WP/10237/2026 of KALLA GOVINDA RAO Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 19 April 2026

1. KALLA GOVINDA RAO, S/O. LATE RAMU NAIDU, AGED

YEARS, OCC PART TIME VOCATIONAL JR. LECTURER IN A T (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, SRUGAVARAPUKOTA,

VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

2. C. THIRUMALESWARA REDDY,, S/O. LATE C.V. SIVA REDDY,

AGED

YEARS, OCC PART TIME VOCATIONAL JR. LECTURER IN M AT (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, NANDIKOTKUR, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

3. YVHSRSS NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. Y.H. KESAVA RAO, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC PART TIME VOCATIONAL JR. LECTURER IN M AT (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, REPALLE, BAPATIA DISTRICT

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238 ... PETITIONERS

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

SCHOOL EDUCATION (INTERMEDIATE) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR - 522238

3. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, TADEPALLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522501

4. THE GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, A.P. - 535145

5. THE GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, NANDIKOTKUR, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P. - 518401

6. THE GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, REPALLE, BAPATIA DISTRICT, A.P. - 522

...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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3RD respondent in proceeding to dispense the services of the petitioners on the ground of attaining the age of 60 years without applying the benefit conferred under Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners up to completion of age of 62 years on par with others by extending the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 15 Finance (HR. IV- FR LR) Department dated 31.01.2022 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES III

2. GP FOR SERVICES I

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 10237 of 2026 The Court made the following Order:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 3RD respondent in proceeding to dispense the services of the petitioners on the ground of attaining the age of 60 years without applying the benefit conferred under Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners up to completion of age of 62 years on par with others by extending the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 15 Finance (HR. IV- FR LR) Department dated 31.01.2022 and to pass such …..”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the identical part-time lecturers have been continued based on the orders passed by this Court and hence, the petitioner is also entitled to continue till he attains the age of superannuation i.e., 62 years.

4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent has made submissions based on the instructions furnished by the Commissioner, Intermediate Education dated 24.02.2026. According to the said instructions though the initial writ petitions were disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to continue the identical part-time employees by applying the principles laid down in G.O.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, the age of retirement came to be increased from “60” to “62 years” and the said order challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by way of W.A.No.770 of 2022, which was disposed of on 13.02.2024 modifying the order with the following directions: “Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside and liberty is reserved to the Appellants to reengage the Respondent, if they so desire, and also other similarly situated employees even beyond the age of “60 years” subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O. No. 15, dated 31.01.2022. There shall be no order as to costs.”

5. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the judgment dated 13.02.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.770 of 2022, this writ petition is also disposed of with the same relief as granted in the W.A.No.770 of 2022. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Registry shall tag the copy of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.770 of 2022 along with the copy of the order of the present Writ Petition.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH Date: 20.04.2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 24.04.2026 B/o. PSA