G.L.Narayana, S/o Chinnaswamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary
WP/24692/2017 · 2025-07-10
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 16117 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 16117 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010210462017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 24692/2017 Between: G.l.narayana, S/o Chinnaswamy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. BHANU PRIYA G Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S SRINIVAS REDDY
2. K RAMAKANTH REDDY
3. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) The Court Made the Following Order:-
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:
“to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in
2
allowing respondent No.4 to retire the petitioner on attaining 60 years of age on 31.5. 2017, though the age of superannuation fixed for last grade service is 60 years as per section 78-A(2) of the A P Education Act 1982 as illegal irregular arbitrary discrimination unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and ii. consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to reinstate and continue the Petitioner in service as Watchman-cum-mali in the 4th Respondent Institution till he attain the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years as per Section 78-A(2) of the A P Education Act 1982 and to pass...”
2. Sri Y.Raghava, learned counsel representing Smt. G.Bhanu Priya, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the Writ Petition has become infructuous.
3. Recording the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no orders as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J
11.07.2025. ASR
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO.24692 of 2017
11.07.2025
ASR