APHC010954892018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No.46151/2018 Between: I.SUBBA NAIK, S/O RAMA NAIK, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD NO. 745 SURRENDERED TO SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HOME GUARDS, ANDHRA PRADESH, GUNTUR- 522660. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE RESERVE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOME GUARDS, DAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M NAGA RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.3 to consider the Petitioners representation dated 25-9-2018 to take him into service as Home Guard by duly declaring 2 the action of the Respondent No.3 in not considering Petitioner's representation dated 25-9-2018 to take him into service as Home Guard after surrendering by the Respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.3330/A2/2018 dated 15-6-2018 as illegal and unjustified.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that, in compliance of the interim order dated 20.12.2018 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018, the representation of the Petitioner was considered and rejected. 3. Sri M.Naga Rahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, recording the same, the petition may be disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the rejection order as per the governing rules and law. 4. Considering the submission made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the rejection order, if so advised, according to governing Rules and Law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:08.07.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.46151 of 2018 Dt.08.07.2025 Dinesh