B Reddy Sudhakara Rao vs The Registrar General
2023 Latest Caselaw 5728 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

B Reddy Sudhakara Rao vs The Registrar General on 30 November, 2023

Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao

Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao

                                                                  [ 3417 ]

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
                 (Special Original Jurisdiction)

         THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER
             TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

                                   PRESENT

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

                 WRIT PETITION NO: 22490 OF 2023

     Between:

        1. B REDDY SUDHAKARA RAO, S/o B. Naga raja rao, aged
           about 65 years R/o 3-16-D,Teachers colony, Silkworm seeds
           production center Madanapalle, Annamayya(D),A.P.

                                                       ...PETITIONER(S)
                                     AND

        1. THE REGISTRAR (GENERAL), High Court of Andhra
           Pradesh at Amaravathi, Guntur District.
        2. The Principal District Judge, Chittoor.

                                                       ...RESPONDENTS

The Court made the following order:

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J:

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action

of the respondents in not extending the contract appointment of the

petitioner beyond the age of 66 years as illegal, arbitrary and

consequently, to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 08.08.2023 submitted by the petitioner and

continue with him with the contract of employment beyond

65 years.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri N.Ranga Reddy and

Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned standing counsel representing on behalf

of the respondents and perused the counter affidavit filed by the

respondents.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would fairly submit that the

petitioner is not claiming extension as a matter of right but his

submission is that he submitted a representation dated 08.08.2023

and the same may be considered by the respondents in terms of the

order dated 27.08.2021 in W.P. No.8959 of 2021. Learned

standing counsel for respondents reported no objection.

4. It is seen that in W.P.No.8959 of 2021, the Division Bench

of this Court passed the following order:

"10. Since the learned counsel for the parties agree that this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in P.Subramanyam Pillai (W.P. No.16605 of 2016), this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment and order passed in P.Subramanyam Pillai providing that if the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Ananthapuram, feels satisfied with the petitioner's performance, he shall be free to extend the services of the petitioner further notwithstanding that the petitioner has completed 65 years of age."

Now the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that

his case may be considered by the respondents in terms of the

above order.

5. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the

petitioner dated 08.08.2023 in terms of the above order and pass an

appropriate order expeditiously but not later than three weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in

this case shall stand closed.

__________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

___________________________________ VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J 30.11.2023 Note: issue C.C. by 04.12.2023 B/o.SS