SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18799

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)


[3529]


WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX


PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR


WRIT PETITION Nos: 4493 of 2016, 38747 of 2015, 14864 of 2017 & 3629 of 2021


WRIT PETITION NO: 4493 of 2016


Between:


1. K.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO,, S/O. LATE K.SEETARAMA SWAMY

AGE:52 YEARS, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R&B), SECTION II S.KOTA-II, SUB-DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM-535145.


2. P.SRINIVASA RAO,, SRI P.B.KALIDAS AGE:52 YEARS,

ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R&B) SPECIAL SECTION-I,

SPECIAL SUB-DIVISION SRIKAKULAM-532001.


3. RSN MURTHY,, S/O. SRI R.SATYAMURTHY AGE: 55YEARS,

ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R&B) NARSIPATNAM SECTION,

VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.


4. K.S.PRABHU,, S/O. LATE K.DHRAMA RAO, AGE:48 YEARS,

ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R&B) VISAKHAPATNAM

SECTION, VISAKHAPATNAM SUB-DIVISION VISAKHAPATNAM

DIST.


5. N.NARASIMHA MURTHY,, S/O. SRI N.PAVANA MURTHY AGE:48

YEARS, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R&B) CHODAVARAM

SECTION, CHODAVARAM VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.


6. D.APPA RAO,, S/O. LATE D.NARAYANA MURTHY AGE:55

YEARS, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R&B) BUILDINGS SUB

DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.


7. CH.V.K.LAKSHMI KOWSALYA,, D/O. CH.VENKATESHWAR RAO,

AGE:45 YEARS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R&B),

DIVISION-III, D&P WING, 0/O. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF (R&B),

ERRUMMANZIL, HYDERABAD.


8. S.VENUGOPALA RAO,, S/O.VAMANA RAO, AGE:50 YEARS,

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R&B), NARSIPATNAM,

VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.


9. T.SRINIVAS RAO,, S/O.SANYASI RAO, AGE:49 YEARS, DEPUTY

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R&B), 0/O.RIMS, BALAGA,

SRIKAKULAM.


...PETITIONER(S)


AND


1. M GANESHWARA RAO, S/O. NAGOOR, AGE: 41 YEARS, A.E.

R&B, MOGALTUR, SC, WEST GODAVARI DIST. R/O.5-2A;

PEDAPETA, VEERAVASARAN MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI

DISTRICT


2. K RAMASWAMY, S/O.SUNDER RAO, AGE: 39 YEARS, A.E.,

R&B, RUDRAPAKA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, R/O.H.NO.10-69,

RAVINDRA NAGAR, KRISHNA DISTRICT.


3. B V RAMANAYYA, S/O. B.SUNDARAIAH, AGE:47 YEARS, A.E.,

R&B, O/O DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Q.C.SUB

DIVISION NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.


4. K V RANGAIAH, PITCHAIAH, AGE:46, A.E., R&B, 0/O DEPUTY

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DIVISION GIDDALURU,

PRAKASHAM DISTRICT.


5. AMANULLA SAHEB, S/O. ZILANI BASHA, AGE:39 YEARS, A.E,

R&B, O/O DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DIVISION

ATMAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.


6. P V BHASKAR RAO, S/O. DAMODAR RAO, AGE:47 YEARS,

A.E., R&B, 0/0 D.E.E., SUB DIVISION KANKIPADU,

VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.


7. J SESHU BABU, S/O.J.SUBBA RAO, AGE:46 YEARS, A.E.,

R&B, O/O. CHIEF ENGINEER, R&B & MDAPRDC, HYDERABAD


8. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS

PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS

DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.


9. N SEKHAR, S/O.N.VENKATASWAMY, AGE: 47 YEARS,

WORKING AS A.E.E. O/O.ENC (R&B) NH & ADMN.,

ERRAMANZIL, HYDERABAD, R/O.F.NO.509, SAIRAM SRINIDHI

GARDENS, SANGEETH NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD.


10. P MEERA ANUSHA, D/O.P.ESWARA RAO, AGE 41 YEARS,

WORKING AS A.E.E. 0/O.ENC, NH & ADMN., ERRAMANZIL,

HYDERABAD, R/O.H.NO.8-7-113/10, NAGIREDDY COLONY,

R.R.NAGAR, OLD BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD


11. A RAMAN KUMAR, S/O.A.KUMARASWAMY, AGE 45 YEARS,

WORKING AS A.E.E. O/O.ENC (R&B) CITY ROAD DIVSN,

ERRAMANZIL, HYDERABAD. R/O.F.NO.F2, JAGINI ENCLAVE,

MATHA LAKSHMI NAGAR, GADDIANNARAM,

DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD.


12. U NARSIMULU, S/O.U.NARASAPPA, AGE 45 YEARS,

WORKING AS A.E.E. O/O.ENC (R&B) NARASAPUR SECTION,

SANGA REDDY DIVISION, ERRAMANZIL, HYD. R/O.F.NO.201,

POOJA RESIDENCY, S.R.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.


13. I V PRIYAKUMAR, S/O.I.SREENIVASULU, AGED: 44 YEARS,

WORKING AS A.E.E., O/O.ENC (R&B), ERRAMANZIL,

HYDERABAD. R/O.F.NO.204, ANAND VILLA, 6-3-609/107,

ANAND NAGAR, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD.


14. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPLE

SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS

DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.


15. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, EN UMMANZIL, HYDERABAD.


16. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA,

ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, ERRUMMANZIL, HYDERABAD.


...RESPONDENT(S):


Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to O.A.No:6756/2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the orders dt.17.8.2015 in 0.A.No.6756/2009


IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 2837 OF 2016

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners herein to file the above writ petition challenging the orders dt.17.8.2015 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.6756/2009


IA NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP 2838 OF 2016

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of Certified copy of the orders dt.17.8.2015 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.6756/2009


IA NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP 2839 OF 2016

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to implead the State of Telangana, Engineer-in-Chief, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Engineer-in Chief, Government of Telangana as respondent No.14, 15 & 16 in the above writ petition


IA NO: 7 OF 2016(WPMP 5753 OF 2016

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Circular Memo No.3939/Ser-I(3)/2015, dt.19-12-2015 by suspending the impugned order dt.17.8.2015 in OA No.6756/2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above writ petition


IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to receive the Government Order and Proceedings annexed to this IA as a documents in WP No. 4493/2016 and pass


Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.SODUM ANVESHA


Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.K RAMAMOHAN

2.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL II

3.J SUDHEER

4.P BALA KRISHNA MURTHY


Date of Reserve :16.03.2026

Date of Pronouncement :01.04.2026

Date of Upload :01.04.2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sodum Anvesha
For the Respondents:K Ramamohan, Addl Advocate General II, J Sudheer, P Bala Krishna Murthy

When multiple feeder categories are integrated into a single post via a roster-based system, the state cannot impose additional seniority stipulations that result in the effective nullification of allocated roster points for specific feeder categories, as such conditions are deemed arbitrary and discriminatory.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Service Rules - Rule 2 and Rule 3 - Promotion to Deputy Executive Engineer - Roster system - Provisos introduced via G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 25.02.2009, imposed seniority requirements on top of existing roster points - Tribunal set aside these provisos, finding them arbitrary and discriminatory against feeder categories - Appellate Court agrees, noting that merging distinct feeder categories through a 24-point roster is valid, but superimposing seniority conditions effectively extinguishes promotional avenues for specific feeder categories without rational nexus to service requirements. (Paras 3, 7, 16, 21)

Facts of the case:
The dispute relates to promotional avenues to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer from three distinct feeder categories: Assistant Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers, and Draughtsmen. A 24-point roster was established under original service rules to govern these promotions. In 2009, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.82, introducing two provisos to prioritize seniority over the roster mechanism to prevent Assistant Engineers from superseding Assistant Executive Engineers. This led to litigation by aggrieved Assistant Engineers.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the imposition of seniority conditions that effectively nullify existing roster points for specific feeder categories is arbitrary and discriminatory, lacking a rational nexus to the promotion policy.

Issues: Whether the additional seniority conditions imposed on the established roster-based promotion system for Deputy Executive Engineers were legally valid or arbitrary.

Ratio Decidendi: If a government employs a roster-based promotion system for merging separate feeder categories, it cannot layer additional seniority conditions that prioritize one category at the systemic expense of another, as this renders the statutory roster points illusory.

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

The Court made the following Common Order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

As the issues raised in all these Writ Petitions are common, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. The primary dispute in these Writ Petitions is on the question ofpromotions to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, under the Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Engineering Service Rules, from the feeder categories of Assistant Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Draughtsmen.

3. The Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Service Rules, were brought into force, under G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 22.05.1996, on being published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, on 17.08.1996. Rule 2 of these Rules sets out the various categories of posts, falling within these Rules. Rule 3 provides for the method of appointment and appointing Authorities of these categories of posts. The relevant posts, for the purpose of these promotions are Deputy Executive Engineer, which is category (5) of Class A in Rule 2, Assistant Executive Engineer, which is category (6) in Clause A of Rule 2. Apart from this, the posts of Assistant Engineers, Draughtsman Special Grade and Draughtsman Grade I, under the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Services are also relevant.

4. The method of appointment, for Deputy Executive Engineer, which is the present controversy, reads as follows:

5. Dy. Executive Engineers

(i) By promotion from category (6)

(ii) By appointment by transfer of Asst. Engineers in A.P. Roads and Buildings Engineering Subordinate Service:

(iii) By appointment by transfer of D’Man Special Grade and D’Man Grade I from a combined seniority list with reference to the date of their appointment to the category of D’Man, Grade I.

5. Category (6) mentioned in Clause – 1 is the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. This post is filled up in the following manner:

6. Assistant Executive Engineers

(i) By direct recruitment;

(ii) By appointment by transfer of Asst. Engineer/D’Man, Spl. Grade/D’Man, Grade I who have acquired a degree in Civil Engineering or Mechanical Engineering from a combined seniority list with reference to the date of their appointment to the category of D’Man, Grade I.

6. The Assistant Engineers mentioned in Clause 2 of Rule 3 (5) are Assistant Engineers appointed, under the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Services. The education qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer is a Diploma. They are appointed either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the lower categories of posts, in the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Services. Similarly, the posts of Draughtsman Special Category and Draughtsman Grade 1 are the posts within the ambit of the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Services. The post of Deputy Executive Engineer is filled either by way of promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer; by promotion by way of transfer of Assistant Engineers under the Engineering Subordinate Service Rules or by transfer of Draughtsman Special Grade and Draughtsman Grade I, again from the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Service.

7. As there are three feeder categories, to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, a scheme was framed by way of the Service Rules, under G.O.Ms.No.103. This scheme was brought in by way of a Note. Under this Note, a 24-point roster was established. Under this roster, every 4th vacancy, except the 20th vacancy was reserved for Assistant Engineers from the Subordinate Services. The 20th vacancy was reserved for the Draughtsmen falling in Class 3, of entry No. 5, in the table, in Rule 3. All other vacancies are filled by Assistant Executive Engineers falling within Class 1, of entry 5, in the table, in Rule 3.

8. Initially, the categories of Assistant Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Draughtsman were taken as three silos, whereunder persons falling, under these categori

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top