APHC010654812016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 35748 OF 2016 Between: 1. Alla Rama Krishna Reddy,, S/o A. Dasaradha Rami Reddy, Age: 47 years, Occ: MLA, Mangalagiri Assembly Constituency, R/o. Flat No. 220, Rajarajeshwari Towers, Opp. Old Bus Stand, Nidamarru Road, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Secretary, A.P Legislature Secretariat, A.P Legislative Assembly Building, Hyderabad. 4. Sri K Sathyanarayana Rao, S/o K.Rama Narsirnha Rao, Age 56 yrs, Occ:Secretary, A.P Legislature Secretariat, A.P Legislative Assembly Building, Hyderabad. ...Respondents 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction challenging the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in appointing the 4th respondent as Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislature Secretariat, Andhra Pradesh (herein after referred to as secretariat) and continuing the 4th respondent in the said post for more than two years pursuant to the Office on RT.No. 150/0.P/2014 dated 01-06-2014 of the then Secretary of the State Legislature at erstwhile united State of Andhra Pradesh even though the 4th respondent is not possessing requisite qualification, even though the 4th 2 respondent was appointed on temporary basis and that there are other qualified persons available for appoininvant as Secretary as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10-6-1999 and consequently the respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith remove the 4th respondent as secretary and appoint available qualified persons as Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Secretariat and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: PONAVOLU SUDHAKARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: K S MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondents:GINJUPALLI SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (AP) The Court made the following order: The writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief: “to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction challenging the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in appointing the 4th respondent as Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislature Secretariat, Andhra Pradesh (herein after referred to as secretariat) and continuing the 4th respondent in the said post for more than two years pursuant to the Office on RT.No. 150/0.P/2014 dated 01-06-2014 of the then Secretary of the State Legislature at erstwhile united State of Andhra Pradesh even though the 4th respondent is not possessing requisite qualification, even though the 4th respondent was appointed on temporary basis and that there are other qualified persons available for appoininvant as Secretary as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 3 and contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10-6-1999 and consequently the respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith remove the 4th respondent as secretary and appoint available qualified persons as Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Secretariat and pass......” 2. The sum and substance of the petitioner is challenging the appointment of 4th respondent as Secretary in the Andhra Pradesh Legislature Secretariat, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The learned Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 3 as well as Sri K.Guru Raj, learned counsel representing Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent jointly submitted that in view of subsequent events taken place in the lis, no further orders are required to be passed and the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 4. In view of the submission made by the counsels for respondents 1 to 4 and also in view of the fact that none represented for the petitioner, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 10.10.2025 Rns 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.35748 of 2016 Date: 10.10.2025 RNS