KARUMANCHI RAMESH BABU, GUNTUR DIST v. PRL SECY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT, GUNTUR DIST & 4 OTHERS
WP/21374/2017 · 2025-04-10
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2278 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2278 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010000012017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 21374/2017 Between: Karumanchi Ramesh Babu, Guntur District ...PETITIONER AND Principal Secretary, Higher Education Dept., Guntur Dist and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. BHANU PRIYA G Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K RAMAKANTH REDDY
2. GHANTA SRIDHAR
3. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP)
4. N SUBBA RAO The Court made the following:
2
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.21374 OF 2017 ORDER:
This instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following main prayer:-
“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 allowing respondents No 4 and 5 to retire the petitioner on attaining 58 years of age on 31.03.2017 though the age of superannuation fixed under AICTE Regulations as 62 years, and 60 years as per amended Section 78-A 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 Respondents 4 and 5 to reinstate and continue the Petitioner in service as Acting superintendent/Junior Assistant in 5th Respondent Institution till he attain the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years of age if AICTE rules are applied; or upto 60 years as per Section 78-A of the A.P.Education Act 1982 in case if the petitioner is treated as non-teaching staff; (iii) and to pass such other order or orders…..”
3
2. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reported that in view of subsequent events in the lis, the present writ petition becomes infructuous and no further orders are required.
3. The said submission is recorded.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:10.04.2025 Rns
4
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION No.21374 OF 2017
Date: 10.04.2025 Rns