APHC010631302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 32620/2025 Between: 1. GULLAPALLI ANJANEYA SARMA,, S/O SRI GULLAPALLI DATTATREYA GHANAPATHI, AGED 18 YEARS, MAJOR R/O SITA RAMA AGRAHARAN, KONTHAMURU, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR 2. THE TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT 3. THE PROJECT OFFICER, S.V. INSTITUTE OF HIGHER VEDIC STUDIES, TIRUPATHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T B L MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. AMRUTHA BOPPUDI 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS NJS,J W.P No.32620 of 2025 2 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner, pursuant to the Notification No.01/2025 dated 06.08.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 applied for “Vedapandit” under “Vedaparayana Scheme”. As he did not get call letter to attend the interview which was scheduled on 10.11.2025, he made enquiries and informed that he was under aged and as such, he was not called for the interview. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the said notification dated 06.08.2025 and the averments made in the writ petition sought to advance arguments. 3. However, Smt. Amrutha Boppudi, learned Standing Counsel for TTD, while drawing the attention to the relief sought in the writ petition, states that pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 22.11.2025, the writ petitioner was permitted to participate in the interview, which was held on 25.11.2025. She further submits that the result of the interview is yet to be declared. She submits that as the relief sought for by the writ petitioner was already granted, the writ petition has become infructuous. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction dated 22.11.2025 i.e., permission to the petitioner to participate in the interview is subject to the result of the writ petition and therefore, the matter has to be heard on merits. 5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides. 6. As seen from the relief sought for in the writ petition, the main grievance of the petitioner is not issuing call letter and by virtue of the directions dated 22.11.2025, he was permitted to participate in the interview. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the matter need not be examined further. Suffice to state that the depending upon the result of the interview, it is always open to the petitioner to seek recourse to law. NJS,J W.P No.32620 of 2025 3 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, granting such liberty to the petitioner. However, the result of the interview shall be intimated to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, once the entire selection process is completed. 8. As this Court has disposed of the writ petition without going into the merits of the case, all the pleas raised in the writ petition are left open and the petitioner is entitled to raise the same, in the event of any fresh cause of action. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:21.01.2026 Ksj