Hanumanthu Sreenivas Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/16414/2018 · 2025-03-11
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25076 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25076 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010354782018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16414/2018 Between:
HANUMANTHU SREENIVAS RAO, S/O. H.KRISHNA MURTHY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC.POST GRADUATE TEACHER ENGLISH (UNDER OF PUNISHMENT OF DEEMED TO HAVE RESIGNED FROM SERVICE) A.P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE, PALAKONDA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. R/O. S-3, BABA TOWERS MASJID STREET, NEW COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM -
16.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE CHAIRMAN A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, TADEPALLY, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE SECRETARY A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, TADEPALLY, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE PRINCIPAL A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL, JUNIOR COLLEGE, PALAKONDA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K BHEEMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SC FOR AP RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
2. P V RAMANA The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
The docket proceedings dated 10.03.2025 would show that the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that, the Petitioner was absent from duties for a period of two years. The Respondent – Authorities have given punishment as deemed to be resigned after following the due process. The Petitioner preferred an appeal, that was rejected. Impugning the orders, the present petition is filed. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that no cause of action would survive since the Petitioner crossed the superannuation age.
3. Despite the matter being listed under the caption “for dismissal”, none represented for the Petitioner. There was no representation for the Petitioner on 10.03.2025 also.
4. In that view, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:11.03.2025 Dinesh
3
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
W.P.No.16414 of 2018
Dt.11.03.2025
Dinesh