Dismissed¶32

V.v.Srinivasarao, v. The Registrar Administration

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Feb 2026WP/38667/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for default / non-prosecution of writ petition; writ of mandamus; redesignation of retired Judicial Department Senior Assistant as Superintendent (Category III); G.O.Ms.No:100 dated 08.08.2013; Registrar Administration, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad; District Judge, Visakhapatnam; Articles 14, 21 and 226, Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed; APHC010811042015; coram R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.; decided 23.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to grant a further accommodation to the petitioner's counsel, who again sought time after the matter, posted under the caption 'For Dismissal', had already passed over in the morning on account of his absence. ¶31

V.v.Srinivasarao, Vs The Registrar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3529]

¶2

APHC010811042015

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 38667/2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

V.V.SRINIVASARAO,, S/O SUBRAHMANYA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETRD. SENIOR ASSISTANT, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, RESIDENT OF D.NO:2258/4, 9TH STREET, RAMNAGAR, YELAMANCHILI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD, FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent in redesignating the petitioner from the post of Senior Assistant (Category III) to that of Superintendent (Category III) as illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable and in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of G.O.Ms.No:100, dated 8.8.2013 and the orders of the 1st respondent, dated 23.4.2014 and 29.11.2014 and in violation of the Article 14 and 21 of the

¶17

¶18

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.38667 of 2015

¶19

Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the 211c1 respondent to implement the G.O.Ms.No:100, dated 8.8.2013 and the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 23.4.2014 and 29.11.2014 in its true letter and spirit and redesignate him to the post of Superintendent (Category No:3) and pay the difference of pay and allowance from the date of his retirement by fixing his pension in the redesignated post and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 49773 OF 2015

¶21

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 2nd respondent to consider aFey case and to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23