Dismissed¶¶63

Ramavath Balaji Naik v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Mar 2026WP/18346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deputation repatriation; Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II; Tribal Welfare Department / Gurukulam; Secondary Grade Teacher; A.P. Administrative Tribunal O.A.Nos.3154, 3243, 5072, 5131 of 2010; interim orders dated 13.05.2010 made absolute; Tribunal decided no legal issue on entitlement to continue on deputation; no substantial right to continue in foreign department; repatriation orders dated 14.08.2025 and 16.06.2022 by District Collectors Kadapa and Prakasam; writ petitions dismissed, no costs; Justice D. Ramesh; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; 10.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

After hearing both learned counsels, neither side was able to place any material to substantiate the petitioners' rights to continue in the Tribal Welfare Department. ¶¶60

Ramavath Balaji Naik Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, originally Secondary Grade Teachers in the Education Department who worked on deputation as Hostel Welfare Officers (Grade-II) in the Tribal Welfare Department for over 16 years on the strength of Tribunal interim orders, had any right to continue in the foreign department so as to resist the impugned repatriation orders. +1 more

¶¶62

Court's answer

After hearing both learned counsels, neither side was able to place any material to substantiate the petitioners' rights to continue in the Tribal Welfare Department.

¶¶60

Ratio / Principle

Except for the protection granted by the Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners have no other right to continue in the foreign department.

¶¶62

Key takeaways

There is no substantial right to the petitioners to continue in the Tribal Welfare Department.ratio¶¶62
The Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders because they were passed repatriating the petitioners to their original department.ratio¶¶62
The Tribunal disposed of the O.As. without deciding the issue of the petitioners' entitlement to continue on deputation and decided no legal issue in the matters.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition Nos. 25183 of 2025 (C. Srinivasa Rao) and 18346 of 2022 (Ramavath Balaji Naik and Ramavath Jithyaanaik), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Justice D. Ramesh, common order dated 10.03.2026. The petitioners, originally appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers in the Education Department and working on deputation as Hostel Welfare Officers (Grade-II) in the Tribal Welfare Department for more than 16 years on the strength of A.P. Administrative Tribunal orders in O.A.Nos.3154, 3243, 5072 and 5131 of 2010 (interim orders of 13.05.2010 made absolute), assailed repatriation orders dated 14.08.2025 (District Collector, Y.S.R. Kadapa District) and 16.06.2022 (District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole) issued pursuant to a Tribal Welfare Department policy decision. The Court observed that the Tribunal had decided no legal issue on the petitioners' entitlement to continue on deputation. Held: except the protection granted by the Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners had no other right, and no substantial right, to continue in the foreign department; the learned counsels could place no material substantiating any such right; the Court was therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned repatriation orders. Both writ petitions dismissed with no costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

¶1

[3208]

¶2

APHC010472802025

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS: 25183 of 2025 and 18346 of 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

C. SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. PEDDA VENKATAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC HWO GOVT. BOYS HOSTEL AT PULIVENDULA R/O. BADWEL MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE, DIRECTORATE OF TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, D.NO.40-3/1-46-4A, WARD NO. 13, KONERU LAKSHMAIH STREET, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH TRIABAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (GURUKULAM), TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA DISTRICT AT KADAPA.

¶17

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA DISTRICT AT KADAPA.

¶18

THE DISTRICT TRIBAL WELFARE OFFICER, KADAPA DISTRICT AT

¶19

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

KADAPA.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.MUDE SAI KUMAR NAIK

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶26

2.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 18346 of 2022

¶28

Between:

¶29

RAMAVATH BALAJI NAIK, S/O TIRUPAL NAIK, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC. HOSTEL WELFARE OFFICER, R/O. NARAJAMULA THANDA, MALLAPURAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶30

RAMAVATH JITHYAANAIK, S/O RAM SINGH NAIK AGED 56 YEARS, OCC. HOSTEL WELFARE OFFICER, R/O 4-431D, KASIKUNTA THANDA, YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶31

...PETITIONER(S)

¶32

AND

¶33

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶34

THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶35

DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE, DIRECTORATE OF TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT D.NO.40-3/1-46-4A, WARD NO.13, KONERU LAKSMAIAH STREET, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-520 010, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶36

THE SECRETARY, A. P. TRIBAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (GURUKULAM) TADEPALLI,

¶37

¶38

GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶39

THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE.

¶40

DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, , PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE

¶41

MANDAL EDUCATION OFFICER, YERRAGONDAPALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶42

MANDAL EDUCATION OFFICER, CHIRALA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶43

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶45

1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶47

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶48

¶49

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:

¶50

These Writ Petitions are filed assailing the orders dated 14.08.2025 and 16.06.2022 by the District Collector, Y.S.R. Kadapa District and Prakasam District, Ongole respectively (5^th respondent in both the writ petitions).

¶51

The claim of the petitioners in these two writ petitions is based on the order passed by the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal in a batch of O.A.Nos.3154 of 2010, 3243 of 2010, 5072 of 2010 and 5131 of 2010. All those OAs were filed assailing the proceedings issued to the petitioners repatriating them to their parent department. Initially, interim directions were granted by the AP Administrative Tribunal on 13.05.2010 directing the respondents to continue the applicants/petitioners as Hostel Welfare Officers Gr-II at Government Boys Hostel for S.T. Welfare Department Porumamilla Village and Mandal, Kadapa District. Subsequently, upon filing of vacate stay petitions, the Tribunal has disposed of the said OAs with the following order:

¶52

“4. It is not the contention of the respondents that steps are being taken to fill up the posts by regularly selected candidates. According to the counter averments, the respondents are trying to replace the applicant with contract employees.

¶53

5. In the light of the above circumstances, the OAs are disposed of by making the interim orders absolute. However, the respondents are at liberty to take steps for appointment of the Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II, on regular basis, by giving opportunity to the applicant also for selection in the 10% quota. Accordingly, the VMAs are closed”.

¶54

Surprisingly, this Court has noticed that the Tribunal has not decided

¶55

the issue with regard to entitlement of the petitioners to continue on

¶56

¶57

deputation. The Tribunal only taking the facts into consideration saying that the department wants to repatriate the petitioners by engaging persons who are working on contract basis. The Tribunal has not decided any legal issue in the matters. By virtue of the interim orders dated 13.05.2010, passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners were directed to be continued in their parent department for more than 16 years. Though the petitioners want to repatriate to the parent department by virtue of the initiation of fatal proceedings the services of the petitioners were continued in the Tribal Welfare Hostels.

¶58

Now, by virtue of a policy decision taken by the Tribal Welfare Department, the petitioners were repatriated to the parent department and impugned proceedings have been issued. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petitions have been filed.

¶59

Considering the submissions, initially, this Court has granted interim directions in one of the matter i.e., in W.P.No.18346 of 2022 dated 27.07.2022. After filing counters, the matter has been posted for hearing.

¶60

After hearing the both learned counsels, they are not able to place any material to substantiate their rights to continue in the Tribal Welfare Department. In fact, the petitioners are originally appointed in the Education Department as Secondary Grade Teachers, and while they were working as Secondary Grade Teachers they have been transformed on deputation as Hostel Welfare Officers (Grade-II) and by virtue of the orders granted by the Tribunal, the petitioners have continued in the Tribal Welfare Department for more than 16 years on deputation.

¶61

¶62

On perusal of the impugned orders, except the protection granted by the Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners have no other right to continue in the foreign department and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders as the impugned orders have been passed repatriating the petitioners to their original department. There is no substantial right to the petitioners to continue in the Tribal Welfare Department. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders.

¶63