Dismissed¶38

K Hari Krishna Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2026WP/13550/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contract employee; oral discontinuation of contractual service; Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical); Andhra Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Limited; non-extension of contract despite MA&UD Memo No.3128831/11/2026 dt.10.02.2026; writ of mandamus; Article 14 arbitrariness; Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkahnd, 2026 INSC 99 (referred in prayer, not adjudicated); writ petition dismissed as misconceived; no costs; Justice Nyapathy Vijay; decided 15.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Since as on date the Petitioner could not secure extension of his service on contractual basis, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is misconceived; the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶38

K Hari Krishna Rao Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 15.07.2026 Date of uploading : 15.07.2026

¶2

APHC010259872026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 13550/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

K HARI KRISHNA RAO, AGE 64 YEARS, C2, NARAYANA TOWERS, OPPOSITE SAI BABA TEMPLE, EAST POINT COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM-5300017.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MA AND UD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238.

¶13

THE ANDHRA PRADESH METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REP., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OLD CRDA OFFICE, LENIN CENTER, VIJAYAWADA-520002.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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 orders one more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in orally not allowing the petitioner to

¶16

¶17

discharge his duties as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), on contractual basis and trying to engage another contractual employee without cogent reasons or passing a speaking order and without following due process of law and not extending the petitioner contract period from 2024 to 2026 in spite of 1st respondent Memo. No. 3128831/11/202 6 dt. 10.02.2026 is illegal, manifestly arbitrary, irrational, perverse and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the settled law upheld by the Honble Apex Court in Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkahnd and others reported in 2026 INSC 99 and consequently direct the respondents to extend the contractual services of the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer and be pleased to pass such other orders.

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶19

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 direct the 2^nd Respondent to re-instate the petitioner into service from 2024 to 2026 as per the 1 St Respondent Memo. No.3128831111/2026 dt10.02.2026 and pass such other orders.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.KARUPOLU NARASIMHA RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

Whether the order is :

¶26

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.13550 of 2026

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in orally not allowing the Petitioner to discharge his duties as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis and trying to engage another contractual employee and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis vide Office Order No.22/APMRCL/Admn./2023-1, dated 23.01.2023 issued by Respondent No.2 with consolidated remuneration of Rs.35,000/- per month. Subsequently, the contract service of the Petitioner was expired on 22.01.2024 and the same was not extended. The Petitioner submitted a representation on 10.06.2024 to the Respondent-authorities seeking for extension of his contract service. Similar representations were also made on 05.01.2024 and 23.01.2025.

¶33

A recommendation was also made by the Municipal Administration & Urban Development (1) Department vide Memo No.3128831/11/2026, dated 10.02.2026 to the Principal Secretary of

¶34

¶35

the State Government to examine the case of the Petitioner for

¶36

extension of his service. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶38

As on date, the Petitioner could not secure extension of his service on contractual basis and in that view the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is misconceived and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶39