APHC010657072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3575] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX WRIT APPEAL NO: 1281/2025 Between: 1. DR K KISHORE KUMAR REDDY, S/O K. VENKATRAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC.ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. DR.S.SIVASANKAR, S/O S.CHANDRA BABU, AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. ACADEMIC CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, R/O H.NO. 1-29, CHERLOPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. REDDIVARI ARJUNA REDDY, S/O R.KRISHNA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O H.NO.3-27 CHIGURUWADA, NORTH KHANDRIGA, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATHI. 2. SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517502. 3. SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 2 ANDHRA PRADESH-517502. ...RESPONDENT(S): CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Present:- Mr. Munakala Venkata Ramana, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Ramesh Babu Talluri, Standing Counsel, and Additional Advocate General, for respondent Nos.2 & 3. ****** LISA GILL,J. 1. Prayer in this writ appeal is for setting aside interim order dated 26.11.2025 passed by learned Writ Court in writ petition filed by present appellants, seeking a declaration that notification/advertisement dated 31.10.2025, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Academic Consultants in respondent University for the academic year 2025–2026, is illegal and arbitrary, being against the Rule of Reservation Policy of Government. 2. Writ Petition was first taken up on 20.11.2025, whereby following order was passed: “The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in issuing the notification dated 31.10.2025, notifying the Academic Consultants in various 3 Departments in the 3rd respondent University for the academic year 2025-26, as being contrary to the Rule of Reservation policy of the Government and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as illegal and arbitrary. Sri T. Ramesh, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, seeks time to obtain instructions. The learned standing counsel further submits that, till such time, the appointments will not be finalized by the 3rd respondent University. For getting instructions, list the matter on 26.11.2025 in the Motion-List.” 3. Thereafter, on 26.11.2025, it was noted by learned Writ Court that as per Clause VII of notification dated 31.10.2025, it is clearly mentioned that Rule of Reservation would be followed on an overall basis, covering intake of total number of Academic Consultants. Accordingly, matter was posted to the next date of hearing for filing counter affidavit by respondents and it is further observed that respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with notification dated 31.10.2025, as the contention of appellant/petitioners that no Rule of Reservation is followed does not have any basis. 4. Aggrieved therefrom, present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently argues that impugned order 26.11.2025 should be set aside because guidelines dated 28.03.2003, as applicable, as well as 4 instructions updated on 14.10.2022, have not been adhered to, causing gross prejudice to appellants. Therefore, selection process should not be continued in these circumstances. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has refuted said averments. It is submitted that appellants have not even applied for the posts in question and their eligibility, in any case, is yet to be tested. This is refuted by learned counsel for appellants who submits that they are fully eligible. 6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their able assistance. 7. It is a matter of record and not in dispute that present appeal has been filed challenging an interlocutory order. Arguments as has been raised before us in this appeal are clearly the subject matter of adjudication before the learned Writ Court. Any observation on merits of the matter by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction is not called for. We do not find any merit in the argument raised on behalf of appellants that selection process itself should be stalled. It is to be noted that no useful purpose shall be sought by stalling the selection process. However, we clarify that any such selection carried out by respondent shall remain subject to decision of the writ petition 5 and note to this effect should be made in the appointment orders, if any, issued to candidates. 8. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as above, this appeal is dismissed with the observation as above. There is no expression of opinion on merits of the matter. 9. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly. (LISA GILL) JUDGE (NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE Date: 06.04.2026 ANS 6 141 HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT APPEAL NO: 1281/2025 Date: 06.04.2026 ANS