Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38603 (AP)

Dr. Y. Nagamalleswari, v. Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University,

WP/35579/2018 · 2025-04-21

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010735702018 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: 35579/2018 Between: Dr. Y. Nagamalleswari, ...PETITIONER AND Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V S S S RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. R CHANDRA REDDY 2. GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “ .. to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in transferring the petitioner from the third respondent college to the College of Veterinary Science Proddatur vide memo No.2500/Services.I/2018 dated 23.05.2018 on the basis of the transfer guidelines in proceedings No.8162/ SC/ 2007 dated 22.02.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Statue No.6 of the SVVU Teachers Manner of appointment Statues, 2007 issued in proceedings No.286/SC/2007 dated 30.07.2007 contrary to G.O.Ms.No.52 Finance (HR.I- PLG and Policy) Department, dated 02.05.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.57 Finance (HR.I-PLG and Policy) Department dated 08.05.2018 issued by the Government and set aside the same to the extent of the petitioner and consequentially, direct respondents 1 and 2 to continue the petitioner as Professor at the third respondent college with all benefits including payment of salary from June 2018 onwards.” 2 2. The earlier Docket Proceedings would show that none represented for the Petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “For Dismissal”. 3. Despite the matter being listed under the caption “For dismissal”, none represented for the Petitioner today. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the University are in attendance. 5. In that view, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 35579 of 2018 21.04.2025 Mjl /*