APHC010356602003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6087/2003 Between: 1. D.R.K.SHARMA, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, SECONDARY GRADE TEACHER, O/O. VIMUKTI CHILDREN HOME SCHOOL (AIDED), KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CORRESPONDENTSECRETARY, VIMUKTI CHILDREN HOME, (A.U.P.S) KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the petitioner is entitled for absorption in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from the grant-in-aid sanctioned by the Government and consequently direct the respondents to release and pay the grant-in aid w.e.f. 1.9.1994 with pay on par with similarly situated teachers, by holding the 2 action of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioner with effect from 1.9.1994 with pay on par with similarly situated teachers is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and subversive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2003(WPMP 7975 OF 2003 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 petitioner's representation dated 10.4.2002 to absorb him as S.G.Teacher, from the date of aided vacancy sanctioned and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH JAGANNATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 3 The Court made the following order: Though the matter is listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On earlier occasions also i.e., on 11.09.2025 and 11.08.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting his case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 25.09.2025 MP 4 157 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO:6087 of 2003 Date: 25.09.2025 MP