Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6485/2024 of A DEVENDRA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 29 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] WEDNESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 6485/2024 Between: 1. A DEVENDRA, S/O. A.VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-72, KOTHA
APHC010123292024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
WRIT PETITION NO: 6485/2024
Between:
1. A DEVENDRA, S/O. A.VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-72, KOTHA CHERLOPALLE VILLAGE, PUDIPATLA
MANDAL, TIRUPATI (RURAL), TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION
(UE)
DEPARTMENT,
A.P.
SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. SRI
VENKATESWARA
VETERINARY
UNIVERSITY,
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE,
TIRUPATI,
TIRUPATI
DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR
4. SRI VENKATESWARA VETERINARY UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF
VETERINARY SCIENCE, TIRUPATI, REP.BY ITS ASSOCIATE DEAN.
5. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, , SRI VENKATESWARA VETERINARY
UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not considering the case of petitioner for appointment as Record Assistant on compassionate grounds in lieu of retirement of his father under medical invalidation is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner on compassionate grounds forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to consider and dispose of the 3rd representation dated 22-12-2023 submitted by the petitioner’s father for appointment on compassionate grounds in favour of the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the 3, 4 and 5th Respondents here in to file its counter affidavit and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. R CHANDRA REDDY
2. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP)
3. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP)
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Writ Petition is filed against the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as Record Assistant on compassionate grounds in view of retirement of his father under medical invalidation.
2. Heard Mr.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel representing Ms.Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Mr.R.Chandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5.
3. The short grievance of the petitioner is that, though his father was retired on medical invalidation, his case was not considered for compassionate appointment under the Rules. Petitioner’s father submitted a representation dated 22.04.2022 stating that he was suffering from severe Chronic Kidney Disease (Stage-IV) and was unable to attend his regular duties properly due to illness and also doctor advised him to take rest.
4. Respondent No.4 forwarded the said representation to respondent No.3 on 22.04.2022. Consequently, petitioner’s father was directed to appear before the Medical Board on 09.06.2022. Regional Medical Board, after examination, issued proceedings stating that petitioner’s father was not fit to perform his duties and recommended that he be declared medically invalidated on medical grounds.
5. On 28.06.2022, respondent No.3 constituted a Committee, which, on 29.06.2022, considered the case of petitioner’s father and recommended his retirement with effect from 09.06.2022 on the ground of medical invalidation. Thereafter, petitioner along with his father, submitted representation to respondent No.3 seeking to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds, with a fond hope that petitioner would be provided employment, as his father had sufficient left-over service of five years, which includes the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. The said representation has been kept pending without passing any orders by the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to the authorities to consider petitioner’s case and pass appropriate orders as per the applicable Rules, particularly in view of the enhancement of age of superannuation.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, though had taken an objection regarding the applicability of age of superannuation to the petitioner, submitted that, at the time of appointment of petitioner’s father, the applicable age of superannuation was different, and he was accordingly retired. He further submitted that the authorities will consider and pass appropriate orders on the request of the petitioner for considering his case on compassionate grounds.
8. Considering the submissions made on either side, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.04.2022 seeking compassionate appointment on the ground of medical invalidation of petitioner’s father and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date : 30-09-2026 BMS