Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2014 DAILYLAW 1605 (AP)

Dr. S. Ankamma, W/o. late S. Anki Reddy, v. Yogi Vemana University,

WP/32626/2014 · 2026-04-20

Harinath N

body2014

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010806142014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 32626/2014 Between: 1. DR. S. ANKAMMA, W/O. LATE S. ANKI REDDY,, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RIO. KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. M.V. HARINI, W/O. S.V. SUBRAMANYAM,, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RIO. KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. P. HARINATH REDDY, S/O. P. LAKSHMI REDDY,, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RIO. AKKAYUPALLI POST, KADAPA DISTRICT. THE WRIT PETITION IS WITHDRAWN IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER NO.3 IS CONCERNED AS PER C.O. DT 10.03.2026 VIDE IA NO.1/2022 IN WP NO.32626/2014 4. L. MALLESWARI, W/O. N. BAYAPU REDDY,, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RIO. KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. YOGI VEMANA UNIVERSITY, Rep. by its Registrar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT 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 Directions(s) more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent University in discontinuing the services of Petitioners from 2014-15 academic year without any basis and reason despite availability of work load, after 2 taking the services from the Petitioners for several years while continuing several others who are similarly placed and further hold the said action as illegal, arbitrary and an action taken for extraneous reasons and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent University to continue the Petitioners to the post of Academic consultants / teaching assistants in the respective departments till they are regularized and/or regular selections were taken up and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 40787 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 Petitioners in the post of Teaching Assistants/Academic consultants in the Respondent University with the same terms and conditions pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass such order or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WVMP 91 OF 2015 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 vacate the interim order Dated: 30.10.2014 in W.P.M.P.No: 40787 of 2014 in WP No: 32626 of 2014 and dismiss the writ petition with costs IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 permit the petitioner,,,No.3 to withdraw the Writ Petition and delete his name from the array of the petitioners in WP.No.32626 of 2014 as well as Interlocutory Applications and pass such other Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent: 1. TENEPALLI NIRANJAN (SC FOR Y V UNIVERWSITY)) 2. G V S KISHORE KUMAR The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are continued in service in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court on 30.10.2014. It is also submitted that no further recruitment has been undertaken by the respondents. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on 10.03.2026, I.A. No. 1 of 2022 was allowed by this Court permitting the 3rd petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. It is submitted that the 3rd petitioner intended to withdraw the contempt case and that, on account of miscommunication, the said I.A. was filed. 3. Be that as it may, this writ petition is closed in terms of the interim order granted earlier, and the interim order shall be applicable to all the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 21.04.2026 PNS