Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19534
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B.S. Bhanumathi, J
Kuttuboina Madhava – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
Writ Petition No.20163 of 2025|Writ Petition No.19305 of 2025|Writ Petition No.23109 of 2025|Writ Petition No.25405 of 2025|Writ Petition No.26669 of 2025|Writ Petition No.31490 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.Venkateswarlu, Venkata Reddy Chittem, K. Raghu Veer, Polothi Rudra Prasad Yadav, Harinath Reddy Soma
For the Respondents: G.P for Agriculture, G.P for Social Welfare, Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Ramesh Babu Talluri, R. Chandra Reddy, G.P. for Revenue, Turaga Sai Surya, D.Yathindra Dev
The Court held that the statutory unit for implementing reservation for Chairpersons of Agricultural Market Committees is the 'State', not the 'District', and appointments made on the invalid 'district' unit basis were illegal.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 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, 7, and 8 - Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 - Sections 5 and 6 - Reservation in nominated posts - Unit of reservation for chairpersons of Agricultural Market Committees - The primary issue was whether the 'State' or the 'District' should be the unit for implementing reservation for the posts of Chairpersons of Agricultural Market Committees (AMCs) under the Act and Rules of 2019. The Court held that the statutory framework mandates the 'State' as a single unit for reservation. A Government Memo treating the 'district' as a unit was contrary to the Act and Rules and was therefore modified. Consequently, appointments and proceedings made on the basis of the 'district' as a unit were invalid.
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Locus standi - Mandamus - Doctrine of pleasure - The Court ruled that petitioners belonging to the community for which a post was reserved have locus standi to challenge appointments made in violation of the reservation roster. The contention that the Doctrine of Pleasure applied to nominated posts was rejected, as the challenge was based on a statutory right under the Act and Rules, not merely the choice of the individual nominated. The argument that a writ of mandamus cannot lie to enforce administrative instructions without statutory force was also rejected, as the petitions sought enforcement of the statutory mandate of the Act and Rules. (Paras 17, 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
Six writ petitions were filed challenging the appointment or proposed appointment of Chairpersons to various Agricultural Market Committees (AMCs) in different districts of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners alleged that these appointments violated the rule of reservation (R.O.R) fixed under the Act and Rules of 2019. The State had initially issued a Memo on 06.12.2024 treating the 'district' as a unit for implementing the reservation roster for Chairpersons of AMCs. Based on this Memo, District Collectors fixed rosters. However, the State subsequently issued a Memo on 10.10.2025 modifying the earlier one, stipulating that the 'State' should be the unit. Some appointments (e.g., for AMCs Yerragondapalem and B.N.Kandriga) were made under the earlier 'district' unit basis, while in other cases (Udayagiri and Kovur AMCs), the District Collector changed the reservation roster on the same day without reasons.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the appointment of Chekuri Subba Rao (O.C.) to the post reserved for S.T. (General) for AMC Yerragondapalem was invalid. The appointment of Smt. M. Jyothi Sudhakar Naidu (O.C.) to the post reserved for S.T. (General) for AMC B.N.Kandriga was also invalid. The second proceeding dated 14.08.2025 issued by the Collector of Nellore district, which changed the R.O.R for AMCs Udayagiri and Kovur without assigning reasons, was held to be invalid. The Court directed that a fresh list of allocation of posts for Chairpersons of AMCs must be prepared taking the 'State' as a unit, as required by the Act and Rules.
Issues: The main issues were whether the 'State' or 'District' should be the unit for reservation, and whether appointments made or proceedings issued in violation of the reservation rule were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory mandate under the Act and Rules of 2019 requires the 'State' to be treated as a single unit for reservation for the posts of Chairpersons of AMCs. Any administrative instruction (memo) or proceeding by a District Collector that treats the 'district' as a unit is contrary to law. Appointments made or proceedings issued based on an illegal unit cannot sustain.
Result : Writ petitions allowed. The impugned G.Os and proceedings were set aside. No order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reservation for nominated posts under act 2019 (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners challenge appointments violating reservation roster (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. state's defense based on unit of reservation (Para 8) |
| 4. respondents argue lack of locus standi and administrative discretion (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. core dispute over unit for reservation implementation (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. petitioners argue violation of statutory reservation (Para 14) |
| 7. locus standi and right to challenge appointments (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. government policy and court's limited review (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. enforceability of administrative instructions and doctrine of pleasure (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. state's obligation to follow reservation roster (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 11. interpretation of government memos on reservation unit (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 12. appointments invalid due to violation of reservation (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 13. writs allowed, impugned orders set aside (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 1st respondent, appointing the 7th 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 7th respondent and further direct the respondents to forthwith implement the rule of reservation (in short, ‘R.O.R) finalized by the 4th 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 5th respondent herein is the 7th 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 3rd 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 3rd 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.) / 5th 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 1st respondent appointing the 7th 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 BC
