.P. Education Act, 1982; Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of India; writ of mandamus; interim direction continuing service till 60; relief infructuous on retirement; disposed without costs; related interim order in W.P.M.P.28484/2017 in W.P.23114/2017 dated 13.07.2017.

What did the court decide?

No fresh relief; writ petition disposed of as infructuous (petitioner had already served till 60 years and retired); no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, closed. ¶35

M. Ananda Rao Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

APHC010116222019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 5164/2019

Between:

M. Ananda Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.D SUDHARSHAN

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.GHANTA SRIDHAR

¶20

2.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP)

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with

¶24

the following prayer:

¶25

“…..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in contemplating to retire the petitioner on attaining 58 years of age, though the age of superannuation ought to be 60 years as per amended Section 78-A of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, discriminative, unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in

¶26

¶27

service in 5^th respondent institution till the petitioner attains the age of 60 years as per Section 78-A of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and pass other order or orders……”

¶28

2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing

¶29

for the 1^st respondent, would submit that they have complied with the interim orders passed by this Court and the petitioner continued in service up to the age of 60 years and now retired from service after reaching superannuation. Now the relief has become infructuous. It is relevant to extract the interim order passed by this Court, which reads as under:

¶30

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Education, appearing for respondent No.1.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a decision of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.28484 of 2017 in W.P.No.23114 of 2017, dated 13.07.2017, would submit that, in similar circumstances, interim order was passed therein directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to continue the petitioner in service until he attains the age of 60 years as per the amended Section 78-A of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. In Writ Petition No.23117 of 2017 the educational institution is the same as that of the educational institution in present Writ Petition.

¶32

Having regard to it, there shall be interim direction, as prayed for.”

¶33