V. vtj?va L.qxpi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reg b^y its Principal Secretary, panchayat Raj
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to (a) declare the action of the respondents in issuing G.O.Ms.No. 379 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (MDL. ll) Department dt. 14.08.2013 and also the consequential proceedings in Circular Memo no. 122l CPRandRE 18112007 dt.24.10.2013 and Notification dt. 13.11.20'13 and not appointing the applicants as Panchayat Secretaries on permanent basis and continuing them on contract basis from the year 2007, and not regularizing their services as Panchayat Secretaries from the date of appointment its contrary to the judgement rendered by the Honble Supreme Court and illegal, unjust, and violative of Fundamental Rights enshrined by Art 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and (b) consequently direct the respondents to consider the case and regularize the services of the applicants as Panchayat Secretaries from the date of their applicant. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVTCES - lt The Coud made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT No. 142 1 20L7 o-$ p E R: 'loda1,, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Na-yakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits t.hat during pendency of the present writ petition, the services of thc petitioner were regularized, therefore, the cause in the present writ Pet.ition (TR) does not survive for adjudication and the same has become infructuolrs. In vier,r' of thc above, this writ petir:ion (Tl{) is dismissed as 'in[nrctuous. Nliscellaneous pctitions pending, iI any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as Lo costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER
Two ccs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. IOUTI
Oi "-CC 3. Two CD CoPies to SRt UAVnX4WADI RAIUESH, Advocate [OPUC] To SA TKS \qr I t HIGH COURT DATED:01 10912025 T |rE r)4 tG t a, I , 3 E WP(TR).No.1421 of 2017 DISMISSING THE W.P AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS. G ."{^ X.
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.