APHC010033972018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 1576/2018 Between: K. Ravindhranath, ...PETITIONER AND Prl Secy Education Dept and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. (SC FOR A I C T E)K RAMAKANTH REDDY 2. GADE VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 2. K RAMAKANTH REDDY 3. C SUDESH ANAND(SC FOR APSCHE) 4. N SUBBA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “.... to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the President of Bapatla Education Society/ the 5th respondent herein in not calling back the petitioner herein to serve for sixty five 65 years in the 6th respondent College as Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry as biased illegal and void and set aside his Letter vide Ref.BEC/J/1/193 dated 23.02.2015 and consequently, direct the 5th respondent herein to restore the service of the petitioner herein in the 6th respondent College for sixty five (65) years as Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry in the light of the rules of superannuation of teaching staff laid down by All India Council for Technical Education Pay Scales Service conditions and qualifications for the Teachers 2 and other academic staff in Technical Institutions (Degree) Regulations 2010 F.No.373/Legal/2010 dated 22.01.2010 and subsequent guidelines of AP Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee AFRC and pay the arrears for the period that the 5th respondent was reluctant to engage the services of the petitioner in the 6th respondent College against the aforesaid rules and also settle the Gratuity taking into consideration of sixty five 65 years of notional and /or regular service of the petitioner to secure the ends of justice.” 2. The earlier Docket Proceedings would show that none represented for the Petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “For Dismissal”. 3. Despite the matter being listed under the caption “For dismissal”, none represented for the Petitioner today. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education is in attendance. 5. In that view, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 1576 of 2018 26.03.2025 Mjl /*