Allowed¶62

Mekala Madhu Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2025WP/22285/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

outsourcing employee termination; watchman; 220 KVSS Muchumarri; AP Transco; termination without enquiry; stigmatic grounds; natural justice; whimsical hire and fire; Public Representative letter; principal employer contractor; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14, 19(g), 21; Section 151 CPC stay; State of A.P. v. K. Madhu Phani (2018) 1 ALT 125 (DB) relied on; writ allowed; continuation in service; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned termination proceedings set aside; Respondent Authorities directed to continue the Petitioner as Watchman at 220 KVSS Muchumarri, Pagidyala Mandal, Nandyala District; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, closed as sequel. ¶62

Mekala Madhu Kumar Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the stopping/termination of the Petitioner, a Watchman at 220 KVSS Muchumarri engaged on an outsourcing basis through Respondent No.6, vide Letter dated 28.07.2025 of Respondent No.3 and notice dated 06.08.2025 of Respondent No.6, founded solely on a Public Representative's letter and without any enquiry, is patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(g), 21 and principles of natural justice. +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

The termination of the Petitioner as a Watchman was principally based on the Letter issued by the Public Representative on 25.07.2025, which consequently formed the basis for Respondent No.3 to issue a letter to Respondent No.6 virtually terminating the Petitioner's service.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Applying the purport of the Division Bench ruling in State of A.P. v. K. Madhu Phani, (2018) 1 ALT 125 (DB), there cannot be a whimsical hire-and-fire approach in public employment; outsourcing employees cannot be stigmatised/terminated on the basis of such letters without an enquiry.

¶58

Key takeaways

Since the impugned order, albeit passed by Respondent No.6, was solely based on the Letter given by the Public Representative, the impugned proceedings are set aside.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition allowed (Nyapathy Vijay, J., High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, 04.09.2025). The Petitioner, a Watchman at 220 KVSS Muchumarri engaged on an outsourcing basis through Respondent No.6 (contractor/principal employer), was stopped from duties by Respondent No.6's notice dated 06.08.2025 pursuant to Respondent No.3's Letter dated 28.07.2025, which itself arose from a local Public Representative's letter dated 25.07.2025 recommending removal because the Petitioner was also Chairman of a School Managing Committee. Relying on the Division Bench judgment in State of A.P. v. K. Madhu Phani, (2018) 1 ALT 125 (DB), the Court held that there cannot be a whimsical hire-and-fire approach in public employment and that outsourcing employees cannot be terminated on such a basis without enquiry; the impugned proceedings were set aside and the authorities directed to continue the Petitioner as Watchman. No costs. The Respondents' maintainability objection (absence of master-servant relationship with Respondent Nos. 2 to 5) was raised but not separately adjudicated.

¶1

¶2

APHC010422312025

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMB TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 22285 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mekala Madhu Kumar, S/o. M. Venu Gopal, aged 42 years, R/o. H.No.7-174A, Ward, Nehru Nagar village, Pagidyala Mandal, Nandyala^District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶12

The Transmission Corporation of AP Limited, Vidyut^Soudha Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District Rep. by its Chairman Cum Managing Director, 3. The Superintending Engineer, O and M Circle, AP Transco Sub-station compound. Near Bellary Chowrastha, Kurnool, Kurnool District

¶13

The Executive Engineer, O and M Circle, AP Transco, Nandyal, Nandyal District

¶14

The Asst Executive Engineer, Maintenance, 220 KVSS, A.P. Transco, Muchumarri Village, Pagidyala Mandal, Nandyal District

¶15

S Lakshmi Reddy, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, Civil and Electrical Contractor, A.P.'Transco, R/o. H.No. 87/515, Sree Nagar Colony, Kurnool A.P. - 518 002

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

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 to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature

¶18

of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 6th^{Respondentinissuingthe} notice dated 06.08.2025 terminating the Petitioner^{fromthepostofthejobof} watchman on a contract basis at 220 KVSS Muchumarri, Pagidyala Mandal, Nandyala District, without conducting any enquiry as^{patentlyillegal,arbitrary} and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles^{ofnaturaljustice} and consequently set aside the notice dated 06.08.2025.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 stay the notice dated 06.08.2025 terminating the Petitioner^{fromthepostof} the job of watchman on a contract basis at 220 KVSS^{Muchumarri,Pagidyala} Mandal, Nandyala District, pending disposal of the^{writpetition,intheinterest} of justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VARUN BYREDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1

¶23

The Court made the following order:

[3460]

APHC010422312025

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

¶28

THURSDAY.THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 22285/2025

Between:

Mekala Madhu Kumar

...PETITIONER

AND

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

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.VARUN BYREDDY

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶41

The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶46

W.P.No.22285 of 2025

¶47

O R D E R;

¶48

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the^Letter dated 28.07.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 3 to the Respondent No. 6 directing the Petitioner to be removed as Watchman (on an outsourcing basis) at 220 KVSS Muchumarri, Pagidyala Mandal, Nandyala District.

¶49

The Petitioner was working as a Watchman at 220 KVSS Muchumarri, Pagidyala Mandal, Nandyala District under^the control of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The Petitioner was working as “Watchman’ on an outsourcing basis through his principal employer Respondent No.6. In a letter given by the^localPublic Representative recommending the removal of the Petitioner^on the ground that he is also working as the Chairman, School Managing Committee at ZPH School, Nehrunagar, Pagidyala Mandal, Nandyala District, the Respondent No.3 had addressed a Letter to the Respondent No.6 on 28.07.2025^to take appropriate action.

¶50

¶51

On the basis of the Letters of elected representative^and that of Respondent No.3, the Petitioner was directed^tostop from attending duties with immediate effect vide Letter^dated 06.08.2025 issued by the Respondent No.6. Hence, the present Writ Petition. %

¶52

the 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents would contend that the Petitioner is an outsourcing employee engaged through Respondent No. 6, and as there is no master-servant relationship between^the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, the Petitioner cannot challenge the action of the Respondents in the^present Writ Petition.

¶53

of 5. Having heard the respective counsel, the termination the Petitioner as a Watchman was principally on the^basisofa Letter issued by the Public Representative on 25.07.2025, which consequently was the basis for the Respondent^No.3to issue a Letter to the Respondent No. 6 virtually for terminating the service of the Petitioner.

¶54

¶55

The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the^Stateof A.P, rep. by its Principal Secretary v. K. Madhu Phani^and another^ held that even the outsourcing employees are^entitled to an inquiry to be conducted when their services are^being terminated on stigmatic grounds. The relevant paragraph^No.4

¶56

thereof is extracted hereunder:

¶57

“ In our opinion, even in case of an outsourced employee, he cannot be stigmatized without an enquiry and in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the elements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in making the interim order absolute”.

¶58

Though the impugned order is passed by the Respondent No.6, the purport of the Division Bench^Judgment is that there cannot be a whimsical hire and fire approach in public employment. This feudalistic “I do not like”^approachhas ramifications on the families of individuals like this Petitioner and the entire family would have to face penury. The^impugned order, albeit by Respondent No. 6, is solely based^ontheLetter given by the Public Representative. Therefore, the^impugned proceedings are set aside.

(2018)1 ALT 125 (DB)

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Respondent Authorities are directed to continue the Petitioner as a Watchman at 220 KVSS Muchumarri, Pagidyala Mandal Nandyala District. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall^stand closed.

¶64

Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar

¶65

//TRUE COPY// i SECTIO^OFFICER

¶66

To,

¶67