APHC010229402019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. WRIT PETITION NO: 10304/2019 Between: Shaik Shoukath Valli The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 10304/2019 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3527] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN HARI HARANADHA SARMA ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 HBKM,J& HAHHS,J W.P.No.10304 of 2019 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal in M.A.No.328 of 2019 in O.A.S.R.No.1565 of 2019 dated 24.06.2019. 3. The Tribunal passed the order in the above said M.A.No.328 of 2019, which reads as under: “The applicant filed this Miscellaneous Application for condoning the delay of 8 years 10 months 9 days in filing this Original Application on the ground that he made representations in the year 2016 and in the year 2017 on seniority and promotion. The impugned regularization proceedings are dated 24.07.2010. The same was not questioned for the last more than eight years. The alleged representations are also after six or seven years of the said proceedings. In any event, it is settled law that there can be no agitation against seniority as well as promotion after a period of three years. The applicant was lethargic and was not diligent in pursuing his remedies. In the circumstances, this Tribunal does not find any cause much less sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay of 8 years 10 months 9 days. 2. Hence, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed and O.A.S.R. is rejected.” 3 HBKM,J& HAHHS,J W.P.No.10304 of 2019 4. In view of the inordinate delay and laches in approaching the erstwhile Tribunal by way of filing the O.A. by the petitioner and as the reasons assigned by the erstwhile Tribunal are valid and just, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. 5. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA,J 01.04.2025 PGT