IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 912 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05/06/2009 in WP NO : 16579 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Ch.Satyanandam, S/o. Suryanarayana. R/o. D.No. 11-70, Drivers Colony, Yanam Road, Kakinada - 16, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. Principal Secretary. Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director & Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Endowments, Govt. of A.P., Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Principal, M.S.N. Jr.College, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 5 The Correspondent, M.S.N.Jr.College, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following Judgment: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.912 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This Writ Appeal is filed against the orders passed by a Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.16875 of 1999 dated 05.06.2009. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as infructuous basing on the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner appearing therein that as the writ petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation from the respondent-college on 31.12.2008, no further adjudication was warranted. Hence, the present appeal. Smt. Anjanadevi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner submits that inasmuch as the appellant has put in 38 years of long service in the respondent-college, he is entitled to be absorbed into service with all consequential benefits. She further submits that the learned Single Judge without taking this fact into consideration erroneously dismissed the writ petition basing on the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner appearing therein. She, therefore, submits that the writ appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Admittedly, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous basing on the representation made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner appearing therein. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the appellant-writ petitioner to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge against the impugned order. No order as to costs. __________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 28th July, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb