1 APHC010116222019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 5164/2019 Between: M. Ananda Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D SUDHARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR 2. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in contemplating to retire the petitioner on attaining 58 years of age, though the age of superannuation ought to be 60 years as per amended Section 78-A of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, discriminative, unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in 2 service in 5th respondent institution till the petitioner attains the age of 60 years as per Section 78-A of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and pass other order or orders……” 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing for the 1st respondent, would submit that they have complied with the interim orders passed by this Court and the petitioner continued in service up to the age of 60 years and now retired from service after reaching superannuation. Now the relief has become infructuous. It is relevant to extract the interim order passed by this Court, which reads as under: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Education, appearing for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a decision of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.28484 of 2017 in W.P.No.23114 of 2017, dated 13.07.2017, would submit that, in similar circumstances, interim order was passed therein directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to continue the petitioner in service until he attains the age of 60 years as per the amended Section 78-A of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. In Writ Petition No.23117 of 2017 the educational institution is the same as that of the educational institution in present Writ Petition. Having regard to it, there shall be interim direction, as prayed for.” 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the petition may be disposed of, since the purpose is fulfilled. 3 4. In the light of the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 06.03.2025 ARR 4 165 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 5164/2019 Dt.06.03.2025 ARR