Polanki Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary
WP/41658/2017 · 2025-12-23
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44351 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44351 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010967602017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 41658/2017 Between:
1. POLANKI KUMAR,, S/O P. KRISHNAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O UPPARAVANDLAPALLE VILLAGE, E.THODU POST, THANAKALLU MANDAL, AANATAPUR DIST. 2. G.S. NAYAZ AHAMMAD,, S/O G.S. KHALEEL, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, D.NO.8-184, SIMHAM STREET, B. KOTHAKOTA VILLAGE & MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. B. MADHUKAR REDDY,, S/O B. VENKATRAMANA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 7/17, BONTHALAVARIPALLE, PEDDATHIPPA SAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH RASTRIYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHSA ABHIYAN, REP. BY COMMISSIONER& DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & EX-OFFICIO PROJECT DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, ANJANEYA TOWERS, B BLOCK, BESIDES IBRAHIMPATNAM P.S., IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, A.P., RD
2
NUMBER 1, LAKSHMIPURAM, GUNTUR, 522007. 5. THE DIRECTOR RASHTRIYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, 0/O. COMMISSIONER & DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ANJANEYA TOWERS, B BLOCK, BESIDES IBRAHIMPATNAM P.S., IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA. 6. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, MODEL SCHOOL, 0/O.
COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, BESIDE TELEPHONE BHAVAN, SAIFABAD, LAKDIKAPOOL, HYDERABAD. 7. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION ZONE1, KAKINADA. 8. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION ZONE4, KADAPA.
...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 to issue a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not filling the sanctioned posts of Trained Graduate Teachers as per the notification No.01/RMSA/Model Schools/2012 dt.06.02.2012 and issuing final selection list by including the candidates i) who appeared and failed to produce certificates at the time of certificate verification during Phase-I & Phase-1I, ii) who did not appeared for verification of certificates during Phase who did not exercise web option for the place of post, iv) who did not join to the duty after selection and v) who resigned immediately after few days of their join and before preparation final list as illegal, arbitrary, non application of mind, unjust, unreasonable, and against to the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to fill up the un filled Trained Graduate Teacher posts with the petitioners who are the next meritorious candidates in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 51680 OF 2017 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 consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment as per their merit in the existing unfilled post of Trained Graduate Teacher as
3
per the notification No.01/RMSA/Model Schools/2012 dt.06.02.2012 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following:
4
ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala,
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication.
2. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Date: 24.12.2025 PNS