No.402, Sri Datta v. Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 16 Jun 2025
- Bench
- VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI, VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 16, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
No.402, Sri Datta ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Ports Wing, New Delhi.
Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep. by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam.
The Secretary, (Personnel Division) General Administration Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one nature of mandamus declaring the Employment Notice No. 12/2018, respondent in so far as “Method of Recruitment 17.12.2018 issued by the IS by direct recruitment” is concerned to fill up one post of Traffic Manager (HoD) (CL-I) (category-1 Ports), as illegal, discriminatory, violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of the Visakhapatnam Employees Promotion) Amendment Regulations. 2009 and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to depute the petitioner to the (Recruitment, Seniority Trust Port in the / % post of Traffic Manager in pursuance of the Employment Notice dated 17.5.2018.
No.06/2018, . lA NO: 1 OF 7niQ • Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Employment Notice No.12/2018, dated 17.12.2018 issued by the S'" respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 4 OF 9niQ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the office order no. 19-2019 dated 17-04-2019 (No. A-12023/10/2018-PE-I) issued by the 4»' respondent and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent bearing No. C2/PC/BRSR/TM/2019/31 29-05-2019, pending disposal of W.P.No. 1714/2019. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.S. Counsel for the Respondent No.1:SRI PELLETI RAJESH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD 17, dated Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI VIRUPAKSHA DATTATREYA The Court made the following: ORDER GOUDA, SC FOR VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST I APHC010037352019 0?40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PFTITIQN NO: 1714/2019 AND ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Between; Kunche Rajendra Kumar Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner;
1.SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S);
1.PELLET1 RAJESH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2.V1RUPAKSHA DATTATREYA GOUDA (SC FOR VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY) The Court made the following ORDER; When the matter is taken up for hearing. Sri S.S.Rama Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authority appointed the petitioner for the post of Traffic Manager in New Mangalore of the Petitioner, they intend to Port, as prayed and on the instructions withdraw the petition. 2 i
2. Learned Standing Counsel behalf respondents is attendance.
3. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to Costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,
One CC to Sri S. S. Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to Sri Pelleti Rajesh Kumar (Central Govt. Counsel) [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, SC for Visakhapatnam Port Trust[opuc]
Three CD Copies. i. high court DATED; 16/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.1714 of 2019 dismissing the W P WITHOUT COSTS AS WITHDRAWN
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 16, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 16 Jun 2025. The bench was VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI, VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.