Back
Statutory Rules Trump Self-Seeking Extensions: AP High Court Ousts Retired Director
In a firm rebuke to executive overreach in public employment, the on , issued a writ of quashing the re-appointment of Dr. T. Damodar Naidu as Director of Animal Husbandry beyond his superannuation age. Single Judge Justice Nyapathy Vijay ruled that statutory service rules—mandating promotion from Additional Directors—cannot yield to government orders or personal pleas for extension. The decision, in v. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P. Nos. 24508 & 22832 of 2025), safeguards promotional avenues and reinforces age limits under the .
From Retirement Request to Judicial Scrutiny
Dr. T. Damodar Naidu retired as Director on , upon hitting 62. Days before, on , he wrote to the Animal Husbandry Department seeking a one-year re-employment to pursue departmental goals. The state obliged via G.O. Rt. No. 285 ( ), citing "administrative exigencies," despite a fresh seniority list (G.O. Ms. No. 14, ) positioning eligible officers like Dr. Pamula Satya Kumari for promotion.
Petitioners— , , , and individual aspirant Dr. Pamula—challenged this as illegal. They argued it violated G.O. Ms. No. 1466 ( ) guidelines, blocked junior promotions, and flouted constitutional Articles 14, 16, 309, and 320. Interim pleas sought suspension of the order and DPC proceedings.
The state bypassed the mandatory Screening Committee by routing the file for Chief Minister's circulation approval under , backed by 15 public representatives' endorsements.
Petitioners Cry Foul on Procedure and Precedence
Petitioners' counsel hammered that re-appointments required Screening Committee vetting per G.O. Ms. No. 1466, with Chief Minister nod only post-approval or in "dire departmental need"—not individual requests. They stressed the post's exclusive promotion route under (Rule 3), no relaxation power existed, and superannuation at 62 was absolute per the 1984 Act. Blocking pipelines discouraged efficiency, they claimed.
The state and Dr. Naidu countered: Administrative exigency justified bypassing the committee, as G.O. Ms. No. 1466 allowed circulation in exceptions. Re-employment advanced state vision; no public interest test applied to government prerogative. Dr. Naidu's qualifications matched, was untenable absent statutory violation, and no eligible successor like Dr. Y. Simhachalam was immediately promotable.
Court Dissects Rules, Rejects 'Exigency' Facade
Justice Vijay framed three issues: petitioners' locus, G.O. compliance, and statutory alignment.
Locus was affirmed, citing Mocherla Venkataraya Sarma v. Y. Sivarama Prasad (AIR 1961 AP 250) and Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat ((2022) 5 SCC 179)— protects public offices from usurpers, relaxing strict standing.
On procedure, G.O. Ms. No. 1466 mandated committee proposals in pro-forma; bypass only for "genuine and essential" departmental needs. Here, only Dr. Naidu's letter existed—no departmental endorsement.
"The emphasis here is on the need of the Department and not of the individual,"
the court noted.
Critically, statutory rules dominated: Rule 3 specified "by promotion" from Additional Directors, appointing authority Government. Executive G.O.s couldn't override under " " ( A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka , (1998) 3 SCC 495; State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar , (2023) 3 SCC 773). Superannuation barred statutory post continuations; retirees fit only non-statutory roles like advisors.
Precedents like were distinguished as involving rule-compliant appointments.
Key Observations
"The first fundamental to be appreciated in relation to public employment is that every aspect is governed by statutory rules. These statutory rules do not yield to executive instructions or give a right to the employer to bypass the procedure prescribed under the Rules."
"In this case... the procedure as contemplated under G.O.Rt.No.1466 is not followed and the re-appointment of Respondent No.4 on the strength of his own letter datedcannot be sustained."
"Even assuming... the appointment... is in accordance with G.O.Rt.No.1466... the same would not be of any avail as an executive order cannot interdict the method of appointment prescribed under the statutory Rules on the principle of ''."
"The age of superannuation for Government employees is 62 years and any continuance in a statutory post governed by statutory Rules beyond the said age is contrary to the."
Writ Allowed: Paving Way for Promotions
Writ petitions allowed; issued. Dr. Naidu must vacate; no costs. Applications closed.
This mandates DPC per seniority, opening doors for pipeline officers. It signals governments can't favor retirees over rules, potentially curbing similar extensions statewide. As one legal observer noted, it underscores that
"statutory rules don't yield to executive instructions,"
echoing Supreme Court wisdom on service jurisprudence.
