V.KRISHNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 13303/2024 Between:
1. V.KRISHNA,, S/O.APPALASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, WORKING AS PGT (POST GRADUATE TEACHER) SANSKRIT AT ANDHRA PRADESH RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE AT KODIGENAHALLI, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (HR IV-FR AND LR) VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIJAYAWADA.
4. THE ANDHRA PRADESH RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE, KODIGENAHALI, ITS PRINCIPAL KODIGENAHALLI, REP. BY ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 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 tomay be pleased to issue Writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 ...RESPONDENT(S)
: in not taking steps for enhancement of petitioners age of and 2 superannuation from 60 to 62 years on the proposals dated 12-10-2022 sent by the 3rd respondent society and as well the representation dt. 12-02-2024 is as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.o.Ms.no. 15 dated 31-01-2022 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service in the 4th respondent school as PGT (Post Graduate Teacher) Sanskrit till he attains the age of Superannuation of 62 years as per G.O..Ms.No. 15 dated 31-01- 2022 duly considering the proposals sent by the 3rd respondent dated 12-10- 2022 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service in the 4* respondent School as PGT (Post Graduate Teacher) Sanskrit till he attains the age of superannuation of 62 years pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 15 dated 31-01-2022 duly considering the proposals sent by the 3'^'* respondent dated 12.10.2022 and as well the representation dt. 12.02.2024 pending writ petition in this Hon’ble Court and pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to Vacate the Interim Order dated.28.06.202 4 passed in I.A No. 1 of 2024 in W.P. No. 13303 of 2024 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Pleased to Vacate the Interim Order dated.28.06.202 4 passed in I.A No. 1 of 2024 in W.P. No. 13303 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES III
2. ANITHA MESA (SC FOR APREIS TW SW BC)
3. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ::
ORDER ::
Operative part
Sri S. Lakshmi Naryana, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition. Permission is accorded. Given the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 14.11.2025 TVN ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 127 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.13303 OF 2024 Date: 14.11.2025 TVN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 14 Nov 2025. The bench was SUBBA REDDY SATTI.
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.