1 APHC010146852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7821/2026 Between: 1. V. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/O. V. CHINNA SUBBANNA @ V. CHINNA SUBBA REDDY, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. ECONOMICS LECTURER (CONTRACT), GOVERNMENT GIRLS JUNIOR COLLEGE, PAKALA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION (INTERMEDIATE) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR - 522238 3. THE DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522302 4. THE PRINCIPAL, THE GOVERNMENT GIRLS JUNIOR COLLEGE, PAKALA,TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -517112 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents more particularly action of the 3rd respondent in proceeding to dispense the service of the petitioner on the ground of attaining the age of 60 years without applying the benefit conferred under Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner up to completion of age of 62 years on par with others by extending the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 15 Finance (HR. IV- FR and LR) Department Dt. 31.01.2022 and pass orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 to direct the Respondents to continue the services of the petitioner in 4th respondent‟s College, till attaining the age of 62 years with all attending benefits, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7821 of 2026 ORDER:- The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “…..to issue a order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents more particularly action of the 3rd respondent in proceeding to dispense the service of the petitioner on the ground of attaining the age of 60 years without applying the benefit conferred under Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner up to completion of age of 62 years on par with others by extending the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 15 Finance (HR. IV- FR and LR) Department Dt. 31.01.2022 and pass....” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Services appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the identical part-time lecturers have been continued based on the orders passed by this Court and hence, the petitioner is also entitled to continue till he attains the age of superannuation i.e., 62 years. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent has made her submissions based on the instructions by the Commissioner, Intermediate Education. The initial identical writ petitions were disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to continue the identical part-time employees by applying the principles laid down in G.O.No.15 dated 4 31.01.2022, the age of retirement came to be increased from „60‟ to „62‟ years and the said order challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by way of W.A.No.770 of 2022, which was disposed of on 13.02.2024 modifying the order with the following directions: “Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside and liberty is reserved to the Appellants to re-engage the Respondent, if they so desire, and also other similarly situated employees even beyond the age of ‟60 years‟ subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O.No.15 dated 31.01.2022. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the judgment dated 13.02.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.770 of 2022, this writ petition is also disposed of with the same relief as granted in the W.A.No.770 of 2022. No order as to costs. 6. Registry shall tag the copy of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.770 of 2022 along with the copy of the order of the present writ petition. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 23.03.2026 RMR 5 57 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7821 of 2026 23.03.2026 W RMR