WP/27658/2026 of B. Chalapathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 September 2026

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.5 in not relieving the Petitioner to enable him to report to duty in the Office of the Respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The Petitioner, who got the appointment under the displaced persons' quota, was allotted to the office of Respondent No.5 in the year 2015 as a Driver. The Petitioner submitted that the vehicle to which the Petitioner was attached, i.e., Jeep No. AP N/9331, was condemned on 22.07.2023 and there was no vehicle either in the GNSS Division, Renigunta, or in the TGP & GNSS Circle, Tirupati, for which the services of the Petitioner could be utilized. On account of the condemnation of the vehicle and due to a lack of vehicles in the said circles, the Petitioner sought for conversion of his post to the post of Record Assistant. In that context, the Petitioner gave a representation to Respondent No.2 for seeking deputation in any other Department.

3. As the Petitioner expressed his willingness to work in the office of the District Agricultural Office, Tirupati, the concerned Officer of the Department addressed a Letter to the Collector to consider the case of the Petitioner for deputation to his Department to attend protocol duties and field activities as the individual has no Government Vehicle to drive in the office of the Respondent No.5. Consequent thereto, the District Collector, vide proceedings dated 22.04.2026, sought the consent of Respondent No.5 and in turn, Respondent No.5 gave his consent on 07.05.2026. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector issued proceedings dated 21.05.2026 deputing the Petitioner to work in the office of Respondent No.3 on a deputation basis while directing Respondent No.5 to relieve the Petitioner immediately. However, Respondent No.5 did not act in terms of the directions issued by Respondent No.2 in the proceedings dated 21.05.2026 and continued to keep the Petitioner without relieving him. Hence, the Writ Petition.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that Respondent No.2 does not have any control over the employees of the Respondent No.5 Department. He further submits that unless the consent is taken from the Engineer-in-Chief of Operations, the impugned proceedings cannot be acted upon.

5. Heard the learned counsel.

6. Respondent No.5, i.e., the Superintending Engineer, TGP and GNSS Circle, Tirupati, is the immediate controlling authority of the Petitioner. The said Respondent has given consent for deputation vide proceedings dated 07.05.2026 and thereafter, Respondent No.5 has resiled from the said consent and continued the Petitioner in the Department contrary thereto. In the opinion of this Court, the same is unfair and cannot be sustained.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the consent of both parties with the following directions:

i) The Respondent No.5 is directed to forthwith relieve the Petitioner in terms of the Proceedings issued vide Roc.No.AdminA3/e-72738/2026, dated 21.05.2026 by the Respondent No.2/District Collector, Tirupati.

ii) There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date : 29.09.2026 eha

WP No.27658 of 2026

Dt.29-09-2026

eha