APHC010636082018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.30570 OF 2018 Between: N.Rekha Rani, D/o.Late N.Chenchu Ramaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ:Advocate, R/o.H.No.20-01-193, Potti Sriramulu Bomma Centre, Mulapet, Nellore, Nellore District, A.P. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.L.V.S. Nagaraju Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Home The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad dated 18.9.2017 in M.A. No.782 of 2017 in O.A.S.R. No.4028 of 2017. 2 WP_30570_2018 2. The writ petitioner/applicant approached the learned Tribunal questioning her non-selection to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor pursuant to the Notification dated 18.10.2011 issued by the A.P. State Level Police Recruitment under BC–D (Woman) Category. In the miscellaneous application filed along with the O.A., she stated that owing to health problem she could not approach the Tribunal questioning the action of the respondents in not selecting her to the said post and pleaded to condone the delay of five (5) years nine (9) months fourteen (14) days in filing the O.A. 3. The learned Tribunal while considering the miscellaneous application noted that after issuance of Notification dated 18.10.2011, another Notification was issued for recruitment of Assistant Public Prosecutors in the year 2013 and further that no medical record relating to the alleged health problem of the applicant was filed. It was not inclined to condone the extraordinary delay of more than 5½ years, dismissed the miscellaneous application and consequently rejected the O.A., at S.R. stage. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought to impress upon the Court by making submissions that apart from health issues, the writ petitioner/applicant was also under the impression that the representations made by her would be considered and therefore, she did not approach the learned Tribunal at the earliest point of time. However, except bald pleas, the writ petitioner had not shown just cause with supporting material to condone the said inordinate delay. 5. Having considered the submissions made, this Court is not inclined to take any different view with that of the learned Tribunal, which has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the O.A., on the ground of abnormal delay. 3 WP_30570_2018 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J October 06, 2025 vasu