2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11848
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D RAMESH
P APPA RAO – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF AP – Respondent
WP 20624/2024
APHC010403172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3208]
AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 20624/2024 Between:
1. P APPA RAO, S/O. P.CHINNA SATYAM AGED 57 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR CIRCLE, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
2. A VU SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. SATYANARAYANA AGED
51 YEARS. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.I.U, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT KOTAVURATIA, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. G OVERNMENT OF AP, REP. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST., PIN 522 238
2. T HE ENGINEERINCHIEF, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, 0PP. PWD GROUNDS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. C SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.20624 of 2024
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the objections raised by the petitioners to the provisional seniority list dated 22-10-2021 in spite of objections raised by the petitioners and purported action of the respondents in seeking to fill-up the posts of Deputy Executive Engineers basing on the said provisional seniority list as illegal, arbitrary, vindictive and violation of Articles
14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India….”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Pursuant to the notification issued by APPSC, the petitioners were participated in the selection process for recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and selected and joined in service in December, 1997. In pursuance of their selection, though the petitioners belong to Zone-I, the 1st petitioner was allotted to Zone-IV and the 2nd petitioner was allotted to Zone-V by the respondents. While the petitioners were discharging their duties, pursuant to a policy decision of the State Government, G.O.Ms.No.610, dated 30.12.1985, was issued purporting to repatriate back all the persons who are working in other zones. As per policy of the State, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.397, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.III) Department, dated 23.10.2008. In para No.4 of the said G.O., it was specifically mentioned that the transfers shall be made in public interest as provided under para 5(2)(C) of the Presidential Order. Accordingly, transfer orders were issued and the petitioners were repatriated to their native zones in the year 2008 and their services were regularized in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide memo dated 22.10.2021 issued a provisional seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers pertaining to PSC-1997 batch. Surprisingly, in the provisional seniority list, the dates of regularization and commencement of probation of the petitioners were unilaterally altered by the Department. Therefore, the petitioners submitted their objections on 12.08.2024 to the respondents. Despite the objections raised by the petitioners, for the reasons best known to them, the respondents have not finalized the seniority list and they are contemplating to fill up the posts of Deputy Executive Engineers while ignoring the claims of the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court has already granted relief in W.P.No.29129 of 2023 by order dated 30.01.2026, and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also does not dispute this fact.
6. Considering th