APHC010534932006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.22515 OF 2006 Between: 1. The Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary (SW) B.C. Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500 022, and another ...Petitioners AND 1. Sri D.Subbaiah Gr.I Warden, B.C. Boys Hostel, Annaparru, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners : G.P. for Services II Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.J.R. Manohar Rao The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) Heard Mr.Kocharla Kota Ramalingeswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services–II appearing for the writ petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 2. The respondent filed O.A. No.3312 of 2002 before the erstwhile A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad seeking to declare that he is entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Backward Class Welfare Officer, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.36, Backward Classes Welfare (P2) Department, dated 09.7.1996. The learned Tribunal, after hearing both sides, vide order dated 27.3.2002 disposed of the said O.A., in the light of its earlier decision dated 15.5.1999 in O.A. No.2601 of 1999, wherein it was held that Degree qualification is not required for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer from the category 2 WP_22515_2006 of Warden Grade–I, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 09.7.1996. The said decision of the Tribunal was confirmed by the High Court vide order dated 05.3.2002 in W.P. No.3980 of 2002. In the light of the findings recorded, the learned Tribunal directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the respondent/applicant for promotion as Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer along with others as per his seniority in any existing or arising vacancy in Zone–III, without insisting for Degree qualification, if he is otherwise eligible and suitable according to the Rules. The State filed the present writ petition against the said orders, in the year 2006. 3. As seen from the docket proceedings, no interim order was granted, at the time of admitting the writ petition. Be that as it may. Nineteen (19) years have gone-by from the date of filing the present writ petition and as per the oral instructions of the learned Government Pleader the respondent/applicant is no more. 4. Though no written instructions are forthcoming with regard to the implementation of the orders under challenge, it appears that the respondent/applicant got the promotion as per the orders under challenge and retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation. Even otherwise, nothing is brought to our notice that the order dated 05.3.2002 in Writ Petition No.3980 of 2002 confirming the order in O.A. No.2601 of 1999 on which the Tribunal placed reliance had attained finality. 5. In view of the same, we see no reasons to interfere with the order under challenge and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J September 09, 2025 vasu