APHC010533962014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17247/2014 Between: 1. PROF. V.REDDEPPA REDDY S/O. LATE CHANGAL REDDY, OCC: DIRECTOR/PROFESSOR DEPT. R.D, SK UNIVERSITY, R/O. 10-513- 15, ADIMURTY NAGAR, ANANTAPURAMU TOWN & DIST. 2. PROF. K.CHOWDOJI RAO S/O. BHARMOJIRAO, OCC: PROFESSOR, DEPT. OF POLYMER SCIENCE, S.K.UNIVERSITY, R/O.Q-B-17 STAFF QUARTERS, SV PURAM, AKUTHOTHAPALLI, ANANTAPURAMU TOWN & DIST. 3. PROF. K.V.RAMANA REDDY S/O.K.PULLA REDDY, OCC: PROFESSOR DEPT. OF COMMERCE, S.K. UNIVERSITY, R/O. REVENUE COLONY, SIDDINAGAR EXT, ANANTAPURAMU TOWN & DIST. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE UNIVERSITY GRAND COMMISSIONER, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 3. THE SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, SK UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the orders of the 3rd respondent in trying to retire the petitioner from the service on the ground that he will attain superannuation on completion of 60 years by an Order Dt. 14-03-2014 vide No. SKU/T-Estt-I/Superannuation/2014 in derogation of the UGC regulation and UGC notification as, illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and against the service rules and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 62 years in the 3rd respondent university as per UGC notification and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 21595 OF 2014 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 up to 30-06-2016, forthwith pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR SC For S K UNIVERSITY 2. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following: 3 Order:- Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive any further. Hence, the matter has become infructuous. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 09.04.2026 PNS