APHC010119422002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. A. SUDHAKAR, S/O. PITCHAIAH, HEAD MASTER, S.A.S.S.O.U.P. SCHOOL, SAINAGAR, CUDDAPAH, R/O. ARAVINDANAGAR, NEW MADHAVARAM, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT. 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CUDDAPAH. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CORRESPONDENT, S.A.S.S.O.U.P. SCHOOL, SAINAGAR, NEW MADHVARAM, CUDDAPAH. 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 an appropriate writ, direction or order, more especially a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in not approving the appointment of the petitioner as B.ED. Asst. and Headmanster as has been done in the case of A. S and Narayana Reddy as illegal and arbitrary and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20406/2002 A. SUDHAKAR, S/O. PITCHAIAH, HEAD MASTER, S.A.S.S.O.U.P. SCHOOL, SAINAGAR, CUDDAPAH, R/O. ARAVINDANAGAR, NEW MADHAVARAM, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CUDDAPAH. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE CORRESPONDENT, S.A.S.S.O.U.P. SCHOOL, SAINAGAR, NEW MADHVARAM, CUDDAPAH. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, more especially a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in not approving the appointment of the petitioner as B.ED. Asst. and Headmanster as has been done in the case of A. Srinivasulu and three others and Narayana Reddy as illegal and arbitrary and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI A. SUDHAKAR, S/O. PITCHAIAH, HEAD MASTER, S.A.S.S.O.U.P. SCHOOL, SAINAGAR, CUDDAPAH, R/O. ARAVINDANAGAR, NEW ...PETITIONER SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE CORRESPONDENT, S.A.S.S.O.U.P. SCHOOL, SAINAGAR, NEW SPONDENT(S): 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 issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, more especially a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in not approving the appointment of the petitioner as B.ED. Asst. and rinivasulu and three others IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 25580 OF 2002 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 issue an order pending disposal of the writ petition to approve the appointment of the petitioneras B.Ed. Asst. and Headmaster immediately. IA NO: 1 OF 2003(WVMP 1511 OF 2003 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 orders granted on 11-10-2002 in W.P.M.P.No. 25580/2002 in W.P.No. 20406/2002 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2003(WPMP 21076 OF 2003 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 fix an early date of hearin of the writ petition No. 20406 of 2002 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 2. M V NAGA RAJ The Court made the following: ORDER Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is not in touch with him since so many years and further this matter was listed after a long time and immediately thereafter, he sent a letter to the writ petitioner and so far he did not receive any acknowledgment. 2. The matter is of the year 2002. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petitioner is not in touch with him shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. 3. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution. If at all the petitioner feels that cause in this writ petition still survives, he can move an appropriate application. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR