R. Surendranath Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. 2 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd,/- ^4 NAGAM?i/SA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, S ION OFFICER
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 31942 OF 2023 Between: R. Surendranath Reddy, S/o.Late R.V.Krsihna Reddy, Age 30 Junior Water (Projects) Engineer Assistant, Chief O/o. years, Occ- Resources Department, Kurnool, Colony, Balajinagar, Kurnool - 518 006 R/o.91-4-209-8/1, Mamatanagar, Venaktaramana ...Petitioner AND
#1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Resources Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. Water
#2. The District Collector, Kurnool District, at Kurnool. 3. The Chief Engineer Projects, Water Resources Department, Kurnool. 4. The Engineer - Chief Resources (Administration) floor, Jalasoudha, Irrigation compound, Governorpet, Water Department, Vijayawada, Krishna 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one ...Respondents in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring proceedings No.CE/KNL/ICD32- AWOSER.215/2022 (1798296)/ EC.1/1/6 dated 11-5-2022 of the respondent No.3 in cancelling annual grade increment of the petitioner w.e.f. 01-05-2021 directing to recover the sum of Rs. 10,620/- from the petitioner and in not declaring the probation / regularization of the services of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary contrary to the settled principles of law and violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 respondents to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 07-05-2020 F.N pursuant to petitioner dated 16.09.2023 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the representation of the lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 07-05-2020 F.N. pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 16-9-2023 in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: APHC010621232023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3506] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 31942/2023 Between: R. Surendranath Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
#1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GPFOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition.
#2. Permission is accorded.
#3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. 2 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd,/- ^4 NAGAM?i/SA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, S ION OFFICER
#1. One CC to SMT. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
#3. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:25/06/2025 ORDER WP 31942/2023 DISMISSING THE W.P. AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the 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 25 Jun 2025. The bench was CHALLA GUNARANJAN.
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.