SK SIDDIQ AHMED v. VILLAGE
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 21, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2892/2024 Between:
1. SK SIDDIQ AHMED, S/O SK KAJA RASOOL, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC LANGUAGE PANDIT GR-II, (URDU) MPUP (URDU) SCHOOL, RESIDENT OF ANANTASAGARAM ANANTASAGARAM AND VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY AND GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. EDUCATION SCHOOL ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT,
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, SP ROAD, TOWERS, NTT FLOOR, 4TH IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ANJANEYA
3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE.
5. THE DEPUTY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ENQUIRY OFFICER, NELLORE DIVISION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
6. THE DEPUTY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, GUDUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. PRESENTLY IN TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S)
: 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 an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus under article 226 of the constitution of India declaring the inaction of the respondents in implementing the order dated 24.4.2019 in OA No. 3286 of 2017 on the file of the AP Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (Stands abolished) in so far as directing the respondents to pay the consequential benefits namely arrears of salary etc., while setting aside the order of removal from service dated 15.10.2017 passed by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith pay the consequential benefits namely arrears of salary etc., as directed by an order dated 24.4.2019 in OA No. 3286 of 2017 on the file of the AP Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (Stands abolished) and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to pay the consequential benefits from the date of removal of the petitioner i.e. 15.11.2017 till his reinstatement as directed by an order dated 24.4.2019 in OA No. 3286 of 2017 on the file of the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP) 3 The Court made the following
ORDER:
(Per Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions submitted that the order of the Tribunal has been complied with.
Learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing respondents also submits that the order of the Tribunal has been complied with and he has also placed on record the proceedings issued to that effect by the District Educational Officer, SPSR Nellore District.
Therefore, recording the aforesaid submissions made by both the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 24.11.2025 KA ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 2892/2024 Date: 24.11.2025 KA
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 24 Nov 2025. The bench was CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA.
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.