APHC010152952019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 6651/2019 Between: 1. P VENKATARATHNAM RAO, S/O. P.C. YANNADI SETTY, AGE. 57 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (INCHARGE) A.P.EDUCATION AND WELFARE INSTRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,WEST GODAVARI DIVISION, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH EDUCATION AND WELFARE, INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (APEWIDC) REPT.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, BESIDES SAIRAM THEATRE, CHITTI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA-1, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. a) to call for the Review DPC Recommendations with anterior date to the Election Notification for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer sent by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent and quash the same as it is not in consonance with Rule 6(b) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules and further against Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. b) to direct the 1st respondent not to pass any orders on the proposals sent by the 2nd respondent with anterior date to the Election Notification by way of Review DPC recommendations to the post of 2 Executive Engineer sent by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 1st respondent not to pass any orders on the panel prepared for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer vide Review DPC Recommendations with an anterior date to the Election notification and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Executive Engineer (Incharge) till the finalization of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y V SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 2. G V S KISHORE KUMAR 3 APHC010827992018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 39963/2018 Between: 1. P.VENKATARATHNAM RAO, S/O P.C. YANNADI SETTY, AGED 57 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(INCHARGE), A.P. EDUCATION AND WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WEST GODAVARI DIVISION, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH EDUCATION AND WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APEWIDC, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, BESIDES SAIRAM THEATRE, CHITTI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA-1, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. K JANARDHAN REDDY, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED 56 YEARS, WORKING AS INCHARGE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APEWIDC, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. ...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 an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (a) holding. that non inclusion of the Petitioners name above the 3rd respondent in the final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineer prepared in Proceedings No.E2/3126/APEWIDC/2013-final dt.10.4.2018 is illegal, arbitrary and against Rule 33(1) and 36(3) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules ancj direct to include the name of the 4 Petitioner at SI.No.8 (b) to hold that G.O.Ms.No.47 dt.23.8.2018 is prepared is contrary to Rule 6 and Rule 22 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules and Rule 3 Note (v) of A.P. E.W.I.D.C. service Rules and quash the same along with G.O.Rt.No.247,School Education (Training) Department dt.23.8.2018 and set aside the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to prepare the panel as per Rule 6 and Rule 22 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules r/w Rule 3 Note (v) of A.P. E.W. I.D.C. Rules by including the name of the petitioner at appropriate place i.e. above the 3rd respondent herein and consider his case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer without reference to the charge Memo issued in Proceedings No.E1/Vig/773/APEWIDC/2016 dt.23.7.2016 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 suspend G.O.Ms.No.47 dt.23.8.2018 along with G.O.Rt.No. 247, School Education (Training) Department dt.23.8.2018 while directing the respondents 1 and 2 to prepare a panel as per Rule 6 and Rule 22 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules read with Rule 3 Note (V) of A.P.E.W.I.D.C.Rules by including the name of the Petitioner at appropriate place ( i .e. above the 3rd respondent herein) and consider petitioner case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer without reference to the Charge Memo issued in Proceedings No.E1/Vig/773/APEWIDC/2016 dt.23.7.2016 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y V SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SEENA KUMAR (SC FOR APEWIDC AND RVM SSA 2. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) The Court made the following: 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION Nos.6651 of 2019 and 39933 of 2018 COMMON ORDER: Sri Y.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, appeared virtually and submitted that, pending the writ petitions, the petitioner has retired from service and has subsequently received the retirement benefits. Accordingly, no further orders are required in the writ petitions. 2. Sri L. Radha Krishna, representing Sri V. Ch. Naidu, learned Standing Counsel for APEWIDC, is in attendance. 3. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the cause of action in the writ petitions no longer survives, and the writ petitions have become infructuous. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 29th December, 2025 cbn 6 23 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No: 6651 OF 2019 and 39963 of 2018 29th December, 2025 cbn