Ragata Susila Rani, vs D Koundinya Sai,
2021 Latest Caselaw 103 AP

      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                          &
              HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                             I.A.No.1 of 2020
                                  in/and
                        WRIT APPEAL No.428 of 2020

                            (Through video conferencing)

Ragatla Susila Rani                                                    ... Appellant

                                        Versus
D.Koundinya Sai and others                                          ... Respondents


Counsel for the appellant           :      Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi

Counsel for respondents 1 to 9      :      Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, Sr. Counsel
                                           for Sri K.Ramamohan

Counsel for respondent No.10        :      Govt. Pleader for Services III

Counsel for respondent No.11        :      Sri G.Simhadri

Counsel for respondents 12 to 26 :         -

                              JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dt:07.01.2021

(ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ)

I.A.No.1 of 2020 is an application for grant of leave to prefer the writ

appeal against the interim order dated 20.10.2020 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in

W.P.No.19285 of 2020.

The appellant was not made a party respondent in the writ petition. It is

stated that she ranks at Sl.No.11 in the seniority list of Junior Lecturers and after

having come to know about the interim order passed, she had taken recourse to

filing of the writ appeal with the application for grant of leave. It is contended

that she is a necessary party to the writ appeal and great prejudice is caused to

her because of the interim order passed.

A perusal of the application goes to show that the appellant has retired on

31.12.2020.

It is submitted by Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No.11 that Mr.Suresh Kumar Potturi, who is the learned

counsel for the appellant, has appeared as caveator for some of the respondents.

It is also submitted that certain applications for vacation of the interim order

filed by some of the respondents are pending consideration before the learned

single Judge.

The aforesaid position is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for

the parties.

If that be the position, we are of the opinion that in a case of the present

nature, it will be more appropriate for the writ appellant to file appropriate

application, if so advised, for impleading herself as party respondent in the

proceedings and also to file application for vacating the interim order, if so

advised.

Accordingly, we do not think that it is a fit case for grant of leave to

appeal. We would, however, request the learned single Judge to consider the

applications, if so filed, in an expeditious manner.

In view of what is stated above, I.A.No.1 of 2020 and the writ appeal

stands disposed of.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                   C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
MRR