SIRAGAM KRISHNA Vs. CHIRANJEEVI CHOWDRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material available on record.

(2.) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by both counsel and upon perusing the material available, the following facts emerged for consideration:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that there is no intentional or deliberate violation by the respondents in implementing the interim order, dated 28.09.2020 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2020. It is also contended that in view of the clarification given by this Court in its order, dated 05.03.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2020 while the interim order, dated 28.09.2020 was made absolute, there is no any violation of the orders of this Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.64, Agriculture and Cooperation (H&S) Department, dated 19.06.2020 making amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Horticulture Subordinate Service Rules, 2005. The petitioners without challenging the service Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 19.06.2020, which are intact, filed writ petition challenging the amendment made to the notification and corrigendum, which is not sustainable.