N. SAI PRASAD, KRISHNA DISTRICT. v. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, AND 2 OTHER
WP/16336/2005 · 2026-02-17
Challa Gunaranjan
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20613 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20613 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010230632005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 16336 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:-37 [3506]
N. Sai Prasad ...Petitioner Vs. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada and Others ...Respondent(s)
********** Advocate for Petitioner:
Sri KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI Advocate(s) for Respondent(s):
GP FOR EDUCATION, GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION, Sri CH SAMSON BABU
CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 18th February 2026
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
2. The writ petitioner challenges the termination order, dated 19.12.2003, purported to have been issued by the 3rd respondent, removing him from service as Attender on account of the appointment not being approved by the competent authority i.e. 1st respondent, to be illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice.
2
3. This Court, by interim order, dated 13.02.2007, passed in WPMP No.20757 of 2005, has directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith and pay salaries regularly. The said order subsists as on today.
4. The respondents 1 and 2 have also filed WVMP No.2403 of 2009 and on 09.04.2010, this Court directed the same to be tagged along with writ petition. Hence, the interim order continued and is subsisting as on today.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite making efforts, he could not get in touch with the writ petitioner and the present status of petitioner is unknown.
6. As in view of the interim orders granted by this Court, the respondents since were directed to reinstate petitioner back into service and continue to pay salary regularly, that the petitioner had the benefit of such interim order even as on today, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition stands disposed of. In case, petitioner has any further grievance, it is left open for him to agitate before appropriate forum. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:18.02.2026. cs