Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41869 (AP)

T SUNANDA DEVI v. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

WP(AT)/37/2022 · 2025-12-09

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010017822022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 37/2022 Between: 1. T SUNANDA DEVI, D/O. LATE T. WILLIAM ANDREUS, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. CHINTALAPUDI VILLAGE AND MANDEL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CHARITHASRI BUILDING, NAKKALA ROAD, SURYARAOPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT EURO. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PT WING, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT EURO. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PR AND RD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): pleased to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the applicant in any suitable post on compassionate grounds as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable , unjust and violation of principles of natural justice apart from violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of india and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the applicant in any suitable post on compassionate grounds in terms of the G.O.Ms.No. 687 Dated 3- 10-1977 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B SRIRAM KARTIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following Order: In spite of posting the matter under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation for the petitioner. 2. On earlier occasions also i.e., on 06.10.2025, 30.10.2025 and 25.11.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting with the case. 3. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 10.12.2025 ANS 4 279 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 37/2022 Date: 10.12.2025 ANS