1 APHC010641192018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 30739/2018 Between: L.Anand Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRI RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 2. V CH NAIDU (SC FOR AP HOUSING CORP ) 3. K JYOTHI PRASAD 4. G JAYAPRAKASH BABU The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 30739 of 2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing G.O.Rt.No.247 School Education Training Department dated 23.08.2018 promoting Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of Executive Engineer in the 2nd Respondent Corporation who are ineligible while denying the promotion to the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of Employees Service Rules of the 2nd Respondent and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from the date of the impugned G.O., with all consequential monetary and service benefits and pass…” 2. Heard Sri S.Sri Ram Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the cause of action does not survive in this matter since the petitioner has approached this Court seeking promotion to Executive Engineer and that was already done. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit would submit that as per the oral instructions from the petitioner, he does not want to prosecute the matter. Learned Counsel would further submit that a memo has been filed in U.S.R.No. 42668 of 2025 to that effect. 5. Recording the above said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to Costs. 3 Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 21.04.2025 UPS 4 47 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.30739 of 2018 Dated.21.04.2025 UPS