Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 7063

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J
R LAXMI PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
P RL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 17357/2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: RAVINDER ALKUCHI
For the Respondents: G SEENA KUMAR (SC FOR APEWIDC AND RVM SSA), GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP), V CH NAIDU

The court ruled that the writ petition became moot as the petitioner retired, and there were no further legal issues to adjudicate.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Action of respondents in not re-inducting petitioner into service held to be illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought continuation in service until age 60 based on Act 4 dated 27.06.2014. Court found absence of cause for adjudication with petitioner retired since 30.04.2019, rendering the matter infructuous. (Para 3 & 4)

(B) Employment Law - Provisions of service extension need to align with statutory provisions and court orders. The court noted the compliance of the Corporation with the interim direction to extend service, making case moot post-retirement. (Para 3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to continue in service till the age of 60 under Act 4. Respondents complied with interim orders previously and extended the service accordingly.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner had retired prior to the final hearing, making the writ moot.

Issues: Whether the non-induction of the petitioner violated legal rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the issue moot as the petitioner retired before the decision was made. The matter no longer required adjudication.

Result: Writ petition is closed with no further order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. no representation for petitioner led to matter being listed for dismissal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner sought continuation of service under act provisions. (Para 3)
3. court closed the writ due to petitioner's retirement. (Para 4)

On 02.05.2025 and 20.06.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner.

2. Today i.e., on 27.06.2025, despite the matter being listed under the caption for dismissal, none appears for the petitioner.

2. The sum and substance of the writ petition is that petitioner sought for continuation of service upto the age of 60 years under the provisions of Act 4 dated 27.06.2014.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5-Corporation while placing a copy of proceedings dated 22.09.2017 of the 2^nd respondent Corporation before this Court, submits that consequent to the interim direction dated 26.05.2017 of this Court, the respondent Corporation extended service of the petitioner upto 60 years and subsequently, petitioner retired from the service on 30.04.2019. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the matter becomes infructuous.

4. Considering the above said submissions as also keeping in view the non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that there is no cause in the lis that has to be adjudicated any more. Therefore, the writ petition is closed.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 7063

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHMAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, JR LAXMI PRASAD – AppellantVersusP RL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION – RespondentWrit Petition No: 17357/2017

The court ruled that the writ petition became moot as the petitioner retired, and there were no further legal issues to adjudicate.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J
R LAXMI PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
P RL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 17357/2017