Bolly Rama Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order dated 24,09.2025 in W.P.No. 25692^{of2025onthefileofthe} High Court.

¶12

Between:

¶13

Bolly Rama Lakshmi, D/o Bolly Narasimhulu, Aged 39 years, Occ Unemployed, Bethamcherla Village and Mandal, Nandyal^District.

¶14

...Petitioner

¶15

AND

¶16

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary to Government, School Education Department, secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur.

¶17

Director of School Education, O/o The State Project^Director, KBC^Zilla Parishad Boys High School, Patamata, Vijayawada.

¶18

District Selection Committee, Rep. by District Collector^cumChairman, Kurnool District.

¶19

District Educational Officer, Kurnool District.

...Respondents

f

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for^selection of School Assistant (Biology) post as against* the vacancy notified^forSC-Woman in accordance with GO Ms.No: 77 dated 02.08.2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order:

¶25

APHC010554732025

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

[3545]

¶29

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶32

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1116/2025

¶33

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-aside the order dated 24.09.2025 in W.P.No. 25692 of 2025 passed by Learned Single Judge and consequently allow the Writ Appeal and pass Between:

¶34

1.BOLLY RAMA LAKSHMI, D/0 BOLLY NARASIMHULU, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED, BETHAMCHERLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶35

...APPELLANT

¶36

AND

¶37

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,

¶38

SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR.

¶39

DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, 0/0 THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR KBC ZILLA PARISHAD BOYS HIGH SCHOOL,

¶40

PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA.

¶41

DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTE, REP. BY DISTRICT COILECTOR CUM CHAIRMAN, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶42

DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶43

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶44

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶45

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 direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection of School Assistant (Biology) post as against the vacancy notified for SC-Woman

¶46

2

¶47

in accordance with GO Ms.No: 77 dated 02.08.2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and pass

¶48

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶49

1.M SOLOMON RAJU

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶51

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶52

The Court made the following:

¶53

''ll

¶54

0

¶55

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND &

¶56

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARl HARANADHA SARMA

¶57

WRIT APPEAL No.1116 of 2025

¶58

JUDGMENT:('Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

¶59

in This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.09.2025 W.P.No.25692 of 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶60

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondents.

¶61

3 W.P.No.25692 of 2025 was filed questioning the non-selection for School Assistant (Biology) despite securing es'" rank in Kurnool the post of NoOI/Mega DSC-TRC-1/2025, dated District pursuant to DSC Notification 20.04.2025 issued by the 2""' respondent.

¶62

ranked 11, 50, 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the persons SC Grade-Ill. But according to the 51 and 53 have been accommodated in secured Rank No.11 should be accommodated petitioner, the candidate who should not have been counted under in the Open Category and that person the SC Grade-Ill Category.

¶63

Rank No.11, he is 5. If the person selected by securing accommodated in the open category and the petitioner should have been under the SC selected as being the next available meritorious person Grade-Ill Category.

¶64

4

¶65

At the stage of admission of the writ petition, taking into consideration of the Memo dated 24.09.2025 issued by the State Government, wherein the Grievance Redressal Committees were constituted to consider the complaints in the selection process pursuant to DSC Notification, 2025, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed certain directions and posted the matter to 24.10.2025 for filing counter affidavits by the respondents therein.

¶66

On perusal of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, it is evident that they are in the nature of an interim measure and all the interests of the petitioner have been protected.

¶67

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in this appeal would submit that though all the selected^{candidatesareissued} with appointment orders, if the petitioner satisfies the grievances cell to support her contention and if she is found eligible for appointment, she will be accommodated by creating a super numeric post.

¶68

As already the learned Single Judge has protected all the interests of the petitioner by way of an interim order and placing the submission of the learned Government Pleader made now before this Court on record, this Court is of the view that, no further adjudication is required in the present appeal.

¶69