APHC010460882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 176 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-5 [3483] Keethineedi Akhil Sri Guru Teja ...Petitioner Vs. The Union of India and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Thandava Yogesh Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Jupudi V K Yagnadutt (Central Government Counsel) for R.1 Mrs. S. Pranathi (Special Government Pleader) for R.2 & R.3. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 17th September, 2025 P C : The present P.I.L has been filed effectively for implementation of the directions issued by the Apex Court in T.S.R. Subramanian & Others v. Union of India & others [WP(Civil) No.82 of 2011 decided on 31.10.2013]. 2. As per the judgment so rendered by the Apex Court, directions were issued to the Central and the State Governments and the Union Territories to constitute Civil Services Board [CSB] with high ranking serving officers who are specialists in their respective fields within a period of three 2 HCJ & RC,J WP(PIL)_176_2025 months, if not already constituted, till the Parliament brought in a proper legislation in setting up the CSBs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Boards have not been constituted despite the fact that the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules of 1954, in particular Rule 7, and Schedule annexed to the said Rule specifically provide that every State Government ought to constitute a Civil Services Board consisting of the officers which are mentioned specifically therein. 4. In our opinion, the present petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner seeks the Mandamus, which, in effect, amounts to executing the directions of the Apex Court on ground in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The directions having once been issued by the Apex Court, all authorities including the State Governments were under an obligation to comply with such directions and ought to have constituted the CSB within the period specified. However, failure to carry out the directions of the Apex Court does not give any right to the petitioner to file yet another petition seeking a Mandamus yet again to the authorities. 5. In our opinion, the present petition is misconceived. No repetitive directions could be issued after the Supreme Court had earlier considered and directed the constitution of the CSBs. We are of the opinion that the petitioner ought to avail an appropriate remedy for non implementation of the directions of the Apex Court. 3 HCJ & RC,J WP(PIL)_176_2025 6. The WP(PIL) is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J Vjl