1 APHC010208522018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 9079/2018 Between: 1. INUMALA SAVITRI,, S/O.SRI.SEETARAMAMURTY, AGED 30YEARS,FILED ASSITANT,S.RANGARYAPURAM VILLAGE, SANTAKAVITI MANDALA,SRIKAKAUALM DISTRICT. 2. LOLUGU.PADMAVATHI,, W/O .LAKSHUMUNNAIDU, AGED 30 YERAS,FILED ASSITANT,CHITTARIPURAM VILLAGE SANTAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKAUALM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,(PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURALDELVELOPMNT)SECRERATE, VELAGAPUDI,HYDERABAD 2. COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVEMMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CHARITASRI HOSPITAL, SURARAOPETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMDISTRICT, PROGRAMEE COORDINATOR OF MGNREGS, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKAULM DISTRICT. 4. PROJECT DIRCETORCUMADDITIONAL DISTRICT PROGRAM COORDINATOR OF MGNREGS, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 5. MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CUM-PROGRAM COORDINATOR OF MGNREGS, MANDAL PRAJAPARISHED,DISTRICT SANTAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM 2 DISTRICT 6. MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CUM-PROGRAM OFFICER OF MGNREGS, MANDAL PRAJAPARISHED SANTAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 7. PITTA LAKSHMU, S/O.SURAYYA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S.RANGARAYAPURAM VILLAGE,SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAULAM DISTRICT. 8. MOYYI APPAL NAIDU, S/O.RAMAMURTY,AGED 29 YEARS, R/O.CHITTARIPURAM VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM 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 to issue a writ or order/s or Direction/s more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus direct that the reappointment made by the 3rd respondent without follow the mandate directions given by this honorable court is bad , without giving opportunity without hearing the petitioner without constituting the three men committee as mentioned in the W.P.No.18797/ 2016, is bad, by restore the petitioners into their respective service by set aside the reinstatement orders passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings no.RC.265/2017/EGS/HR,dated.00-02-2018 by continuing the petitioners in their respective posts as the same is contrary to law the same is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction violation of principles of natural justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 into their respective services by pending disposal of the writ and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K PURUSHOTHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 9079/2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue a writ or order/s or Direction/s more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus direct that the reappointment made by the 3rd respondent without follow the mandate directions given by this honorable court is bad , without giving opportunity without hearing the petitioner without constituting the three men committee as mentioned in the W.P.No.18797/ 2016, is bad, by restore the petitioners into their respective service by set aside the reinstatement orders passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No. RC.265/2017/EGS/HR, dated 00-02-2018 by continuing the petitioners in their respective posts as the same is contrary to law the same is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction violation of principles of natural justice and pass…” 2. None represented on behalf of the Petitioners. The Proceeding Sheet dated 04.07.2025, also shows none represented for the Petitioners. The Matter is directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Despite the matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal” in the list today, none represented the matter. It appears they have no interest in prosecuting the matter. 3. In that view, the Writ Petition is dismissed for Non-prosecution. No order as to Costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 10.07.2025 UPS 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.9079 of 2018 Dated.10.07.2025 UPS 64