APHC010053662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3192/2025 Between: M Ramadevi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the first respondent, and Smt. M. Radha, learned standing counsel for the second respondent. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 13.06.1996, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Staff Nurse on an ad-hoc basis on 13.06.1996 in 2 pursuance of an advertisement dated 20.03.1985. Since the petitioner’s service was not regularized from the date of her initial appointment, she made a representation dated 21.09.2024 (Ex.P.1) to the 2nd respondent. However, the said representation has not been considered. Hence, the above writ petition is filed. 4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments and urged the Court to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21.09.2024 (Ex.P.1), as per the Rules. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services did not refute the said submission. 6. Indeed, directing the authorities to consider the representation is deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1. 7. Since the relief sought in the writ petition is to consider the representation of the petitioner, keeping the writ petition will not serve any purpose. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21.09.2024 (Ex.P.1) and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, strictly as per the Rules. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 07.02.2025 KA 1 (2019) 8 SCALE 544 3 157 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3192/2025 Date: 07.02.2025 KA