M. Lakshmi Narsimha Sarma, Vs The State of A.P.

¶1

APHC010182742026

¶2

[3558]

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 9303/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

M. LAKSHMI NARSIMHA SARMA,, S/O.M. SUDHAKARS SARMA AGED 30 YEARS, R/O. H. NO. 76/97, GAVP-47, NIRMAL NAGAR, KURNOOL-518003.

¶10

K. NANDINI,, D/O K. RAJASEKHAR AGED 25 YEARS, R/O. H. NO.49/50-A-87G-6A, LAXMI NAGAR, KURNOOL -2-518003.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAW AND LEGISLATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522238.

¶14

THE AP STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, HIGH COURT OF AP, NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN-522239.

¶15

THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY DLSA, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN - CUM- PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KURNOOL- 518001.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent

¶18

2

¶19

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9303 of 2026

¶20

in issuing the Circular Dis.No.476/DLSA/2026 dated 01.04.2026 cancelling the notification No.01/2026 dated 09.01.2026 by issuing the fresh notification inviting the application in due course, permitting both local and non-local candidates to apply for the post of Record Assistant as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to rules and set aside the same and further direct the 3^rd respondent to complete the selection process as per the earlier notification dated 09.01.2026 and pass

¶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.476/DLSA/2026 dated 01.04.2026 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9303 of 2026

¶30

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

¶31

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the 3^rd respondent – the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Kurnool, 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 Record Assistant, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the rules and to set aside the same, and to direct 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 and Mr.S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. None appeared for respondent No.1.

¶33

To fill up the one vacancy relating to the post of Record Assistant available in the District Legal Services Authority, Kurnool, notification dated 09.01.2026 was issued. Pursuant to the said notification, applications were submitted both by the local candidates, who are the residents of the Kurnool District and also the non-local candidates, who are the residents of the other districts. But the District Legal Services Authority at the time of scrutiny has rejected the applications of the non-local candidates. So only the local candidates of the Kurnool District are permitted to participate in the selection process. After the selection was completed, the final selection list was forwarded to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority for confirmation and to issue orders. It is noticed by State Legal Services Authority that the post is not meant only for the local candidates of Kurnool District and there is no restriction or legal bar for the non-local candidates to participate in the selection process and as the applications of the non-local candidates are rejected at the time of scrutiny that they are deprived of their opportunity to participate in the selection process. Therefore, the said final

¶34

4

¶35

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9303 of 2026

¶36

selection list is not approved and ordered for cancellation of the notification and to issue fresh notification permitting both the local and non-local candidates to apply for the post. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent – the District Legal Services Authority has cancelled the earlier notification and issued fresh notification permitting both the local and non-local candidates to apply for post.

¶37

Challenging the Circular issued cancelling the earlier notification and issuing the present notification permitting both the local and non-local candidates to apply for the post, the instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the local candidates of Kurnool District, who participated in the selection process pursuant to the earlier notification dated 09.01.2026.

¶38

As per the earlier notification that was issued for filling up the single post of Record Assistant, as noticed supra, there is no legal bar or restriction for the non-local candidates to apply for the said post. As the applications of non-local candidates are rejected, they are deprived of participating in the selection process. It resulted into gross injustice to the nonlocal candidates, who are otherwise eligible to participate in the selection process as per the applications submitted by them. Therefore, we do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned circular dated 01.04.2026 issued cancelling the earlier notification and issuing fresh notification allowing the non-local candidates to apply for the said post. In fact, in the notification itself under the rubric <Note=, it is clearly stated that the District Legal Services Authority reserves the right to cancel the notification, at any stage, without assigning any reason whatsoever and no right will accrue to the candidate by virtue of the said notification. In fact, because of cancellation of the earlier notification, the petitioners are not deprived of any opportunity to participate in the selection process as per the fresh notification that was issued. So they are eligible to participate in the selection process by making an application to that effect. It is ordered by the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority that the candidates, who applied for the post pursuant to the earlier notification

¶39

5

¶40

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9303 of 2026

¶41

need not pay any fee separately and fee paid by them earlier shall be considered as the fee payable on the applications submitted pursuant to the 2^nd notification. So their interest in this regard is also protected. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court do not see any valid legal ground to entertain the Writ Petition and to order for the prayer made in this Writ Petition.

¶42

Further, a similar Writ Petition filed challenging the similar circular cancelling the notification made relating to the post of Front Office Coordinator was also dismissed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9248 of 2026 as per the order dated 08.04.2026. Therefore, this Writ Petition is also liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

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

¶45

________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J

¶46

_______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J

¶47

Date : 09-04-2026 BMS

M. Lakshmi Narsimha Sarma, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Lakshmi Narsimha Sarma, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Subrahmanyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Palakurthi Manasa Vs Medapati Ramachandra Reddy

B. Bhavana, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Rehana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Namala Radha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Special Deputy Collector Vs the Executive Engineer