B. Bhavana, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, L AW AND LEGISLATION D EPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, V E LAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNT U R DISTRICT - 522238.

¶14

THE AP STATE L E GAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, HI G H COURT OF AP, NELAPADU, A M ARAVATHI, REP. BY ITS CHAIRM A N-522239.

¶15

THE DISTRICT L E GAL SERVICES AUTHORITY DL S A, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRI C T, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN - CU M - PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KURNOOL- 518001.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Artic l e 226 of the Constitution of India pr a ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig h Court may be pleased to issue an app r opriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of M andamus, declaring the action of th e 3^rd respondent in issuing the Circular D is.No. 477/DLSA/2026 dated 06.04.2026 cancelling the notification No. 03/2 0 26 dated 09.01.2026 by issuing the f resh notification

¶18

2

¶19

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9248 of 2026

¶20

inviting the application in due course, permitting both local and non-local candidates to apply for the post of Front Office Coordinator as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to rules and set aside the same and further direct the 3rd respondent to complete the selection process as per the earlier notification dated 09-01-2026

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 stay the Circular Dis.No. 477/DLSA/2026 dated 01.04.2026 pending disposal of the writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶27

3

¶28

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9248 of 2026

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶31

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is filed, seeking a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent-District Legal Services Authority, Kurnool District, in issuing the circular dated 01.04.2026, cancelling the notification dated 09.01.2026 and issuing fresh notification, inviting applications, permitting both the local and non-local candidates to apply for the post of Front Office Coordinator, as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and thereby, sought direction to the 3^rd respondent to complete the selection process as per the earlier notification dated 09.01.2026.

¶32

Heard Mr. Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶33

There is one post of Front Office Coordinator vacant in the District Legal Services Authority of Kurnool District. To fill up the said post and to appoint a suitable and eligible candidate as Front Office Coordinator, the 3^rd respondent-District Legal Services Authority issued a notification dated 09.01.2026, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for selection to fill up one post of Front Office Coordinator on regular basis. The petitioner, who is the resident of Kurnool District, applied for the said post, pursuant to the said notification issued by the 3^rd respondent-District Legal Services Authority. She has appeared for the interview. Thereafter, the selection process was completed, after conducting interviews and the selection list was sent to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to finalize the same. At that time, while scrutinizing the final selection list, along with the notification dated 09.01.2026 that was issued by the 3^rd respondent-District Legal Services Authority, it is noticed by the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority

¶34

4

¶35

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9248 of 2026

¶36

that the applications submitted by non-local candidates, who are not the residents of the Kurnool District, were rejected by the District Legal Services Authority at the time of scrutiny of the said applications and thereby, did not allow them to participate in the selection process and to appear for interview. As their applications were rejected at the time of scrutiny, no hall tickets were sent to them to enable them to participate in the interviews. Consequently, the non-local candidates were deprived of their opportunity to participate in the selection process and appear for the interview.

¶37

In fact, as only one post of Front Office Coordinator is vacant, the post is meant to be filled up irrespective of the nativity of the candidate. There is no restriction or legal bar imposed in any statute or rules governing the selection, imposing a bar for the non-local candidates to apply for the post and to compete in the selection process. In fact, even as can be seen from the notification dated 09.01.2026 also, it is not specifically stated in it that the nonlocal candidates, who are not the residents of the Kurnool District, are not eligible to apply for the said post. Similarly, it is also not stated in specific terms in the notification that only local candidates, who are the residents of Kurnool District, alone are eligible to apply for the said post. Therefore, when the non-local candidates are also eligible to apply for the post and compete in the selection process, rejecting the applications of the non-local candidates on the ground that they are not the residents of Kurnool District, at the time of scrutiny, suffers from patent illegality, as it amounts to depriving the non-local candidates, who are otherwise found eligible to apply for the post and to participate in the selection process, of their opportunity to participate in the selection process. Therefore, after noticing the said anomaly and the grave injustice caused to the non-local candidates, as the selection process is not found to be done in a fair manner and in accordance with law, the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority has cancelled the said notification on the ground that there is no impediment or legal bar for the non-local candidates to apply for the post and to participate in the selection process and

¶38

5

¶39

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9248 of 2026

¶40

as their applications are rejected on the ground of their nativity that injustice has been caused to them. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in cancelling the said notification and directing the 3^rd respondent-District Legal Services Authority to issue fresh notification, permitting both the local and non-local candidates also to apply for the post and to participate in the selection process. It amounts to only rectifying the defect that has been crept in the earlier notification, which is now cancelled.

¶41

Further, the petitioner herein, who is a local candidate, can even now apply for the said post, as per the notification that was subsequently issued and participate in the selection process. In fact, while cancelling the notification, it is also clearly held that no fresh fee is required to be paid by the candidates, who have already applied for the said post, as per earlier notification. Therefore, no monetary loss also will be caused to her.

¶42

It is also relevant to note here that in the notification dated 09.01.2026, under the rubric ‘Note’, it is stated by the 3^rd respondent-District Legal Services Authority that it reserves the right to cancel the notification as per the directions of Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority at any stage, without assigning any reason whatsoever and no right will accrue to the candidates by virtue of the notification. Knowing fully well about the said note in the notification and regarding the right reserved by the 3^rd respondentDistrict Legal Services Authority to cancel the notification as per the directions of Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, the petitioner has applied for the said post. Therefore, when the notification was cancelled on a justifiable ground, the petitioner cannot now seek to challenge the same on the ground that rules cannot be changed after the notification was issued. In fact, no rule was changed in the second notification. As it is found that the non-local candidates are not permitted to participate in the selection process and their applications were erroneously and illegally rejected, the earlier notification was cancelled to enable the non-local candidates also to

¶43

6

¶44

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9248 of 2026

¶45

participate in the selection process. Therefore, no valid legal ground is made out from the facts of the case, to impeach the validity of the impugned circular in cancelling the earlier notification and issuing fresh notification. We make it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the selection process pursuant to the fresh notification that was issued. Therefore the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶49

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶50

Date: 08.04.2026 MDP

B. Bhavana, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Bhavana, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Jyothiraadhitya Infra Vs Pratap C Joisher

B Radha Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Koppisetti Lakshmi Bhavani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Veerabrahmam Vs Chairman

Mulupuri Raji Anupama Vs Chairman District Legal Services Authority Cum Principal District Judge

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Vs Dontala Govinda Rao