APHC010654872016 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: 36474 OF 2016 Between: 1. Tottempudi Rajesh Kumar, S/o. T.V. Seshaiah, Hindu, aged about 27 years, R/o. Flat No. 406, Sri Ram Residency, 3rd Lane, Syamalanagar, Guntur. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P., rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada. ...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 any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in prescribing shorthand as a necessary qualification for the post of Administrative Assistant in the office of the 2nd respondent as illogical and unwarranted and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner for the post of Administrative Assistant on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner in pursuance of the employment notification dated 12-06-2015 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: RAJA REDDY KONETI 2 Counsel for the Respondents: GP for MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) Counsel for the Respondents:S PRANATHI 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 any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in prescribing shorthand as a necessary qualification for the post of Administrative Assistant in the office of the 2nd respondent as illogical and unwarranted and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner for the post of Administrative Assistant on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner in pursuance of the employment notification dated 12-06-2015 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass......” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2 and also learned Government Pleader for 1st respondent jointly submitted that in the year 2015, CRDA issued a notification dated 12.06.2015 in order to fill up 210 posts through direct recruitment. 3. Accordingly, the recruitment tests were conducted, i.e. written test, type writing test and shorthand test for the posts of Administrative Assistants. However, none of the candidates who participated in the examination to the post of Administrative Assistants pursuant to the impugned notification dated 12.06.2015 were qualified, as such, no recruitment was undertaken pursuant 3 to the said notification. However, on written instructions, learned counsels for the respondents stated that for administrative exigencies, two posts of Administrative Assistants were filled on contractual basis. The said statement was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, making the written instructions of APCRDA dated 25.09.2025 as part of record, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 5. Accordingly, 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.36474 of 2016 Date: 10.10.2025 RNS