K.Narayana Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

K.Narayana Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Administrative Tribunal in OA No.486/2015 dated 17.12.2015, insofar as it rejected the interim relief sought in that OA, was erroneous, contrary to law, and liable to be set aside (raised in the petition but NOT adjudicated — writ petition dismissed as infructuous). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

On learned counsel for the petitioner informing the Court that the Writ Petition had become infructuous, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD — Writ Petition No.37792 of 2016 — K. Narayana Reddy (Addl. Superintendent of Police) v. State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Telangana, DGPs (AP & Telangana), State of AP (GAD), AP Administrative Tribunal and K. Vijayender Reddy — Decided 10-02-2025 — Coram: Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Tirumala Devi Eada, JJ. The petitioner had sought a writ of mandamus declaring the Tribunal's order in OA No.486/2015 dated 17.12.2015 erroneous and setting it aside insofar as it rejected interim relief, with consequential directions to revise inter se seniority between direct recruitees and promotees in the cadre of Dy. Superintendent of Police as issued in G.O.Ms.No.108, Home Department, dt.23.06.2014, in pursuance of Memo No.5833/Ser.1/A1/2015 dt.19.05.2015, to review promotions/seniority in the cadres of Additional SP and SP (Non-cadre), and to restrain further promotions pending disposal of the OA. On the petitioner's counsel informing the Court that the writ petition had become infructuous, the Court DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS, and directed that miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No issue on merits was adjudicated; no precedent was cited; the judgment carries no ratio on the seniority/promotion questions raised.

[³⁴⁴⁵ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

I\4ONDAY, THE TENTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{TIRUMALADEVI EADA}

WRIT PETITIO NNo^{: 37792 OF 2016}

Between:

K. Narayana Reddy, S/o K. Narayana.^{Reddy, 38 Years,Additional} Superint6ndent of Po[i6e, S.l.B., Hyderabad^{AndhraPradesh' R/o Hyderabad.}

...PETITIONER

AND

1 State of Andhra Pradesh, represented^{by its Principal Secretary,Home} Department, Secretariat B uit'd ings, Hyderabad

2 State of Telangana, represented by its^{Principal Secretary, Home} Department, S'ecreiariit Build ings,' Hyderabad

The Director General of Police, State^{of Andhra Pradesh, DGPs Complex,} Lakadikapool, Hyderabad

The Director General of Police, State^{of Telangana, DGPs Complex,} Lakadikapool, Hyderabad

State of Andhra Pradesh. reoresented^{by lls Principal Secretary,General} Administration Department, Secretariat^{Buildings,Hyderabad}

AP Admi4istrative Tribunal, Rep. by its^{Registrar, Puranahaveli, Hyderabad}

K.Vijayender Reddy, S/o Hanumantha^{Reddy, 55-Years,Additional} Sup'erintendent of Police, Detective^{Department, Besides LB Stadium,} Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the in the^{nature of Writof Mandamus} under Article 2261227 of the Constitution^{of lndiadeclaringthe orders of the} Honorable Tribunal in OA No.486 112015 Dated^{17.12.2O15 as erroneous, and} contrary to law and set aside the same in^{so far as it relatesto reiecting the} interim relief as sought in OA No. 486112015^{and issue consequential directions} directing the Respondents to forthwith revise^{the inter se seniority among direct}

I

recruitees and promotees in the cadre of Dy. superintenderrt of police issued in G.O.Ms.No. 108, Home Department, dl. 23.06.2Oi4 as per rules in pursuance of Memo No. is 5833/Ser.1/ A11201s, dt. 19.05.201s issued by the 1st Respondent and review all the promotions and seniority made in the cadre of Additional Superintendent of Police and superintendent of police (Non cadre) and consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Suprlrintendent of police (Non cadre) and issue further directions restraining the Respondents from effecting any promotions to the post of superintendent of polrce (Non cadre) without revising seniority in the cadre of Dy. superintendent of police issued in G.O.Ms.No.^'1 08, Home Department, as per rules and in pursuance of Memo No. 5833/ser.1 1A112015, dt. 19.05 20'1 s issued by the '1st Respondent and without reviewing the promotions made in the cadre of Additional superintendent of Police pending disposal of the OA.

l.A. NO: 1 0F 2016^(w PMP. NO: 46569 OF 2016 )

Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High courr. may be pleased be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the case'of the petition", for promotion to the post of superintendent of police (Non rJadre) in takinq into account the actual date of promotion as Additional Superintendent of Folice instead of taking the date of revised promotions in pursuance: of G.o.Ms.No. .108, Home Department, dt. 23.06.2014 pending disposal of the Writ petition

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 46570 0F 20161

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 forthwith revise the inter se seniority among direct recruitees and promotees in the cadre of Dy. superintender t of police islued in G.o.Ms.No. 108, Home Department, dt.23.06.2o14 as per rures in pursuance of Memo No. 5833/se11/A1l2015, dt. 19.05/015 issued by the 1st Respondent and review all the promotions and seniority made. jn --the cadre of Additional superintendent of Police and superintendent oi police (Non cadre) before effecting any prdmoiions to the post of Superintendent of police lNon caore; pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI p.V. KRISHNAIAH

Counselrlor the Respondent No.1 to 6: Gp FOR SERVTCES I / ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: - - - -

The Court made the following: ORDER

Il

-,.

THE HON'BLD SRI 'USTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

AND

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Writ PetitionNo.37792 OF 2016

ORDER: fer rhe I lon'bLe Sri Justtce Abhtiaid KLtnar Stouiti)

l,earned counsel for the petitioner has informed the

Court that the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

In view of the same, V/rit Petition is dismissed as

infructr.rous. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

SD/-S.^{MALLIKARJUNA RAO} SI TAN^TREGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

I One CC^{to SRIP.V.KRISHNAIAH'Advocate[OP} State^{of Telangana} 2 iwo CCs^{to GPFORSERVICESI'High Court for} ,. l1:tt".^{to ADVOCATE GENERAL,Highcourt for the State of relangana} tourl

+. iwo CD^CoPies BN GJP

c$v

't

HIGH COURT

DATE D^: 1 010212025

ORDER

1 6r SfAr6
( :,s
,? 'r \l
I
:)
lr
30 tlN 2025 ( I
i)
I
J
?,,
! r,, .5;,r,1Q i r-(t

WP.No.37792^{of 2016}

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

@w