M Jaya Sudha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010572942025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3208]

¶5

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 29897/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

M JAYA SUDHA, W/O PRABHAKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO.6-59/2, DHANALAKSHMI NAGAR, AVILALA, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, LW, REP., BY ITS VICE CHAIRMANA, AND MANAGING DIRECTORVIJAYAWADA.

¶15

THE DISTRICT HEAD, HOUSING ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED TIRUPATI DISTRICT. TIRUPATI.

¶16

THE DISTRICT HEAD HOUSING, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶17

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING COPROATION LTD TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶18

THE ASSITANT ENGINEER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD PAKALA, PAKALA MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT

¶19

THE ANDHRA PRADESH CORPORATION FOR OUT SOURCING SERVICES, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 2ND FLOOR, RTC BUS STAND COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA.

¶20

THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR OUT SOURCING SERVICES, REP., BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND EX-OFFICIO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF APCOS, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. RESPONDENT NOS.7 AND 8 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 22.01.2026 VIDE IA.NO.2 OF 2025 IN WP.NO.29897 OF 2025.

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

2

¶23

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in particular the 4^th Respondent in not taking any action pursuant to the Proceedings Rc.No.28/Estt/OS/TPT/2022 dated 26-9-2023 of the 3rd Respondent with regard to allowing the petitioner to join duty as Data Entry Operator in the office of the Respondents as arbitrary, illegal, extraneous considerations, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents in particular 4th Respondent to take appropriate decision pursuant to the Proceedings Rc.No.28/Estt/OS/TPT/2022 dated 26-9-2023 of the 3rd Respondent with regard to allowing the petitioner to join duty as Data Entry Operator in the office of the Respondents and to pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

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 pleased direct the Respondents in particular 4th Respondent to take appropriate decision pursuant to the Proceedings Rc.No. 28/Estt/OS/TPT/2022 dated 26-9-2023 of the 3rd Respondent with regard to allowing the petitioner to join duty as Data Entry Operator in the office of the Respondents pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶26

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶27

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 may be pleased to implead the Proposed Respodnents as Respondent No.7 & 8 in W.P.No. 29897/2025 in the interest of justice and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY

¶32

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

3

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

¶37

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶38

“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the Respondents in particular the 4^th Respondent in not taking any action pursuant to the Proceedings Rc.No.28/Estt/OS/ TPT/2022 dated 26-9-2023 of 3^rd Respondent with regard to allowing the petitioner to join duty as Data Entry Operator in the office of the Respondents as arbitrary, illegal, extraneous considerations, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents in particular 4th Respondent to take appropriate decision pursuant to the Proceedings Rc.No.28/Estt/OS/ TPT/2022 dated 26-9-2023 of the 3rd Respondent with regard to allowing the petitioner to join duty as Data Entry Operator in the office of the Respondents and to pass….”

¶39

Heard Sri Subbarao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶40

The contention of the petitioner is that, initially she was selected and appointed on outsourcing basis on 18.7.2017 as Data Entry Operator and she continued accordingly. On medical grounds, when she is unable to attend the duty, she submitted her resignation on 22.8.2022. Subsequently, due to recovery of her health, she made an application/ representation on 10.01.2023 to respondent no.5 with a request to consider her case to continue in the existing vacancy and respondent no.3 has recommended for the same. Despite the same, respondent no.4 has not taken the petitioner into consideration for continuation. Hence the Writ Petition.

¶41

4

¶42

Learned standing counsel has placed instructions submitted by the District Head Housing, Tirupati District. In fact, he has recommended and also requested for re-appointment of petitioner as data entry operator. As the said authority is not competent, the matter has been referred to the District Head Housing, Chittoor and he circulated the file to District Collector, Tirupati for filling up of the vacancy of data entry operation in Tirupati. Hence orders are awaiting from the District Collector, Tirupati.

¶43

In view of the same, without going into the merits of the case, the respondents more particularly respondent no.8 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner, if any existing vacancy is available, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44