Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38782 (AP)

Karelia Naga Raju v. Bank of Baroda

WP/37581/2018 · 2025-04-25

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010774812018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 37581/2018 Between: Karelia Naga Raju and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Bank Of Baroda and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T S VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the Respondents in discriminating and trying to fill the same with persons of their choice as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violatife of article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioners in the posts they were working prior to their termination along with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders…...” 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are continuing in service by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court dated 23.10.2018. 3. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that except the petitioner Nos.6, 7, 9, 16 and 18, remaining petitioners are working. The Court may dispose of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that for the purpose of regularization, they preferred separate writ petition. So, this petition may be disposed of. 5. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of, since no further orders are required in this matter. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.04.2025 ARR 3 43 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 37581/2018 Dt.25.04.2025 ARR