T. Bhaskar Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

T. Bhaskar Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2026 for the post of Senior Assistant in the office of the 4th respondent, despite his having completed the Account Test for Sub Ordinate Officers Part-I for notification No.4/2025 dated 05.03.2025, was arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of the CCA Rules, 1991 and GOMs.No.154 dated 05.07.2025.

Court's answer

In view of the information placed at the hearing that the District Collector, Prakasam district had on 03.07.2026 passed orders rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2026, the Court held that the cause in the writ petition did not survive for adjudication and had become infructuous, and that no orders were required to be passed.

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition was dismissed, as infructuous.

Key takeaways

No order as to costs was made.ratio¶33
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.18164 of 2026, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Nyapathy Vijay, J., pronounced 07.07.2026): dismissed as infructuous. The petitioner, T. Bhaskar Rao, a Village Revenue Officer, had sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 28.01.2026 for the post of Senior Assistant in the office of the Tahsildar, Parchuru Mandal, contending that he had completed the Account Test for Sub Ordinate Officers Part-I for notification No.4/2025 dated 05.03.2025 and that the non-consideration was violative of the CCA Rules, 1991 and of GOMs.No.154 dated 05.07.2025 issued by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. An interlocutory application (IA No.1 of 2026) under Section 151 CPC sought interim consideration of the representation. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader jointly submitted that on 03.07.2026 the District Collector, Prakasam district had passed orders rejecting the representation dated 28.01.2026, so the cause did not survive for adjudication. Holding the petition infructuous and that no orders were required, the Court dismissed the writ petition, made no order as to costs, and closed pending applications. The merits of the grievance were not adjudicated.

Date of reserved for orders : --Date of pronouncement : 07.07.2026 Date of uploading :

APHC010339272026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 18164/2026

Between:

T. BHASKAR RAO, S/O. LATE DAVEEDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICERS, R/O. POLURU VILLAGE, YADDANAPUDI MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523171.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AT ONGOLE - 523001.

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE DIVISION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001.

THE TAHSILDAR, PARCHURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523169.

2

...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 topleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner representation dated 28.01.2026 for the post of Senior Assistant in the office of 4th respondent as he was completed the Account Test for Sub Ordinate Officers Part-I for the notification No.4/2025 dated 05.03.2025 is arbitrary, illegal, capricious, high handed, violative of CCA Rules, 1991 and against the GOMs.No.154 dated 05.07.2025 issued by the 1st respondent and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 28.01.2026 for the post of Senior Assistant, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.M K RAJ KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION No.18164 of 2026

ORDER:

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that on 03.07.2026, the District Collector, Prakasam district had passed orders rejecting the representation, dated 28.01.2026 given by the Petitioner and the cause in the present Writ Petition does not survive

for adjudication and it has become infructuous. In that view, no orders are required to be passed.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed, as infructuous.

No order as to costs.

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

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

Date: 07.07.2026 chs Whether the order is:

Speaking	`✔` Reasoned
Reportable	Non-reportable	`✔`

4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

42

WRIT PETITION No.18164 of 2026

Date: 07.07.2026

chs