Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NYAPATHY VIJAY
Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandary Gazetted Officers Association, rep. by its President, Chs. Krishna Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Special Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department – Respondent
ORDER :
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.
The present writ petitions are filed seeking a writ of quo-warranto against Respondent No.4 pursuant to his re-appointment as Director of Animal Husbandry vide G.O.Rt.No.285 dated 06.08.2025.
2. As the issue in these two writ petitions is common, with the consent of learned counsel, the matters were taken up for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.
3. The Petitioner in W.P.No.24508 of 2025 is a Gazetted Officers Association, while Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.22832 of 2025 are Animal Husbandry Officers Service Association and Veterinary Assistant Surgeons Service Association and Petitioner No.3 is an individual aspiring to the post of Director of Animal Husbandry. Respondent No.4 had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2025. Prior to the age of superannuation, Respondent No.4 requested for extension of his service for a further period of one year on re-employment basis. Considering the request, vide proceedings dated 06.08.2025, Respondent No.4 was re- employed as Director of Animal Husbandry for a period of one year. The contention of the Petitioners is that the appointment of Respondent No.4 is contrary to t
Statutory rules govern public employment appointments, and deviations without proper procedure or justification are impermissible, ensuring service integrity and fair opportunity for aspirants.
Re-employment of government employees must adhere to established procedures and criteria to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fair play.
Point of Law : Since the appointment of the 7th respondent is made, creating a supernumerary post, there is no other option to the petitioner, than to approach this Court, by filing a writ petition s....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments must comply with the relevant rules and government orders, and appointing authorities must act within their jurisdiction.
The issuance of writ of quo warranto requires evidence of unlawful usurpation of public office, and retired individuals typically lack standing to contest appointments under statutory rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutes' tenure for the post of Director applied, and the respondent No. 1 cannot cherry-pick advantageous factors from C & R Rules and s....
Petitioner/Intervener with regard to violation of Rule 16(1) of Rules, 1958 and FR 56(d) and given a detailed finding that there is no violation of the said Rules, in view of the power of relaxation ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
