C. Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

2

¶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

3

¶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

4

¶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

5

¶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

6

¶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