Disposed

Angalakuditi Manikya Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024WP/19374/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-consideration of representations against a final inter-se-seniority list. Directing the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the appeal within eight weeks without touching merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders on the representation (appeal) filed on 17.11.2023 within eight weeks.

Angalakuditi Manikya Rao, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 19374 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Angalakuditi Manikya Rao, S/o Krupaiah(Late), Aged 53 Years, Administrative Officer, Area Hospital, Bapatia, Bapatia District. R/o 26-36-92/A, 3rd Line, Ankamma Nagar Guntur, Guntur District-522004

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary (Medical H&FW) Department of (H&FW) Ground floor Building -5, AP secretariat, Velgapudi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh-522238.

¶13

The Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare, 5*^ Floor, APIIC Building, Mangalagiri Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

The Directorate of Secondary Health (Formerly APWP), AP, Lakshmi Elite Building, H.NO. 77-2/G, Prathur Road, Tadepalli,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶17

be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 not considering the representations of the Petitioner dated 17.11.2023, 10.04.2024, 24.04.2024 for cancel the final inter-se-seniority list as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Principles of Natural Justice besides being violative of article 14 and 21 of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 17.11.2023, 10.04.2024, 24.04.2024. lA 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 pass a direction to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 17.11.2023, 10.04.2024 and 24.04.2024.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES^-IV The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

APHC010383962024

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 0ES AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶21

[3331]

¶22

THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO: 19374/2024

¶26

Between:

¶27

Angalakuditi Manikya Rao ...PETITIONER

¶28

AND

¶29

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

1 TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶32

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

:: ORDER ::

¶35

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not considering representations made by the petitioner dated 17.11.2023, 10.04.2024, and 24.04.2024 respectively,^{tocancelthefinalinter-} se-seniority list, as illegal and arbitrary. /

¶36

I \

¶37

Page 2 of 4

¶38

SRS.J W.P.No.19374 of 2024

¶39

Heard Sri Y.B.Ramesh, learned counsel representing Sri Tagore Yadav Yaragorla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appeared for the respondents.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a final inter-seseniority list was prepared vide Rc.No:APWP-11/60/2018-GENL ESSTAPWP, dated 24.09.2023 (Ex.P8). He also would submit that the petitioner made representations to respondent No.1 as well as to respondent No.2. However, the objections were not considered and hence the writ petition.

¶41

Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would submit that as per Rule 26 of A.P. State & Sub-ordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’), an appeal would lie against the final seniority list if anyone is aggrieved. He^{alsowouldsubmitthatthe} petitioner did not file any appeal, however, made representation^s.

¶42

As seen from the ^material, a final seniority list was prepared vide '♦>. Rc.No:APWP-11/60/2018-GENL ESST-APWP, dated 24.09.2023 (Ex.P8) by respondent No.3. The petitioner made representation to respondents 1 & 2 against the said seniority list. The petitioner also made representationthrough a prpper channel to cancel the final inter-se-seniority list dated 24.09.2023. However, neither respondents 1 nor 2 passed appropriate^orders.

¶43

SRS,J W.P.No.19374 of 2024

¶44

Page 3 of 4

¶45

As per Rule 26 of the Rules, an appeal would lie against an order fixing the seniority of a person to the authority to whom an appeal would lie against an order of dismissal passed against the member of the service, class or category etc.. In the case at hand, as seen from the material available on record, the office of respondent No.2 received the representation (appeal) on 17.11.2023.

¶46

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the learned respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the representation (appeal) filed by the petitioner on 17.11.2023, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight (08) weeks, strictly as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶48

SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

\ '^To

SECTtON OFFICER

The Principal Secretary (Medical HandFW) Department^of (HandFW), State of Andhra Pradesh, Ground floor Building -5, AP secretariat, Velgapudi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh-522238.

¶53

The Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare, 5*^ Floor, APIIC Building, Mangalagiri Guntur District., Andhra Pradesh.

¶54

The Directorate of Secondary Health (Formerly APWP),^AP,Lakshmi Elite Building, H.NO. 77-2/G, Prathur Road, Tadepalli,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶55

One CC to SRI TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES IV, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh [OUT]

¶57

Two C.D Copies MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.19374 of 2024

DISPOSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS

Angalakuditi Manikya Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angalakuditi Manikya Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veerapaneni Rama Devi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Pedda Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D C Manju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Venkataramana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Ramanjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tupili Ravi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh