WA/1258/2025 of THE STATE OF AP Vs N SUDHAKAR RAO on 4 March 2026

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A P.

3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF DGP, AP MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

5. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ESTABLISHMENT, O/O DGP, AP MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT

...APPELLANT(S) AND

1. N SUDHAKAR RAO, S/O N RATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT, R/O H NO 72520, LAKSHMI NURSING HOME STREET, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT AND ANOTHER.

2. TAMMISETTY VENKATESH, S/O SANKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT

YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT, O/O DGP

AP MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): 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 suspend the operation of orders in W.P.No.10546 of 2023, dated 21-08-2025 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K RAGHU VEER WRIT APPEAL NO: 1259/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders dated 21.08.2025 in W.P.No.10103 of

Between:

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A P.

3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,, ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF DGP, AP MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

5. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,, ESTABLISHMENT, O/O DGP. AP MANGALAGIRI. GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT(S) AND

1. S SASI KUMAR, S/O LATE S VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT, WO D NO 177 840 STREET, MAHANADU, THADEPALLI GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. P SRIDEVI, D/O LATE P NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT D NO 4121 DEEPIKA SRINIVASA RESIDENCY, 5TH WARD, ARUNODAYA GAS GODOWN LANE, GAYATHRI NAGAR, ATMAKUR, MANGALAGIRI,

3. N SREEKANTH, S/O LATE N SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 40YEARS OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT FLAT NO 102, DAMARLA PLAZA VINAYAKA TEMPLE BACK SIDE, OPP V J JUNIOR COLLEGE. ATMAKUR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

4. S HARITHA, W/O N SREEKANTH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT, FLAT NO 102, DAMARLA PLAZA VINAYAKA TEMPLE BACK SIDE, OPP V J JUNIOR COLLEGE ATMAKUR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

5. G SUNIL KUMAR, S/O LATE G V PRASADARAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT, H NO 411/1147B BESIDE HOTEL M KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA.

6. CH SANJEEV, S/O LATE CH NAGESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT. R/O FLAT NO B 5 2ND FLOOR, SUNRISE TOWERS, KUNCHANA PALLE VILLAGE THADEPALLI MANDAL. GUNTUR DISTRICT.

7. MOHAMMED BASHA SHAIK, S/O S C MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT, FLAT NO 303, VENU ARCADE, ATMAKUR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

8. SHAIK RIZWANA, W/O SHAIK MEERA SHARIEF, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT, FLAT NO G6, HAH TOWER KRISHNA NAGAR, 1ST LINE. NEAR TJPS COLLEGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

9. K DURGA SAGAR, S/O K SRINIVASULU. AGED ABOUT 32YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT, D NO 5178B9 LB NAGAR IPPATAM ROAD. NEAR TIRUMALA RESIDENCY, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): 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 operation of orders in W.P.No.10103 of 2023, dated 21-08-2025 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. REGULAGADDA VENKATESH The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL No:1258 OF 2025 & WRIT APPEAL No:1259 OF 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

1. These writ appeals are filed by the State against the common order, dated 21.08.2025, in W.P. Nos.10546 and 1013 of 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the appellants and Mr.K.Raghuveer, the learned counsel appearing for respondents and carefully perused the material available on record.

3. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the writ petition.

4. The petitioners, who are working as Senior Assistants in the office of the 3rd respondent, were appointed as Assistant Section Officers in A.P. Secretariat under 12 ½ % quota by transfer, have approached this Court by filing writ petitions against the action of the 3rd respondent in not relieving them from their office to enable them to join as Assistant Section Officers in A.P. Secretariat. The said writ petitions were allowed by this Court, vide order dt.21.08.2025, and the impugned office order Ms.No.187, dt.24.04.2023 issued by the 1st respondent, wherein the appointments of the petitioners have been cancelled, is set aside and directed the respondents therein to relieve the petitioners from their respective posts in the office of the 3rd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of order in terms of their appointment orders as Assistant Section Officers in A.P. Secretariat. It is also directed that the petitioners shall be permitted to be joined as Assistant Section Officers without any further hurdles on being relieved from the office of the 3rd respondent. Against the said orders, these writ appeals are filed by the State.

5. We have carefully gone through the grounds raised by the appellants in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal. Out of the 11 grounds raised, not even a single ground is legally sustainable to entertain these appeals.

6. Admittedly, the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Assistants through the selection process conducted by the A.P. Public Service Commission and were subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Assistants. Thereafter, by virtue of their length of service, they were appointed as Assistant Section Officers in the A.P. Secretariat Service under the 12½% quota, pursuant to Office Order Ms. Nos. 114 and 108 dated 16.03.2023 issued by the 1st respondent. Upon receipt of the said appointment orders, the petitioners submitted representations to the 3rd respondent requesting that they be relieved from the post of Senior Assistant so as to enable them to report for duty as Assistant Section Officers in the A.P. Secretariat Service.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge passed a well reasoned order directing the 3rd respondent to relieve the petitioners from his office to enable them to join their posts as Assistant Section Officers in the A.P. Secretariat Service. The action of the 3rd respondent in withholding the petitioners in his office without relieving them, thereby preventing them from joining their posts as Assistant Section Officers in the A.P. Secretariat Service, would adversely affect their future prospects. Therefore, the action of the 3rd respondent in not relieving the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The 3rd respondent cannot insist the petitioners to work in his office alone, especially when they have legitimate expectations regarding their future prospects in the A.P. Secretariat Service. If there is any shortage of staff in his office, the 3rd respondent is at liberty to approach the Public Service Commission for filling up the sanctioned vacancies with eligible candidates. He may also engage suitable persons as a stop gap arrangement. However, such administrative difficulties cannot be permitted to stand in the way of the petitioners joining their posts as Assistant Section Officers in the A.P. Secretariat Service for which they are eligible and duly selected.

8. In view of the above, there are no valid grounds to entertain these appeals and these appeals are liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.

10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ appeals shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.05.03.2026 BV