Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9106 (AP)

A SASHIDHAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/5304/2024 · 2025-01-07

Subba Reddy Satti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010100392024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5304/2024 Between: 1. A SASHIDHAR, S/O. LATE. A. VEERA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT, SRI. MAHANANDESWARA SWAMYVARI DEVASTHANAM, MAHANANDI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING IN SRI KALAHASTEESWARA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, SRIKALAHASTI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. AMARAVATHI. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI MAHANANDESWARA SWAMYVARI DEVASTHANAM, MAHANANDI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 and 3 in not considering the name of the Petitioner for promotion as Superintendent in the 3 Respondent Devasthanam as Per GO.Ms.No. 257, General Administration (Service-C) Department, Dt 10-06-1999 as illegal, arbitrary 2 and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner as Superintendent in the 3rd Respondent Devasthanamin the light of GO.Ms.No. 257, General Administration (Service-C) Department, Dt 10- 06-1999 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION) 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order: Heard Sri J.V.Siva Sai, learned counsel representing Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending the writ petition, petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent vide Lr.No.A2/115/2024, dated 23.11.2024. Learned counsel would further submit that in view of the subsequent developments taking place in the present writ petition, no orders are required. 3. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 07.01.2025 SNI 3 205 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.5304 of 2024 Dated 07.01.2025 SNI