Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/19044/2024 of SHAIK ABDUL SATTAR Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 9 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 19044/2024 Between: 1. SHAIK ABDUL SATTAR, S/O.S.IMAM SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS
APHC010373882024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 19044/2024
Between:
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.
1. SHAIK ABDUL SATTAR, S/O.S.IMAM SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRADE V.KORLAKUNTA GRAMPANCHAYAT,
GALIVEEDU MANDAL,ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF AP, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, , AP.TADEPALI,GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE MANDAL PARISHAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GALIVEEDU MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE, KADAPA, YSR DISTRICT.
5. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, YSR DISTRICT KADAPA.
...RESPONDENT(S):
The Court made the following ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not passing orders declaring the probation of the petitioner to the post of Panchayat Secretary, which is assailed as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Rule 18(b)(ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that, as per Rule 18(b)(ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, if no orders are issued under the said Rule within a period of one year from the date of expiry of the prescribed or extended period of probation, the probationer shall, subject to other provisions of the Rules, be deemed to have satisfactorily completed probation with retrospective effect from the date of expiry of such prescribed or extended period of probation. It is further submitted that, in the instant case, the petitioner was appointed on 08.11.2019, and even after lapse of more than two years, the respondents have not passed any final orders declaring the probation of the petitioner.
4. Considering the same and upon perusal of the record, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents, more particularly Respondent Nos.4 and 5, to consider the case of the petitioner based on the available record and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rule 18(b)(ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 10.04.2026
klk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO:19044/2026
10.04.2026 klk