2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19512

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B S BHANUMATHI
Mr. Katti Chemchuramaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 25405/2025

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 15(4), 16(4) and 226 - Andhra Pradesh (50 Percent Reservations to BCs, SCs, STs and Minorities in all the Nominated Posts) Act, 2019 - Sections 3, 4 and 8 - Andhra Pradesh (50 Percent Reservations to BCs, SCs, STs and Minorities in all the Nominated Posts) Rules, 2019 - Rules 3, 5 and 8 - Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 - Sections 5 and 6 - Writ jurisdiction - Appointment to nominated posts of Chairpersons of Agricultural Market Committees - Reservation policy - Rule of reservation - Implementation of reservation policy - Unit of reservation - State as unit versus district as unit - Government policy - Doctrine of functus officio - Locus standi - Doctrine of pleasure - Legitimate expectation. (Paras 2-4, 8, 12, 14, 16-24, 28-30)

(B) Locus Standi - A person who belongs to the community for which a post is reserved and is likely to be affected by a violation of the reservation policy has the locus standi to challenge the appointment of a person from a non-reserved category. (Para 17)

(C) Policy - The doctrine of functus officio does not apply to administrative policy decisions, and the government has the power to change or modify its policy from time to time. (Para 18)

(D) Policy - The validity of a governmental policy is not normally within the domain of a court to review, except where it is arbitrary or violative of any constitutional, statutory, or other provision of law. (Paras 19, 20) (E) Article 226 - A writ of mandamus is not issued to enforce administrative instructions that have no statutory force, but it can be issued to enforce a statutory right under an Act and the rules made thereunder. (Paras 21, 22) (F) Nominated Post - An appointment to a nominated post is governed by the doctrine of pleasure, but a challenge to such an appointment on the ground that it violates the statutory reservation policy is maintainable. (Para 23) (G) Legitimate Expectation - The doctrine of legitimate expectation does not impede the power of a public authority to lay down or withdraw a policy. However, a claim based on a statutory mandate for reservation is not merely a claim of legitimate expectation. (Para 24)

Facts of the case:
These six writ petitions were filed challenging the appointment or proposed appointment of Chairpersons to various Agricultural Market Committees (AMCs) in the state, on the ground that the appointments violated the rule of reservation (ROR) as mandated under the Andhra Pradesh (50 Percent Reservations to BCs, SCs, STs and Minorities in all the Nominated Posts) Act, 2019 and the Rules, 2019. The petitioners, who belonged to the reserved categories for which the posts were initially reserved, argued that the appointments were made to persons from the Open Category (OC) in contravention of the ROR fixed by the respective District Collectors. The State respondents defended the actions, arguing that the initial government memo treating the 'district' as a unit for implementing the ROR was inconsistent with the Act and Rules, which required the 'state' as a unit, and that this memo had been subsequently modified by a later memo treating the 'state' as a unit.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed all the writ petitions. It held that the subsequent government memo dated 10.10.2025 only modified the earlier memo dated 06.12.2024 to the extent of changing the unit from 'district' to 'state' but did not supersede it. Therefore, a fresh list of allocation of posts of Chairpersons was required to be prepared before appointments were made. Any appointments made under the proceedings of the District Collectors, which treated the district as a unit, were held to be in violation of the law and could not be sustained. The court specifically set aside the impugned government orders and proceedings that violated the ROR.

Issues: The main issues were whether the appointments of Chairpersons of AMCs made or proposed to be made in violation of the ROR fixed by the District Collectors were illegal and whether the subsequent modification of the government memo justified these actions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Act and Rules mandate 50% reservation for reserved categories in all nominated posts. While the 'state' is the correct unit for implementing this reservation, any appointments made before the necessary fresh roster was prepared under the modified memo were invalid as they were based on a flawed unit ('district') and violated the existing ROR proceedings. The court held that the subsequent memo did not validate the impugned actions, as it only paved the way for a new allocation of posts, not a ratification of past violations. Result : All writ petitions were allowed. The impugned G.O.Rt.No.593, dated 10.07.2025; G.O.Rt.No.855, dated 29.09.2025; and the second proceeding in Rc.No.168/SMA/2024, dated 14.08.2025, were set aside. No order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions were closed. (Paras 34, 35)

Table of Content
1. case introduction and relief sought in multiple writ petitions. (Para 1)
2. statutory framework for reservation in nominated posts. (Para 2 , 3)
3. facts and procedural history of the case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 28 , 29 , 31)
4. arguments of the parties on jurisdiction and policy. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. court's observations on legal issues and policy implementation. (Para 11 , 13 , 20 , 22 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 32 , 33)
6. final order and relief granted. (Para 34)

COMMON ORDER

(i) W.P.No.20163 of 2025 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the G.O.Rt.No.593, dated 10.07.2025, issued by the 1^st respondent, appointing the 7^th respondent, Chekuri Subba Rao, who belongs to the O.C. category, as Chairman of the Agricultural Market Committee, (for short, ‘A.M.C.’), Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District, by relaxing the norms prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 27.09.2019, for a period of one (1) year, as illegal and consequently set aside G.O.Rt.No.593, dated 10.07.2025, to the extent of appointment of the 7^th respondent and further direct the respondents to forthwith implement the rule of reservation (in short, ‘R.O.R) finalized by the 4^th respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.68/B/2024, dated 08.07.2025, and appoint a suitable candidate belonging to the scheduled tribe category.

(ii) W.P.No.19305 of 2025 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the same relief as in W.P.No.20163 of 2025, with the only difference that the 5^th respondent herein is the 7^th respondent in W.P.No.20163 of 2025.

(iii) W.P.No.23109 of 2025 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the proceeding of the 3^rd respondent in Rc.No.168/SMA/2024, dated 14.08.2025, changing the R.O.R. for the post of Chairman, A.M.C., Udayagiri from B.C. (General) to O.C. (Woman), as illegal and further declare that the post of Chairman, A.M.C., Udayagiri, be reserved for B.C. (General).

(iv) W.P.No.25405 of 2025 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the proceeding of the 3^rd respondent in Rc.No.168/SMA/2024, dated 14.08.2025, changing the R.O.R. for the post of Chairman, A.M.C., Kovur, from S.T. (General) to O.C. (General), as illegal and further direct that the post of Chairman, A.M.C., Kovur be reserved for S.T. (General).

(v) W.P.No.26669 of 2025 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in finalizing the list of candidates for constitution of the A.M.C., B.N.Kandriga, without following the R.O.R. notified by order in AGCO5-AMC/23/2024- JMA, dt.Nil-01-2025 as illegal and consequently set aside the selection of Smt. M.Jyothi Sudhakar Naidu (female-O.C.) / 5^th respondent as Chairman, A.M.C., B.N.Kandriga.

(vi) W.P.No.31490 of 2025 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the G.O.Rt.No.855, Agriculture and Cooperation (MKTG-II) Department, dt.29-09-2025, passed by the 1^st respondent appointing the 7^th respondent / Smt. M. Jyoti Sudhakar Naidu, as Chairman, A.M.C., B.N. Kandriga, Tirupathi District, without following the R.O.R. notified by order in AGCO5-AMC/23/2024-JMA, dt.Nil-01-2025 as illegal and consequently set aside the G.O.Rt.No.855, dt.29-09-2025.

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Andhra Pradesh (50 Percent Reservations to BCs, SCs, STs and Minorities in all the Nominated Posts) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2019’). The State of A.P made the ‘Andhra Pradesh (50 Percent Reservations to BCs, SCs, STs and Minorities in all the Nominated Posts) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2019’) vide G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 27.09.2019, mandating 50% reservation to B.Cs., S.Cs., S.Ts. and minorities in all nominated posts, including in A.M.Cs. in the State of A.P.

3. The Government of A.P., Agriculture & Cooperation (Marketing-I) Department, issued a Memo No.AGC051-MKTG/283/2024-Mktg.I, dated 06.12.2024, treating the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document