Andhra Pradesh High Court

WP/13336/2007 of S.M.SUBHANI, VIZAG DISTRICT. Vs GOVT.OF AP BY AGRL.& CO.OP.(HORTICULTURE) & 2 OTHERS on 20 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION NO: 13336 OF 2007 Between: 1. S.M.SUBHANI, VIZAG DISTRICT., s/o late

APHC010355432007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

PRESENT

Between:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. S.M.SUBHANI, VIZAG DISTRICT., s/o late P.Masthan Khan, Horticulture Officer, Narsipatnam, Vizag District. ...Petitioner AND

1. GOVT OF AP BY AGRL CO OP HORTICULTURE 2 OTHERS, Co.operation (Horticulture) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad represented by its Principal Secretary.

2. Government of Andhra Pradesh Hortculture Department, Hyderabad, represented by the Commissioner of horticulture.

3. A P Public Service Commission represented by its, Secretary, Hyderabad. ...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 toissue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus by setting aside theorder of the Hon'ble A.P.A.T., in O.A.No.6599 of 2004, dt.3-1-2007 and consequently direct the respondent not to insist on possessing basic degree in Horticulture stipulated as one of the qualifications for the appointment to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture as stipulated in Annexure to Rule 5 in G.O.Ms.No.766, Food & Agriculture Department dated 15-9-89 vide which A.P.Horticulture Service Rules were issued by the Government and set aside the Notification No.12/2004 of the third respondent in so far as appointment to the post of Asst.Director of Horticulture, after declaring the same as contrary to the Note to Rule 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.766, Food & Agriculture Department dated 15-9- 89, and declare Rule 5 of the G.O.Ms.No.766, Food & Agriculture Department dated 15-9-89, as discriminatory, illegal, arbitrary, vindictive and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India etc., in the interest of justice and pass suchother order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 16703 OF 2007

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the Result Notification dt.11-6- 2007 of the 3rd respondentissued in pursuance of the Notification No.12/2004 for the posts of Assistant Director of Horticulture in A.P.Horticulture Service- (Post Code.10) including selection pronouncement of results of selection, in the interest of justice pending disposal of the writ petition and pass suchother order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circusmtances of the case. IA NO: 2 OF 2007(WPMP 24805 OF 2007

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the petitioners as Respondent No.4 WP.No.13336 of 2007 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2008(WVMP 598 OF 2008 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 vacate the interim orders grant in WPMP NO. 16703/2007 in WP No. 13336/2007 dt. 25-6-2007 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: B SUDHAKAR REDDY & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondents: HARIJA AKKINENI Counsel for the Respondents: B MANJULATHA VEDAVALLY The Court made the following order:

ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

No representation for the petitioner.

2. The matter pertains to the year 2007 and it is listed under the caption „old matters‟.

3. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed for “want of prosecution”.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J

____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM,J

Dated: 21.09.2026

SRT

74

Dated: 21.09.2026 SRT

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead