Chekuri Ramanjulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

CHEKURI RAMANJULU,, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED 59, R/O. D.NO. 9/90-C1, VINAYAKA NAGAR, VINAYAKA NAGAR, ARAVAPALLI, NAGIREDDIPALLI, NANDALUR MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, AP 516150.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP - 522238.

¶13

THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION GAD, REP. BY ITS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP - 522238.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP - 522501.

¶15

2

¶16

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, KURNOOL ZONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP - 518001.

¶17

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP - 516269.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not declaring the probation of the petitioner in the cadre of SubRegistrar Grade-11 by exempting the petitioner from passing the Second Language test as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and unconstitutional and consequentially direct the 1st respondent herein to declare the probation of the petitioner in the cadre of SubRegistrar Grade-11 by exempting the petitioner from passing the Second Language test by giving necessary relaxation to the Rule 16(h) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and to pass such

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 direct the Respondents to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner representation dated 19.07.2024, along with the subsequent recommendations of the 5th Respondent (District Registrar, Rayachoty) pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such other and further orders in the interest of justice.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

3

¶24

1.MUTYALA SOBHANADRI NAIDU

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking to declaring the action of the respondents in not declaring the probation of the petitioner in cadre of Sub-Registrar, GradeII by exempting the petitioner from passing the Second Language test as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner that respondents are not considering the case of the petitioner to declare his probation in Cadre of Sub-Registrar, Grade-II by exempting him from passing the Second Language test by relaxing the same as per Rule 16 of A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that infact though the petitioner has completed 45 years of service as of now, he is aged about 59 years, so he is entitled for the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999 and also further as per G.O.Ms.No.164 dated 09.07.2021 wherein the Government has

¶32

4

¶33

considered the identical issues and recommendations of the Commissioner and the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Government of Andhra Pradesh and accorded the exemption from passing the Second Language Test as prescribed under the provisions of Rule 16 of A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 in favour of certain employees. As the petitioner is also in identically situated person, he is also entitled to seek the same benefit. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted an application/representation on 19.07.2024 and despite the same, the respondents have not considered and disposed of the same.

¶34

In view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents more particularly the 1^st respondent to consider the representation/application dated 19.07.2024 submitted by the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.164 dated 09.07.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶35

5

¶36

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

closed.

JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date:06.04.2026 GK

6