APHC010412312021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday ,the Fifth day of March, 2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 1117/2021 Between: G Venkateshwam and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K. Satyanarayana Murthy Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP for Services I The Court made the following: O R D E R: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to declare the action of the respondents in issuing G.O. Ms.No. 60 dated 06.02.2017 in approval/reviewing of panels of Deputy Collectors for the years 1994-95 to 2013-14 and showing the applicant's name in the panel year of 2009-10 though the applicant was promoted as Deputy Collector in the panel year of 1998-999 and 1999-2000 vide G.O.Ms.No.33 and 34 dated 28.01.2002 and Special Grade Deputy Collectors vide G.O.Rt.No.21S2 dated 24-11-2008 and pushing down to panel year 2009-10 and issued consequential seniority list circulated vide CCLA Proceedings No Ser.l(I)/1956/201S dated 10.04.2017 at Serial No.271 and 280 and assigned seniority in the cadre of Deputy 2 WP (AT)No.1117 of 2021 Collector with effect from 01-12-2009 by placing much below 2007 direct recruit Deputy Collectors is illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in P.Mohan Reddy vs EAA Charles reported in 2001 (4) SCC 433 rules laid down and violation of Art 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be set aside in so far as the applicant is concerned and (b) consequently direct the respondent authorities to continue the name of the applicant in the panel year of 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 in the category of Deputy Collectors as approved by the steering committee vide G.O.Ms.No.33 and 34 Revenue (Services-I) Department dated 20.01.2002 by taking consideration of the inter-se-seniority fixed in the category of Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar as prepared the seniority list under Rule 4(e) of A.P. Revenue Subordinate Service Rules by taking into consideration of substantive vacancies in terms of judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and to consider their case to include their names in the lAS select list along with other eligible candidates. 2. 2. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the relief sought in the petition has become infructuous. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI Dt.05.03.2025 PNV