IN THE HIGH COU^T OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RACT^ Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dt. 04-02-2025 in WP No. 18113 of 2016 on the file of the High Court. Between: E Thirupalu, S/o. Late Krishnama Raju Aged about 32 years, Ex-Inmate of S.V.Balamandir, R/o. H.No.5-53, Padmavathipuram, Tiruchanoor Road Tirupathi, Chittoor District. WRIT APPEAL NO: 412 OF ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER N0.1 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary Endowments Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi erstwhile Hyderabad 2. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Chittoor District. Tirupati, ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3. B.Muni Reddy, S/o. Late B.Changa Reddy, (died) Aged about 32 years, Ex-Inmate of S.V.Balamandir, R/o. Perumallapalli Village District. Chittoor ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER N0.2 lA NO: 1 OF 202fi 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 r pleased to suspend the order dated 04-02^25, passed in W.P.No. 18113 of 2016, pending disposal of main Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K GOPaC Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No2: SRI V VENUGOPALA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI A SUMANTH (SC FOR TTD) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: — The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010180322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3526] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT APPEAL No.412 of 2025 Between: 1.E Thirupalu, S/o.Late Krishnama Raju, Aged About 32 Years, Ex- Inmate of S.V.Balamandir, R/o.H.No.5-53, Padmavathipuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...Appellant AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Erstwhile Endowments Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi Hyderabad, and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: 1.KGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: 1.C SRINIVASA BABA 2.GP FOR SERVICES II This Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J) Heard Mr.K.Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant, who appeared through online. Also heard Mr.V.Venugopala Rao, learned 2 Senior Counsel along with Mr.A.Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The appellant earlier filed Writ Petition No.21609 of 2003 and a learned Single Judge vide orders dated 16.3.2016 disposed of the with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representations dated 28.6.2002 and 31.7.2003 made by the appellant. The respondent No.2 vide Proceedings dated 11.4.2016 rejected the said representations. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.18113 of 2016. While dismissing the Writ Petition No.18113 of 2016, learned Single Judge took into consideration the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Executive Officer v. E.Tirupalu\ Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed. same 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia contends that the order under challenge is not sustainable for the various grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal. He also submits that subsequent to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra, the cases of the others viz., K.Mohana Raju, B.Krishna Kumari and V.Venkata Ramana were considered and appointment orders issued in their favour. were He submits that rejection of the appellant’s representations and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, without considering the said aspect, is therefore not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, inter alia submits that in fact the appellant was the unsuccessful party before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to above. He has specifically drawn the attention of this Court to the conclusions arrived at by the Hon’ble Supreme Court more (1996) 8 see 253 / 3 r He submits that specifically to paragraph No.9 of the said decision, order, it is not open for the appeiiant to agitate the iearned Single Judge while taking note of the having suffered an issue again and the of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was right in dismissing the Writ of the others are on different decision Petition. He also submits that the cases the appellant had suffered the earlier round of litigation for the same cause, his footing and at any rate, when once adverse order in the the learned Senior cannot be considered. On a specific query submitted that the respondent No.2 has followed the procedure concerned, she is also case Counsel and in fact so far as B.Krishna Kumari is of the orders dated 22.8.2012 passed by the Hon'ble in S.L.P. No.6930 of 2012, which was referred to ih the continuing by virtue Supreme Court in counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition. of the matter with reference to the Judgment of On a consideration the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reproduced in Para 3 of the Order under Appeal, which is in respect of the very same party, this Court see illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No grounds exist to interfere with the order in the present intra-Court 5. no appeal. the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to For the said reasons. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 6. costs. Sd/- V.DIWAKAR deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to Sri K Gopal, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Baba, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A Sumanth, SC for TTD, Advocate [OPUC] for Services II. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CCs to GP 5. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 16/04/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.412 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS