1 APHC010346052018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16108/2018 Between: Gochipathala Jyothi ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOLLURI ARJUN CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA(GP FOR SERVICES II) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 4th respondent in not considering the petitioner’s candidature by way of representation dated 24.11.2017 submitted to 2nd respondent and forwarded to respondents 3 and 4 for appointing the petitioner’s in the existing vacancy as computer operator, on contract basis in the office of 4th respondent, without allowing 5th respondent to resume to work, 2 even after her termination due to lack of qualification and producing fake certificates, as illegal, irregular, irrational. violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and settled principles of service jurisprudence and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner’s as computer operator on contract basis in the existing vacancy, without re- appointing 5th respondent in such post and pass such other order or orders…...” 2. Heard Sri Kolluri Arjun Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is suffering from 74% of disability. She walks with stick. She has applied for the post of Computer Operator on contract basis. She is a graduate having PGDCA eligible for Computer Operator post. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.5 was appointed in the said post basing on the fake certificate submitted by her. Later she was suspended. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has made representation dated 24.11.2017 to the respondent No.2 for consideration of her case. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 forwarded her representation to respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have to take necessary action as per the rules. But respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not passed any order on the representation made by the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner according to law. 4. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to take appropriate decision over the request made 3 by the petitioner which was forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent Nos.3 and 4, according to governing rules and law and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 19.03.2025 ARR 4 238 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16108/2018 Dt.19.03.2025 ARR