Chinta Lokanath Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Chinta Lokanath Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the writ petition was closed as premature, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in excluding the petitioners from the final selection list under Mega DSC-2025 despite meritorious ranking in their Vertical/Horizontal reservation categories and completed certificate verification, and adjusting/appointing reserved-category candidates against Open Category vacancies, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment rules, G.O. Ms. No. 77 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. +1 more

Court's answer

Observation while closing the petition: while preparing the selection list, the respondents are required to follow the rule of reservation and the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 02.08.2023. (Merits of the alleged deviation were left undecided.)

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners have approached this Court merely on apprehension; only a merit list exists and no selection list has been prepared, hence the writ petition is premature.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Bench of Justice D. Ramesh, Writ Petition No. 1111 of 2026, decided 23.02.2026. Eight applicants under the Mega DSC-2025 teacher recruitment sought a writ of mandamus declaring illegal their exclusion from the final selection list despite meritorious overall ranking in their Vertical/Horizontal reservation categories and successful certificate verification, and further objecting that meritorious reserved-category candidates were being adjusted against Open Category vacancies contrary to the recruitment rules, G.O. Ms. No. 77 (dated 02.08.2023) and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; they prayed for redrawing of the merit list, correct application of the roster and appointment with consequential benefits. The Government Pleader submitted that the selection list scrupulously followed G.O.Ms.No.77 (initially 20% open category on merit, the remaining 80% for local candidates per the G.O.) and that the petition was founded on mere apprehension. Held: the petitioners approached the Court merely on apprehension; only a merit list existed and no selection list had been prepared, so the writ petition was premature and stood closed, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to stand closed. Observing in passing, the Court noted that while preparing the selection list the respondents are required to follow the rule of reservation and the instructions in G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 02.08.2023, leaving the merits of the grievance undecided.

1

APHC010720692025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3208]

MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 1111/2026

Between:

CHINTA LOKANATH, S/O NAGAIAH AGED 28 YEARS OCC. STUDENT R/O DR.NO.2/558, RAMALAYAM BACKSIDE DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPUR

B GEETHA, D/O GOVINDA NAIK AGED 30 YEARS OCC. STUDENT R/O DR.NO.10-149, VEERANAMALA RAMA KUPPAM, CHITTOOR

G VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O RAMACHANDRUDU AGED 32 YEARS OCC. STUDENT R/O DR. NO.5-56, GOLLA STREET, RAMALLAKOTA VELDURTHI, KURNOOL

E VINOD KHANNA, S/O DEVAPANAM AGED 42 YEARS OCC. WORKING R/O DR.NO. 10-32, SEETHARAMAPURAM NELLORE

M NAGESWARA NAIK, S/O KRISHNA NAIK AGED 29 YEARS OCC. WORKING R/O DR.NO.9-60, BANDREVU, PEDDAMANDYAM CHITTOOR

V VARALAKSHMI, D/O LAKSHMINARASIMHULU AGED 46 YEARS OCC. WORKING R/O DR.NO.12/03, YADIKI, ANANTAPUR

2

B SANGEETHA, D/O PUTA NAIK AGED 25 YEARS OCC. STUDENT R/O DR.NO.3-44, RAMAPURAM THANDA, VEERANAMALA, CHITTOOR

K SUKANYA, D/O RAMAIAH AGED 33 YEARS OCC. WORKING R/O DR.NO.3-31, SURAIAHGARIPALLI CHITTOOR

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, VENKATADRI TOWERS, ATMAKUR (M) MANGALAGIRI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR

THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT

THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.1111 of 2026

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in excluding the Petitioners from the final selection list for their respective posts under Mega DSC-2025, despite the Petitioners securing meritorious ranking overall in their respective Vertical / Horizontal reservation categories, having successfully undergone certificate verification as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural Justice, as well as violative of Articles 14, and 16 of the Constitution of India AND FURTHER declare that the action of the Respondents in adjusting/appointing meritorious candidates belonging to Vertical and Horizontal reservation categories against Open Category vacancies, instead of adjusting them against their respective reservation categories, as illegal and contrary to the recruitment rules, G.O. Ms. No. 77 and settled principles governing merit-based selection Consequently, direct the Respondents to re draw the merit list, correctly apply the roster, and re-work the selection strictly on the basis of inter-se merit in accordance with law, by properly adjusting candidates against their respective Vertical and Horizontal reservation categories, and thereafter consider and appoint the Petitioners to their respective posts in the concerned

4

district, with all consequential benefits, including seniority and notional benefits, as may be applicable….”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

Based on the pleadings, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the merit list has been prepared and published and that, insofar as filling up the posts under the reserved categories is concerned, G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 02.08.2023, clearly stipulates the procedure along with illustrations. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking implementation of the rule of reservation as per the illustrations mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 02.08.2023.

Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondents prepared the selection list and they scrupulously followed the reservation as per G.O.Ms.No.77. He further submitted that they initially prepared the selection list for 20% of the open category based on merit and thereafter, while filling the remaining 80% meant for local candidates, they followed the instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.77. There was no deviation in preparing the selection

5

list. The writ petition is based merely on apprehension and is premature.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with regard to the filling up of posts in respect of all other social categories the present writ petition is filed.

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have approached this Court merely on apprehension. The learned counsel has relied only on the merit list and he has not been able to place any selection list. At present, there is only a merit list and no selection list. While preparing the selection list, the respondents are required to follow the rule of reservation and the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 02.08.2023. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is pre-mature.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

6

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 23.02.2026 Ivd

7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.1111 of 2026

Dated: 23.02.2026

Ivd