Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.
S. Sasi Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 10103, 10546 of 2023
Decided On : 21-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Raghu Veer
The court affirmed that cancellations of appointment orders must be substantiated by legitimate reasons, emphasizing the right to career advancement and upholding statutory channels for appointments.
Headnote:(A) A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rule 10(e) and 10(a) - Appointment by transfer - The Petitioners, appointed as Assistant Section Officers under 12 ½ % quota, contended that their relieving orders were wrongfully denied by the Respondent based on alleged staff shortages. The court held that the cancellation of their appointment orders lacked a sustainable reason and that their rights to promotion and career planning should not be hindered absent significant justification. (Paras 12-20)
(B) Appointment cancellation - The court clarified that cancellation should be a last resort, and that the appointment of the Petitioners through a legitimate process is protected under statutory rules. Court found exercise of cancellation power unjustified in this context. (Paras 10-20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed and approved as Assistant Section Officers in A.P.Secretariat, but were not relieved from their prior positions due to unsubstantiated staff shortage claims made by Respondent No.3.
Findings of Court:
The order cancelling the Petitioners' appointments was set aside, and they were directed to be relieved from their posts accordingly.
Issues: The court considered whether the reasons given for cancellation of the Petitioners' appointment were sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The notification for appointment was legitimate; Respondent No.3 could not argue staff shortages after endorsing the Petitioners' applications. The ruling emphasized that employees have a right to career advancement and that appointments made through statutory channels should not be cancelled without proper reasoning.
Result: The writ petitions are allowed.
ORDER :
1. As the issue in these two writ petitions is common, with the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.
2. Both the writ petitions are filed by the Petitioners for not relieving them from the Office of the 3rd Respondent as they were appointed as Assistant Section Officers in A.P.Secretariat under 12 ½ % quota by transfer and for consequential direction to relieve them to join as the Assistant Section Officers in the A.P.Secretariat forthwith.
3. W.P.No.10546 of 2023 is taken up as lead case for narration of facts.
4. The Petitioners were appointed in the Office of Respondent No.3 as Junior Assistants on different dates and were promoted as Senior Assistants in HoD. While so, on 22.12.2022, the Respondent No.1 issued proceedings No.GAD01- SUOASO(PROM/1/2022-SU-II) calling upon applications for preparation of panel of Senior Assistants/Senior Inspectors working in HoDs for appointment by transfer as Assistant Section Officer. Pursuant to the memo, the Petitioners submitted their applications on 09.01.2023, 04.01.2023 and 10.01.2023 to Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.3 approved the applications and forwarded the same to Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1, after verifying the applications of the Petitioners and considering their length of service, issued Office Order Ms.No.108 appointing the Petitioners as Assistant Section Officers in A.P.Secretariat under 12 ½ % quota and the same was communicated to Respondent No.3 as well as to the Petitioners.
5. On receipt of the appointment orders, the Petitioners submitted representations to Respondent No.3 on 17.03.2023 and 20.03.2023 and requested to relieve them from the post of Senior Assistant so as to enable them to report as Assistant Section Officer in A.P.Secretariat service. However, no action was taken thereon and the Petitioners are not being relieved by Respondent No.3. As per the appointment order issued vide Office Orders referred above, the Petitioners were called upon to report to duty before General Administration Department within15 days and on failure, they shall forfeit the rights of appointment and hence, the Petitioners are requesting for immediate relieving orders.
6. It is stated that there are 28 Assistants in the Office of Respondent No.3 and there is no shortfall of manpower and the Junior Assistants also be appointed by transfer from the District/Unit Headquarters in the Senior Assistant post vacated by the Petitioners. However, as no relieving orders are being passed, the present writ petition is filed.
7. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, it was stated that Respondent No.3 had addressed a letter to Respondent No.1 on 29.03.2023 stating that there is acute shortage of staff in the Office of Respondent No.3 and it would be difficult if the seniors are relieved from the Office of Respondent No.3, as there are no candidates available to fill up the vacancies. Therefore, Respondent No.3 sought for cancellation of the appointment orders of the Petitioners. It is further stated that pursuant to the same, Respondent No.1 passed Office Order Ms.No.187 dated 24.04.2023 cancelling the appointment orders of the Senior Assistants.
8. In the counter affidavit it was further stated that the power of cancellation of appointments is traceable to Rule 10(e) of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules and as the reason given by Respondent No.3 was found to be germane, the appointments of the Petitioners were cancelled.
9. As these events occurred subsequent to the institution of the writ petitions, an application seeking amendment was sought and the same was ordered.
10. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.G.Krishnamurthy appearing for the Petitioners argued that the applications of the Petitioners were forwarded by Respondent No.3 as mentioned above in January, 2023 and had refused to relieve the Petitioners on account of dearth of Senior Assistants in March, 2023. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the
