Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27623 (AP)

R LAXMI PRASAD v. PRL.SECRETARY ( SCHOOL EDUCATION) AND 2 OTHERS

WP/17357/2017 · 2025-06-26

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

Special Leave Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010392902017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 17357/2017 Between: 1. R LAXMI PRASAD, S/O.VENKATA GANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 0/O. A.P. EDUCATION AND WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PRL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION AND 2 OTHERS, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VICE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR A P, EDUCATION AND WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, A.P.EDUCATION AND WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR.. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not re- inducting into service by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner to continue/re-induct into service and continue him in service till attain the 60 years in accordance with provisions of Act 4 dated 27.06.2014 in accordance with the orders of the 2 Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 13623 of 2017, dated 27.04.2017 and SLP No. 14033 of 2017, dated 05.05.2017 with all consequential benefits in interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders appropriate in the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP 2795 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim orders dt.26-05-2017 in WP No.17357/2017 and dismiss the WP and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 21210 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue/re-induct the petitioner in service forthwith beyond 58 years of age and till they attains the age of 60 years in accordance with provisions of Act 4 dated 27.06.2014 and the resolution of the respondents pending disposal of the Writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVINDER ALKUCHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SEENA KUMAR (SC FOR APEWIDC AND RVM SSA 2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP) 3. V CH NAIDU The Court made the following ORDER: On 02.05.2025 and 20.06.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. 2. Today i.e., on 27.06.2025, despite the matter being listed under the caption for dismissal, none appears for the petitioner. 3 2. The sum and substance of the writ petition is that petitioner sought for continuation of service upto the age of 60 years under the provisions of Act 4 dated 27.06.2014. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5-Corporation while placing a copy of proceedings dated 22.09.2017 of the 2nd respondent Corporation before this Court, submits that consequent to the interim direction dated 26.05.2017 of this Court, the respondent Corporation extended service of the petitioner upto 60 years and subsequently, petitioner retired from the service on 30.04.2019. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the matter becomes infructuous. 4. Considering the above said submissions as also keeping in view the non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that there is no cause in the lis that has to be adjudicated any more. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 27.06.2025 GVK 4 133 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.17357 of 2017 Date: 27.06.2025 GVK 5