Dismissed¶30

P.Venkatarathnam Rao v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Mar 2025WP/8302/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, WRIT PETITION NO: 8302/2018, P. Venkatarathnam Rao v. The State of AP and Others, decided 04.03.2025 by Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa. Challenge to Proceedings No.Rc.E1Vig/773/APEWIDC/2016 dated 5.3.2018 (transfer of employee; alleged stigma) invoking Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and Rule 21 of APCSCCA Rules 1991; dismissed as infructuous on counsel's submission; no costs; pending applications closed. Keywords: infructuous writ petition, transfer, APEWIDC, Mandamus, Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the relief had become infructuous, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no costs. ¶30

P.Venkatarathnam Rao Vs The State of A.P. — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

APHC010191742018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 8302/2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

P. Venkatarathnam Rao

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of AP and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.Y V SATYANARAYANA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.G SEENA KUMAR (SC FOR APEWIDC AND RVM SSA

¶19

2.GP FOR SERVICES I (AP)

¶20

3.G V S KISHORE KUMAR

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 8302/2018

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

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

¶26

the following prayer for:

¶27

“…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus holding that the impugned Proceedings No.Rc.E1Vig/773/APEWIDC/2016 dated 5.3.2018 is illegal, arbitrary and against Article 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being opposed to Rule 21 of APCSCCA Rules 1991 and the order itself is punitive in nature and casts stigma on the petitioner and pass …”

¶28

Heard Sri Y.V.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents is in attendance.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petition is regarding the transfer of an employee and now the relief has become infructuous and the petition may be disposed of.

¶30