STATE OF AP BY CHIEF SECY.TO GOVT.GAD, HYD.& 3 OTHERS v. E.ARUNA KUMAR, CUDDAPAH & ANOTHER
WP/22536/2006 · 2025-09-07
Ninala Jayasurya, Tuhin Kumar Gedela
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18770 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18770 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010260132006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.22536 OF 2006 Between:
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. ...Petitioners
AND
1. Sri E.Aruna Kumar, Un-employee, R/o.H.No.4-375, Rabindra Nagar, Cuddapay (By Mr.J.R.Manohar Rao, Counsel for Respondent) and another. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : G.P. for Services–I Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.J.R.Manohar Rao
The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble NJS,J)
As seen from the impugned order dated 01.11.2000, the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in a batch of O.As issued directions to the official respondents therein to take options from 102 candidates who have been selected as Deputy Tahsildars and issue orders for the said post with regard to their willingness as per ranking either to continue in the posts that they are holding or whether they are willing to come and join as Deputy Tahsildars and depending upon their options, candidates who are opting to join as Deputy Tahsildars should be adjusted as Deputy Tahsildars.
2
2. The writ petition was filed in the year 2006 and vide orders dated 11.12.2006 a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissed I.A. No.3 of 2006 (W.P.M.P. No.28628 of 2006) seeking suspension of the orders dated 01.11.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.3614 of 2000.
3. Though no specific information is forthcoming from the writ petitioners, obviously the order of the learned Tribunal might have been implemented. In view of the same as also keeping in view afflux of time, we are not inclined to examine the matter.
4. Hence, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J
_____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J September 08, 2025 vasu