D.Lakshmi Narayana vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Final Order
Court:High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Judge:Hon'ble Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Case Status:Dismissed
Order Date:15 Jul 2024
CNR:APHC010176832018

AI Summary

Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order

Order Issued After Hearing

Purpose:

Disposed

Before:

Hon'ble Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

Listed On:

15 Jul 2024

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Download True Copy

Order Text

APHC010176832018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

WRIT PETITION NO: 7900/2018

Between:

D.Lakshmi Narayana, ...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.BHANU PRIYA G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.C SUDESH ANAND 2.K RAMAKANTH REDDY 3.CHALLA GUNARANJAN 4.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, seeking the indulgence of the Court with the following prayer:

"……to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in allowing the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to retire the petitioner on attaining 58 years of age, though the age of superannuation fixed under AICTE Regulations as 62 years and 60 years as per the AFRC guidelines and amended section 78-A of the A.P.Education Act, 1982 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, discrimination, unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights guraranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 to continue the petitioner in service as Senior Assistant in 6th respondent institution till he attain the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years of age of AICTE rules are applied; or upto 60 years as per the AFRC guidelines and Section 78-A of the A.P.Education Act, 1982 in case of the petitioner is treated as non teaching staff".

  1. Ms. G.Bhanu Priya, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that no further orders are required in this matter and the petition may be disposed of, since relief has become infructuous.

  2. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

__________________________________

Date: 15.07.2024. PND