APHC010027032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1842/2025 Between: Dr. K. Bayyapu Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R YELLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2. S PRANATHI The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri R.Yella Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Chowdary, learned counsel representing Smt.S.Pranathi, learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner, Principal Scientist (Seed Science & Technology), working at AICRP (Sesame & Niger), RARS, Chintapalle PG Centre, Lam, 2 Guntur, filed the above writ petition complaining about the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in considering the representation dated 17.12.2024 (Ex.P.17) made by him, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was recruited as an Assistant Professor under direct recruitment, in the Department of Seed Science & Technology, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University in the year 2007. The petitioner worked at the Agricultural Research Station, Jangamaheswarapuram, Palnadu District from 10.10.2007 to 12.08.2015. The petitioner had teaching experience. He also worked in Administration as a Senior Scientist (Seed Science & Technology) at the Directorate of Seeds, Administrative Office, Lam, Guntur from 24.09.2021 to 23.06.2022. The petitioner made a representation (Ex.P.17) seeking transfer and the same is not considered. Hence, the above writ petition. 4. Learned standing counsel would submit that the 2nd respondent will consider the representation made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per rules. 5. Indeed, directing the authorities to consider the representation is deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1. 6. Since the writ petition is filed to consider the representation of the petitioner, keeping the writ petition pending will not serve any purpose. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on 1 (2019) 8 SCALE 544 3 either side directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 17.12.2024 (Ex.P.17) and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per transfer guidelines of the 2nd respondent-University. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 27.01.2025 KA 4 225 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1842/2025 Date: 27.01.2025 KA