Disposed¶47

V. Rajesh v. Prl. Secy., M.A. & U.D. Dept. & 5 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Feb 2026WP/17932/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Termination of Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator without orders/notice, oral instructions; MEPMA; Pithapuram Municipality, East Godavari; Article 226 mandamus; Articles 14, 16, 21; natural justice; interim order 20.06.2017; contempt case C.C. No. 1416/2017; reinstatement 15.07.2017; compliance conceded; writ petition disposed, no costs, pending applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of recording that the petitioner has already been reinstated into service and is continuing in employment; no order as to costs; all pending applications stand closed as sequel. ¶47

V. Rajesh Vs Prl. Secy., M.A. & U.D. Dept… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in terminating the petitioner's services without passing any orders was wholly illegal and violative of natural justice and Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, entitling the petitioner to be continued in service as Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator in Pithapuram Municipality.

¶39

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective counsels and recording the fact that the petitioner has already been reinstated into service and is continuing in employment, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Key takeaways

As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 17932/2017 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam), decided 13.02.2026. The petitioner, a Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator with MEPMA/Pithapuram Municipality, alleged termination from service without any order being passed, without prior notice and on oral instructions, claiming violation of natural justice and Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. An interim order in his favour was passed by the erstwhile High Court on 20.06.2017; alleging non-compliance he filed C.C. No. 1416 of 2017. At hearing, his counsel submitted that pursuant to the interim order he was reinstated as Data Entry Operator in Pithapuram Municipality on 15.07.2017 and was continuing in service in the DRDA Organisation; the Standing Counsel and Assistant Government Pleader did not dispute this and confirmed long-standing compliance. Recording the reinstatement and continued employment, the Court disposed of the writ petition, made no order as to costs, and closed all pending applications as a sequel. No precedent was discussed and no substantive finding was rendered on the legality of the termination.

¶1

¶2

APHC010108692017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3504]

¶6

FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 17932/2017

¶10

Between:

¶11

V. RAJESH, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, MISSION FOR ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN MUNICIPAL AREAS, 0/O. COMMISSIONER, PITHAPURAM MUNICIPALITY, PITHAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

PRL SECY M A U D DEPT 5 ORS, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

MISSION FOR ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN MUNICIPAL AREAS, (MEPMA), STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GUNTUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MISSION DIRECTOR.

¶16

PROJECT DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MISSION FOR ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN MUNICIPAL AREAS (MEPMA), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA.

¶17

DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN, MISSION FOR ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN MUNICIPAL AREAS (MEPMA) EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA.

¶18

COMMISSIONER, PITHAPURAM MUNICIPALITY, PITHAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶19

PROJECT DIRECTOR VIKASA OUTSOURCING COLLECTORATE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. ...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

¶21

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 toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner without passing any orders is wholly illegal, violative of principles of natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural Justice and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service as Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator in Pithapuram Municipality, East Godavari District, Kal:inada and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP 2597 OF 2017

¶23

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 vacate the interim orders dt: 20-06-2017 passed in WP No. 17932/2017 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 21897 OF 2017

¶25

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 respondents to continue the petitioner in service as Junior Assistantcum-Data Entry Operator in MEPMA Pithapuram in Pithapuram Municipality, East Godavari District

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

KARUPOLU NARASIMHA RAO

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

VENKATESWARLUNIMMAGADDA(SC FORMCI)

¶30

GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶31

Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities

¶32

GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO: 17932/2017

¶37

ORDER:-

¶38

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

¶39

“to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner without passing any orders is wholly illegal violative of principles of natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural Justice and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service as Junior Assistantcum-Data Entry Operator in Pithapuram Municipality, East Godavari District, Kalinada and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”

¶40

The case of the writ petitioner is that while he was working in respondent No.5-Municipality, he was terminated from service without issuing any prior notice and on oral instructions.

¶41

The erstwhile High Court passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner on 20.06.2017. Thereafter, alleging non-compliance of the said interim order, the petitioner instituted C.C. No.1416 of 2017 before this Court.

¶42

When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Karupolu Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the subsequent

¶43

¶44

developments pursuant to the interim order dated 20.06.2017 passed in W.P. No.17932 of 2017, the petitioner was reinstated as Data Entry Operator in Pithapuram Municipality on 15.07.2017. He further submits that the petitioner is presently continuing in service in the DRDA Organisation.

¶45

The said submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, who also confirmed that the interim order had been complied with long ago.

¶46

Thus, taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective counsels and recording the fact that the petitioner has already been reinstated into service and is continuing in employment, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶47