APHC010888502002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 10060/2002 Between: 1. K.RAMA RAO CHOWDARY,, S/O SRI NARASIMHA RAO, LECTURER IN COMMERCE DEPARTMENT SKR COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, RAJAHMUNDRY. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVENMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD. 3. THE REGIONAL JOI9NT DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. SKR COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT RAJAHMUNDRY. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue a Writ or Directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as lecturer in Commerce in the 4th Respondent college as illegal and arbitrary after declaring paragraph 9 (5) and 13 of G.O.Ms.No. 328, Education (CE.III) Department dt: 15-10-1997 in so far as 2 fixing the cut-off date for counting the eligibility for regularization and annulment of guide-lines issued under the said G.O., after the period of six months as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of The Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as lecturer in Commerce in the aided vacancy of the 4th Respondent college with all consequential benefits like that of seniority etc., IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 12356 OF 2002 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 continue the petitioner as lecturer in Commerce in the aided vacancy of the 4th respondent college by paying salaries regularly to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V S S S RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION 2. GP FOR EDUCATION 3. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: 4. . 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: On 07.07.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner and the matter was posted under the caption for dismissal. 2. Today, Sri K.Srinu, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in touch with them and sought time to get instructions whether anything survives in the matter or not. 3. The matter being very old, this Court is not inclined to consider his request and the petitioner seems to have no interest in prosecuting the case, hence, the Writ Petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution. However, if the petitioner still feels that the cause of action survives, petitioner can file appropriate application. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 31st July, 2025 RKS