IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16766 of 2008 Between: N.V.V.S.H. Prasad S/o. Late N. Subba Rao Tenali Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Manager, Jai Bharat Aided Elementary School, Nandula Salaka, Gamgolu Post, Dummugudem Mandal, Khammam District. 2 The District Educational Officer, Khammam, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Madnamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not passing any orders in appeal dt. 12-12-1998 against the order of the 1st respondent, removing the petitioner from service as SGBT and consequentially direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential beneﬁts and also direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary including leave period salary for the period from 1-8-1995 to 31- 12-1998 and to grant such other relief or releifs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a School Teacher, by the ﬁrst respondent in the year 1987. The appointment was approved by the second respondent. The petitioner states that he applied for leave initially for one year from 01.07.1997 and thereafter for another year. The ﬁrst respondent removed the petitioner from service, vide orders, dated 25.09.1998. The petitioner submitted a representation/appeal, dated 12.12.1998, to the second respondent. Complaining that it was not being disposed of, he approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.25591 of 2001. The writ petition was disposed of on 18.12.2001, directing the second respondent to consider the representation/appeal and pass orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. This writ petition is filed almost for the similar relief. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Education. There is a serious doubt as to the nature of representation made by the petitioner on 12.12.1998 before the second respondent. After narrating his grievance, the petitioner, ultimately, requested the second respondent to grant leave, arrange for payment of salary and give protection to the service. He expressed his willingness to join the duty, whenever the second respondent directs him. By no means, it can be treated as an appeal against the order of removal. Be that as it may, the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2001 by filing W.P.No.25591 of 2001. The writ petition was disposed of with certain directions. In case there was any lapse on the part of the second respondent, the petitioner ought to have taken necessary steps. Nearly after seven years, this writ petition is ﬁled almost for the identical relief. This Court cannot render its exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a futile one. A person, who did not care to reap the beneﬁt of an order passed by this Court, cannot be extended the same relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.08.2008 kdl