APHC010865052016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION Between: M. Doraswami Reddy, The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESHWARLU GUMMADAVELLY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) 2. A K NARASIMHA RAO 3. SRINIVASULA REDDY VAJRALA SC FOR APTDC Ltd IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7633/2016 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: VENKATESHWARLU GUMMADAVELLY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) NARASIMHA RAO SRINIVASULA REDDY VAJRALA SC FOR APTDC Ltd IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 MRK,J W.P.No.7633 of 2016 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, seeking the following main relief: “ to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents not considering the case of petitioner for regularization of services and not paying conveyance allowance as illegal, arbitrary, unjust violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India contrary to G.O.Ms.No.23, dt.12.06.2015 G.O.Ms.No.159, dt.11.12.2015 consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services on regular basis in the quota meant for differently abled persons forthwith, with all consequential benefits including conveyance allowancein the interest of justice”. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is for regularization of his services on regular basis in the quota meant for differently abled persons in the 2nd respondent Corporation. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri V.Srinivasula Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.T.D.C for respondent No.2, submitted that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was removed from his service, consequently the 2nd respondent Corporation by following the procedure established under law terminated the petitioner from services vide orders APTDC-ADMN-11025/2/2022 dated 05.07.2022 issued by Managing Director, A.P.Tourism Corporation /2nd respondent and the proceedings were taken on 3 MRK,J W.P.No.7633 of 2016 record. He further submits that the said termination orders attained finality. As the petitioner’s services were terminated, the prayer in the Writ Petition became redundant and accordingly, the writ petition is closed. 4. Sri K.Asad Ahamad, the learned counsel representing Sri G.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that presently petitioner is not in contact with them. 5. Taking into consideration the material on record, as well as the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, the instant Writ Petition is dismissed as the petitioner is already terminated from service. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 25.09.2025 GRL 4 MRK,J W.P.No.7633 of 2016 164 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.7633 of 2016 Date: 25.09.2025 GRL 5 MRK,J W.P.No.7633 of 2016