. I APHC010567712024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) %‘?\ 'Z • TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY S' t 5^1.1) '?!! TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No: 29672 OF 2024 O; it.'x Y' 01V‘ Between: 1. Tangasani Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o T. Keshava Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ; Municipal Asst., Executive Engineer (MAEE), Ananthapur Municipal Corporation, Ananthapuram, R/o. H.No.17-116-A, Ramanna Gudiselu, Yadiki, Ananthapuramu, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Devireddy Manigopal Reddy, S/o D. Venugopal Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ; MAEE, Proddatur Municipality, YSR Kadapa District, R/o H.No.3-227, Obula Reddy Peta, Chapad (M), YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Maareddy Pavan Kumar Reddy, S/o M. Medhavi Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ; MAEE, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati District, R/o H.No.4-19, Karlakunta, Krishnagiri Manda, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 2. The State of A.P, Rep., by its Principal Secretary Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 3. The Superintending Engineer (PH) Circle, Ananthapuram. MA & UD ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the in the nature of Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineers, basing on their seniority in the category of MAEs, by considering their eligibility for promotion as on 1®‘ September, 2024 for PY: 2024-25, as per Rule 6 of AP SSS Rules and rejecting their case for reversion vide Memo No.1010/E4(2)/2024 dt 03.12.2024as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of consequently, set aside the impugned orders and direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioners to the post of Dy. Executive category of MAE, duly India and Engineers, considering their seniority from the considering their eligibility for promotion as on 1®' September, 2024 for PY: 2024-25, as per Rule 6 of AP SSS Rules, 1996, if necessary by reverting them, with all service and monetary benefits. lA No: 1 OF 2024 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 consider the case of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineers, basing on their seniority in category of MAE, by considering their eligibility for promotion as on 1®‘ September, 2024, for PY: 2024-25, as per Rule 6 of AP SSS Rules, by suspending the of impugned Memo No.1010/E4(2)/2024 dt 03.12.2024, if necessary by reverting them. Counselfor the Petitioners:SRI P. AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-IV The Court made the following order: operation APHC010567712024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 29672 OF 2024 Between: Tangasani Rajasekhar Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Engineer In Chief and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO: 29fi72 OF 2n?4 VIJAY ORDER:- / The present Writ Petition Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioners the post of Deputy Executive Engineers IS filed questioning the action of the for promotion to basing on their seniority in the their eligibility for promotion per Ruie 6 of AP SSS Rules and rejecting their 12.2024 as illegal and arbitrary. i i category of MAE’s by considering 01.09.2024 for PY; 2024-25 as on as case for reversion vide Memo dated 03. I 2. Seeking withdrawal of the Petitioners has filed present Writ Petition, learned counsel for the a letter dated 14.07.2025 into the Registry. 3- The said letter is placed on record. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition i costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous closed. IS dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to applications pending, if any, shall stand Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION To, OFFICER 1. One CC to Sri P. Amarender, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Services-IV, High Court of Andhra 3. Two CD Copies. Pradesh [OUT] gi • f HIGH COURT DATED:15/07/2025 ORDER WP No.29672 OF 2024 f I 8 JUL 2025 rrent Section^' Co DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS