APHC010352442004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI I.A.No.2 of 2025 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO: 22347 of 2004 Bench Sr.No:- 18 [3506] Yenugu Murali Krishna, And 8 Others and Others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. The Supdt Engineer O Apcpdcl and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s): M PITCHAIAH, R ANNAPURNA Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): 815/P LAKSHMA REDDY, V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 12th February 2026 The Court made the following Common Order: The petitioners initially filed writ petition challenging the action of respondents in not conducting interviews to the posts of JLM/JA/LDC/RC/Typist/Sub-Engineers in pursuance to the notification dated 25.05.2001, to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to 2 conclude interviews for aforesaid posts and process the cases of the petitioners for selection. 2. The writ petition is stated to have been filed in the month of December, 2004. There was no interim order granted at the stage of admission. Nevertheless, it was stated that the respondents have conducted interviews sometime in the year 2005 and the candidature of all the petitioners came to be considered in terms of the criteria laid down under the notification and eventually, the cases of petitioners 1, 3 & 7 came to be rejected by proceedings dated 10.03.2005 for the reasons that the service certificates produced by them found to be manipulated documents. Basing on the said subsequent events, in particular the rejection of cases of petitioners 1, 3 & 7, petitioners have come up with I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking for amendment of the main prayer in the writ petition. 3. By aforesaid amendment, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in not regularizing/absorbing them into regular service by setting aside the orders of rejection dated 10.03.2005, issued against the petitioners 1, 3 & 7, and further to extend all attendant benefits including continuation of service, back wages and consequential benefits along with interest @ 12% p.a.. 3 4. Opposing the aforesaid application, the respondents have filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the cause in the writ petition indeed got worked out by virtue of conducting interviews way back in the year 2005 itself. The rejection of candidatures of petitioners 1, 3 & 7 by proceedings dated 10.03.2005, have given raise to a new cause of action for the said petitioners to lay challenge to those proceedings, rather, the petitioner chose to maintain silent and have come up with the present application nearly after 21 years, which is clearly barred by delay and laches; hence, sought for dismissal of the said application. 5. This Court has gone through averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2025. As could be seen from the Para-2, petitioners did explain about the conducting of interviews, though specific day has not been set out. It is stated that the cases of petitioners 1, 3 & 7 came to be rejected by proceedings dated 10.03.2005; however, there is no mention as to what happened to the cases of other writ petitioners. Further, the petitioners also do not mention any specific reasons as to why they remained silent for nearly 21 years in coming up with this application. As there are absolutely no reasons or explanation forthcoming as to why there was abnormal delay in coming up with the application seeking for amendment of the writ prayer and also considering the fact that the challenge sought to be laid by 4 way of amendment was on account of a fresh cause of action, in view of the rejection cases of petitioners 1, 3 & 7, they should have initiated independent and separate proceedings challenging the respective rejection orders. Evidently, the other petitioners are silent and not before this Court. 6. This Court is not convinced with the manner in which the application is moved. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the application does not provide any reasons or give explanation explaining the delay; therefore, the same is required to be rejected on that ground. 7. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2025 stands dismissed. 8. In view of the subsequent developments, that the interviews came to be conducted, the cause in the writ petition also does not survive for further consideration. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 12.02.2026 ANS 5 215 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 22347 of 2004 Date: 12.02.2026 ANS