V. NAGESWARA RAO, v. THE GOVT. OF A.P. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, & 3 OTHERS,
WP/22028/2003 · 2025-09-25
Ravi Cheemalapati
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 12931 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 12931 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010154062003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22028/2003 Between:
1. V. NAGESWARA RAO,, B.ED. , ASSISTANT, GIRIJANA VIKASA KENDRAM ORIENTAL AIDED SCHOOL, VEDURUNAGARAM, ADDATHIGALA MANDAL,
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE GOVT OF A P EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 3 OTHERS, REP.
BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDCUATION, HYDERABAD.
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. THE GIRIJANA VIKASA KENDRAM ORIENTAL AIDED SCHOOL, REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, VEDURUNAGARAM, ADDATHIGALA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...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 pleased toto issue a writ or order of orders more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" directing the 3rd respondent to fix the pay of the petitioner in the scale attached to the post of school Assistant in pursuance of the proposals submitted by the 4th respondent consequently pay arrears of
salary from the date of appointment as school asst., along with continuity of service and incidental benefits.
IA NO: 1 OF 2003(WPMP 27495 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 direct the respondents to pay the salary attached to the post of B.Ed., Assistant to the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V AJAYAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION
2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following:
ORDER
Despite listing the matter under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation for the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter.
In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR