APHC010327192016 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 NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.26545 OF 2016 Between: 1. The Director of School Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and another. ...Petitioners AND 1. Smt.Kakarla Saritha, D/o.K.Balaiah, Unemployee, R/o.D.No.6-2-983-3, Ramnagar Extension, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : G.P. for Services–III Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Madiraju The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) Heard Mr.I.Sai Gopi Manoj Krishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services–III representing the petitioners. Also heard Mr.Sai Pranav Krishnavajhala, learned counsel appearing through online on behalf of the respondent No.1. 2. The present writ petition is filed by the official respondents in O.A. No.11585 of 2009 against the orders dated 22.7.2013 passed by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. 2 WP26545_2016 3. The respondent No.1 filed the said O.A., seeking “to declare that a) the DSC 2008 Notification dated 06.12.2009 is Illegal as it did not show the vacancies in Govt. Schools and Zilla Parishad Schools separately, b) selection list of DSC 2008, Ananthapur District (called as re-arranged list of merit cum-roster) as illegel and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, c) non-selection and appointment of the applicant as School Assistant (English) while selecting respondents No.3 to 5 with Hall Ticket Numbers 12113100041, 12113100682 & 12113100066, d) inclusion of Respondent No.6 B.C.(D) Male with Hall ticket No.12113100555 as illegal and arbitrary, e) applicant with Hall Ticket 3.12113100569 is entitled to be selected and appointed as School Assistant (English) in preference to the respondents 3 to 6.” 4. The learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 22.7.2013 disposed of the said O.A., inter alia while opining that less meritorious candidates than the respondent No.1/applicant have been appointed, which is illegal and arbitrary, directed the writ petitioners/respondents to give appointment orders to the respondent No.1/applicant as School Assistant (English). 5. A Division Bench of the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the present writ petition vide order dated 07.2.2017 granted interim suspension of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the same was extended till 28.6.2021. Be that as it may. 6. On 22.9.2025, on the representation made by Mr.S.Karunakar, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondent 3 WP26545_2016 No.1 that subsequent to filing of the present writ petition, the respondent No.1 got better opportunity and therefore, she is not intending to contest the writ petition, this Court adjourned the matter to 26.9.2025 to enable the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to file a memo/affidavit to that effect. 7. Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr.Sai Pranav Krishnavajhala, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 states that the respondent No.1 is not in touch with them and as stated in the Memorandum dated 26.9.2025, their efforts to contact her proved futile. It appears that in view of the interim orders granted by this Court, the respondent No.1 is not inclined to contest the matter or she might have got better opportunity as represented by the learned counsel on the earlier occasion. Under the said circumstances, we are inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order, as the same is not contested. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. The order in O.A. No.11585 of 2009 is set aside. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J October 10, 2025 vasu