Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/38667/2015 of V.V.Srinivasarao, Vs The Registrar Administration, on 22 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 38667/2015 Between: 1.
APHC010811042015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 38667/2015
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. V.V.SRINIVASARAO,, S/O SUBRAHMANYA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETRD. SENIOR ASSISTANT, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, RESIDENT OF D.NO:22- 58/4, 9TH STREET, RAMNAGAR, YELAMANCHILI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD, FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...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 toto issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent in redesignating the petitioner from the post of Senior Assistant (Category III) to that of Superintendent (Category III) as illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable and in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of G.O.Ms.No:100, dated 8.8.2013 and the orders of the 1st respondent, dated 23.4.2014 and 29.11.2014 and in violation of the Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the 211c1 respondent to implement the G.O.Ms.No:100, dated 8.8.2013 and the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 23.4.2014 and 29.11.2014 in its true letter and spirit and redesignate him to the post of Superintendent (Category No:3) and pay the difference of pay and allowance from the date of his retirement by fixing his pension in the redesignated post and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 49773 OF 2015 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 2nd respondent to consider aFey case and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P S P SURESH KUMAR
The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner again seeks time. This matter was posted under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ and has passed over in the morning, on account of the absence of the learned counsel.
2. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to accommodate the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
_________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
Date:23.02.2026 KPV
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No.38667 of 2015 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
23.02.2026
KPV