Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/7879/2025 of MULPURI NAGENDRA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 7 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 7879/2025 Between: 1. MULPURI NAGENDRA, S/O SEETHARAMA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O D.NO.52-12-9, 1ST LANE,
APHC010153422025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 7879/2025
Between:
1. MULPURI NAGENDRA, S/O SEETHARAMA SWAMY, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O D.NO.52-12-9, 1ST LANE, GAYATHRI
NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 520 008, NTR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE
STATE
OF
AP,
REP.BY
ITS
PRI.
SECRETARY,
INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT, AP
SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI,
GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE FIBER NET CORPORATION LTD, (AN UNDERTAKING OF GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADDRESS AT
APSFL, 3RD FLOOR, NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, PANDIT
NEHRU BUS STATION, NH-65, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001.
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the actions of second respondent in issuing withdrawal of services in APSFL/HR/498/withdrawal of service/2024 in O.O.No. 17/2024 dated 21.11.2024 by the second respondent i.e., Managing Director APSFL of the petitioner is questioned as the same is illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional and violative or Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the withdrawal order, dated 21.11.2024 in O.O.No.17/2024 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the same services and continue the petitioner with all incidental and consequential benefits 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 pleased to suspend the withdrawal order of service in APSFL/HR/498/withdrawal of service/2024 in O.O.No. 17/2024 dated 21.11.2024 by the second reinstate the petitioner into his service with the respondent and to second respondent i.e., APSFL, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KOGANTI NAGESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A TULSI RAJ GOKUL
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
WRIT PETITION No.7879 of 2025
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:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in terminating the services of the Petitioner vide APSFL/HR/498/withdrawalofservice/2024 in O.O.No.17 of 2024, dated 21.11.2024, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as an outsourcing employee on 17.07.2020 as Senior Manager (Ware House) – SP & W in Andhra Pradesh Fiber Net Limited/Respondent No.2 by one Cyber Tech Solutions, on a monthly remuneration of Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, the Petitioner was discharging his duties in the said capacity. While so, the impugned proceedings were passed vide APSFL/HR/498/withdrawal ofservice/2024 in O.O.No.17 of 2024, dated 21.11.2024, withdrawing the services of the Petitioner by Respondent No.1 with immediate effect. Questioning the same, the Writ Petition is filed.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it is stated that the Petitioner was appointed on an outsourcing basis by M/s. Cyber Tech Solutions and not by Respondent No.2. It was further stated that the initial appointment of the Petitioner was for a period of two years and that the services of the Petitioner continued thereafter also. Since, there is no employer-employee relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, the Petitioner cannot be treated as an employee of Respondent No.2/Corporation.
4. Heard Sri Koganti Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2.
5. The initial appointment of the Petitioner was made by M/s. Cyber Tech Solutions on 17.07.2020 as Senior Manager (Ware House) – SP & W in Andhra Pradesh Fiber Net Limited/Respondent No.2, on a consolidated pay of Rs.40,000/-. After rendering service for a period of two years, the services of the Petitioner were utilized by Respondent No.2 for a further period of two years. The Petitioner was not appointed by Respondent No.2, nor the appointment was made pursuant to any public notification and selection process. The primary relation of employee and employer is not established and in such a scenario, no vested right for Petitioner is created and withdrawal of services by the Respondent No.2 per se cannot be found fault with. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
6. No order as to costs.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Date: 08.09.2026 chs
WRIT PETITION No.7879 of 2025 Dated: 08.09.2025
chs