Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30927 (AP)

G. Srinivasa Goud, v. The Chairman and Managing Director,

WP/21515/2019 · 2025-07-27

B V L N Chakravarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010447542019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 21515/2019 Between: 1. G. SRINIVASA GOUD,, S/O. AMARAYYA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. H. NO.7-129, NEAR TIRUPAHAMMA, TEMPLE, DODLERU VILLAGE AND POST, KROSUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSPDCL LTD.,TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER OP AND ADMN APSPDCL LTD, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY ENGINEER ADMN, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, APSPDCL LTD., VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS by declaring the action of the respondents in not admitting the petitioner into duties at the office of the 5th respondent as per the proceedings No.3226/2018 dated 29.8.2019 of the 4th respondent consequent to his selection as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) through Notification dated 27.8.2014 and proceedings No.Estt/234/2015 dated 16.11.2015 of the 1st respondent, Rc.No.343/2016 dated 23.11.2016 of the 3rd respondent, Rc.No.Vig.I/23/2017 dated 29.9.2017 of the 4th resp3ndent, Proc. No.3226/2018 dated 2.5.2019 as illegal, arbit-ary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for full Day and allowances from the date 2 of completion of Orientation training i.e., w.e.f., 1,1.2016 onwards and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 admit the petitioner into duties at the office of the Chief Engineer, APSPDCL, Vijayawada as per the proceedings No.3226/2018 dated 29.8.2019 of the 4th respondent forthwith, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SC FOR APCPDCL 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3. . The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No.21515 of 2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not admitting the petitioner into duties at the office of the 5th respondent as per the proceedings No.3226/2018 dated 29.08.2019 of the 4th respondent consequent to his selection as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) through Notification dated 27.08.2014 and proceedings No.Estt/234/2015 dated 16.11.2015 of the 1st respondent, Rc.No.343/2016 dated 23.11.2016 of the 3rd respondent, Rc.No.Vig.I/23/2017 dated 29.09.2017 of the 4th respondent, Proc.No.3226/2018 dated 02.05.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for full pay and allowances from the date of completion of Orientation training i.e., w.e.f., 01.01.2016 onwards and to pass …” 2 There is no representation for the petitioner, though the matter is posted today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Even on earlier occasions, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5, is in attendance. 4. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. 5. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 28th July, 2025 cbn 5 61 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No.21515 of 2019 28th July, 2025 cbn