Allowed¶5

Chirla Srinivasa Reddy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Mar 2026WP/2376/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.2376 of 2026; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; interlocutory application 'for being mentioned'; modification and substitution of order dated 12.03.2026; Junior Lecturers; 10% quota; next higher posts; non-teaching category; eligibility; direction to 3rd respondent; consideration of panel for appointment; two months; no order as to costs; DR, J.

What did the court decide?

Modification granted: para 6 of the order dated 12.03.2026 in W.P. No.2376 of 2026 substituted to extend the direction to the next higher posts in the non-teaching category, as per eligibility, along with the post of Junior Lecturer under the 10% quota, to be considered in accordance with law within two months; Registry to incorporate the changes before issuing a fresh copy of the orders; no order as to costs. ¶5

Chirla Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of Ap — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether para 6 of the order dated 12.03.2026 in W.P. No.2376 of 2026 should be modified by incorporating the words 'and the next higher posts in the non-teaching category, as per their eligibility' after the words 'to the posts of Junior Lecturers under 10% quota'.

¶4

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the reasons stated therein, the Court deemed it appropriate to substitute the order passed in the writ petition in the modified terms set out in the proceeding sheet.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Para 6 of the order dated 12.03.2026 stands substituted so that the respondents, particularly the 3rd respondent, are to consider the petitioners for inclusion in the panel for appointment and the next higher posts in the non-teaching category, as per their eligibility, in accordance with law, within two months from receipt of the copy of the order; there shall be no order as to costs.

¶5

Key takeaways

The interlocutory application is ordered (allowed) and the Registry is directed to incorporate the necessary changes before issuing a fresh copy of the orders.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (DR, J), by proceeding sheet entry dated 22.04.2026 in W.P.No.2376 of 2026, allowed an interlocutory application filed 'for being mentioned' seeking modification of the Court's order dated 12.03.2026. Para 6 of that order — which had directed the respondents, particularly the 3rd respondent, to consider the petitioners for inclusion in the panel for appointment to the post of Junior Lecturer under the 10% quota within two months — was substituted to extend the direction also to 'the next higher posts in the non-teaching category, as per their eligibility', to be considered in accordance with law within two months. The Registry was directed to incorporate the necessary changes before issuing a fresh copy of the orders. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.2376 of 2026

¶3

PROCEEDING SHEET

¶4

SL. No.	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE NOTE
06.	22.04.2026	DR, J I.A.No.2 of 2026
		Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Interlocutory Application is filed under the caption „for being mentioned‟ seeking modification of the order by incorporating the words in para 6 of the order after the words “to the posts of Junior Lecturers under 10% quota” by adding “and the next higher posts in the non-teaching category, as per their eligibility”, in the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2376 of 2026, dated 12.03.2026, which reads as follows: “6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents, particularly the 3^rd respondent, to consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion in the panel for appointment to the post of Junior Lecturer under the 10% quota, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶5

SL. No.	DATE	ORDER .	OFFICE NOTE
		Taking into consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and for the reasons stated therein, this Court deems it appropriate to substitute the order passed in the writ petition in the following terms: “6. considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents, particularly the 3^rd respondent, to consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion in the panel for appointment and the next higher posts in the non-teaching category, as per their eligibility, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”
		Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2026 is ordered. Registry is directed to incorporate the necessary changes before issuing a fresh copy of the orders.
		______ DR, J RMD

Chirla Srinivasa Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chirla Srinivasa Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manganti Saraswathi Vs the Depot Manager Apsrtc

G Lalitha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Aqhil, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.MadhaviLatha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M v v Jaganmohan Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. K.Surendra Kumar Vs Mr.Y.Vijaya Bhaskar