1 APHC010264272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 13262/2025 Between: 1. A. PADMASRI, W/O.T. KUMARASWAMY, AGE 46 YEARS, OCCUP- GRADE ONE HOSTEL WELFARE OFFICER. SOCIAL WELFARE GIRLS HOSTEL NO.2, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. R. ANURADHA, W/O. GANESH BABU, AGE 43 YEARS, OCCP- GRADE ONE HOSTEL WELFARE OFFICER, SOCIAL WELFARE GIRLS HOSTEL, AVANIGADDA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE AND EMPOWERMENT OFFICER, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM. 5. M ISRAEL, S/O. YESUPADAM, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC GRADE-I HOSTEL WELFARE OFFICER, GOVERNMENT SOCIAL WELFARE BOYS HOSTEL, MOTURU,GUDIVADA (MDL), KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. RESPONDENT NO.5 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 14-10-2025 VIDE IA.NO.2 OF 2025 IN WP.NO.13262 OF 2025. ...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 to issue an appropriate writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in 2 the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in issuing Proceedings in Rc.No.A1/350/2024 dated 06-05-2025 where in the service particulars in the cadre of the Grade-1 Erstwhile Krishna District was prepared by changing the seniority list which was issued in the cadre of Grade 1 hostel welfare officer dated 08-08-2020 as illegal, arbitrary. Unconstitutional and contrary to Letter in Rc.No.A4/2523/2024-2 dated 18-02-2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and Cir.Memo.No.57759/Ser.A/2004-1 Dated 20-05-2004 consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents not to give effect the Proceedings in Rc.No A1/350/2024 dated 06-05-2025 and direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant Social Welfare officers per the seniority list dated 08-08-2020 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the 1®„ and 2"'^respondents not to give effect the Proceedings in Rc.No A1/350/2024 dated 06-05-2025 where in the service particulars in the cadre of the Grade-1 Erstwhile Krishna District was prepared by changing the seniority list which was issued in the cadre of Grade 1 hostel welfare officer dated 08- 08-2020 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 Petitioner/Proposed Respondent No.5 to come on record by impleading him as Party Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.13262 of 2025 in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 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 vacate the interim stay order dated 09- 05-2025 in W.P. No. 13262 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits, in the interest of justice. IA NO: 4 OF 2025 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 vacate the interim order dated 09.05.2025 and dismiss Writ Petition No.13262 of 2025, to enable to conduct the DPC to fill up the Asst. Social Welfare Officer posts, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 3 2. SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29927/2024 Between: 1. M ISRAEL, S/O. YESUPADAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCCU W/AS HOSTEL WELFARE OFFICER GR.L, GOVERNMENT SOCIAL WELFARE BOYS HOSTEL, MOTURU VILLAGE, GUDIWADA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (SOCIAL WELFARE) KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, COLLECTORS OFFICE CAMPUS, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AP, OPP- MANIPAL HOSPITAL, T.G.PLAZA, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. A PADMASRI, W/O T.KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC GRADE-I HOSTEL WELFARE OFFICER, SOCIAL WELFARE GIRLS HOSTEL NO-2, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. R ANURADHA, W/O GANESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC GRADE-I HOSTEL WELFARE OFFICER, SOCIAL WELFARE GIRLS HOSTEL, AVANIGADDA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 14-10-2025 VIDE IA.NO.2 OF 2025 IN WP.NO.29927 OF 2024. ...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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo.No.SWOSERR (SWSS)/37/2023-sw-ser, dt.12-11-24 of the 4th respondent and consequential proceedings.Rc.No.A1/350/2024,dt 22-11-2024 of the 1st respondent as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of the Rule.33(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and further direct the respondents to prepare the seniority list in the cadre of HWO-Gr-ll and I, strictly in the order of merit secured in the selection and as per Rule.33(b) APSSS Rules,1996 and communicate the same to the petitioner and others and pass 4 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the operation of the Memo.No.SWOSERR (SWSS)/37/2023-sw-ser, dt.12-11-2024 of the 4th respondent and consequential proceedings Rc.No.A1/350/2024, dt:22-11-2024 of the 1st respondent and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to prepare the seniority list in the cadre of HWO.Gr-ll and I strictly as per Rule.33(b) of AP SSS Rules, 1996 and in the order of merit secured in the selection ignoring the date of joining and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 eased to vacate the interim order dated 18-12-2024 in Writ Petition 29927 of 2024 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioners/proposed Respondents 5 and 6 to come on record by impleading us as party Respondents 5 and 6 in W.P.No 29927 of 2024 in the interest of Justice and to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 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 vacate the interim order dt.18-12-2024 in Writ Petition 29927 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POLANKI ANAND SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. L V S NAGARAJU 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 5 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No. 13262 of 2025: The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring declare the action of the respondent in issuing Proceedings in Rc.No.A1/350/2024 dated 06- 05-2025 where in the service particulars in the cadre of the Grade- 1 Erstwhile Krishna District was prepared by changing the seniority list which was issued in the cadre of Grade 1 hostel welfare officer dated 08-08-2020 as illegal, arbitrary. Unconstitutional and contrary to Letter in Rc.No.A4/2523/2024-2 dated 18-02-2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and Cir.Memo.No.57759/Ser.A/2004-1 Dated 20- 05-2004 consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents not to give effect the Proceedings in Rc.No A1/350/2024 dated 06-05-2025 and direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant Social Welfare officers per the seniority list dated 08-08- 2020 and pass….” W.P.No.29927 of 2024: The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo.No.SWOSERR (SWSS)/37/2023-sw-ser, dt.12-11-2024 of the 4th respondent and consequential proceedings.Rc.No.A1/350/2024,dt 22-11-2024 of the 1st respondent as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of the Rule.33(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and further direct the respondents to prepare the seniority list in the cadre of HWO-Gr-ll and I, strictly in the order of merit secured in the selection and as per Rule.33(b) APSSS Rules,1996 and communicate the same to the petitioner and others and pass….. Heard M/s.L.V.S.Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.13262 of 2025 and unofficial respondents in W.P.No.29927 of 2024, Mr. P.Anand Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.29927 of 2024 and learned Government Pleader for official 6 respondents and Sri S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent in W.P.No.13262 of 2025. 2. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, hence both the writ petitions are being disposed of with a common order by taking W.P.No.13262 of 2025 as a leading case. 3. The whole contention of the petitioner is that initially the respondent authorities have prepared and finalized the seniority list on 08.8.2020 of Grade-I Hostel Welfare Officer. In that the respondents have prepared the seniority based on 16(h) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules, 1996. But surprisingly by impugned communication of respondent no.3 dated 06.5.2025 has changed the seniority list without taking orders under 16(h) has prepared seniority based on selection list. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel has mainly placed reliance on the earlier seniority list prepared on 08.8.2020. In the said seniority list, petitioner no.2 is at serial no.3. Her date of declaration of probation is 31.11.2008 and petitioner no.1 is at serial no.5 and her date of probation is 30.11.2008. as far as unofficial respondent‟s declaration of probation under 16(h) is 19.8.2009. In the said circumstances, the respondents have to prepare the seniority list based on 16(h). To support his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1724 and 1915 of 2017 vide order dated 12.11.2018, 7 wherein the issue involved in the said case was that one A.Krishna Rao was appointed as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II on 23.01.1989 and one G.Chakrapani was appointed to the said post on 24.6.1985. Further said Krishna Rao had passed required departmental tests in the year 1989 whereas Chakrapani passed said tests on 23.5.1991. As Krishnarao has passed the departmental test within the period prescribed, hence his services were declared from the date of appointment. But Chakrapani who passed the test in an extended period. Accordingly, his services has to be regularized from the date of extended period of passing i.e. 23.5.1991 and whereas said Krishnarao services were regularized from 23.01.1989 and accordingly following 16(h) of State and Subordinate Service Rules, the Division Bench has declared that Krishnarao is to be treated as senior than Chakrapani. Even in the instant case, admittedly the unofficial respondents has passed the test belatedly and his probation has been declared on 19.8.2009 whereas the petitioners probation has been declared on 31.11.2008. Hence the petitioners have to be treated senior than unofficial respondents. 5. Reply to the said contentions, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents has contended that the very filing of the Writ petition itself is not maintainable as the impugned proceedings are only an internal correspondence made by two departmental heads. In the said proceedings, the District Collector, Krishna District has 8 directed the competent authority to re-examine and take necessary action and there is no decision in the impugned correspondence. Hence the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 6. To support his contentions, he has relied on the observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5876 of 2022 wherein the Court has made the following observations: It is well settled that inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. This Court examined the said question in a judgment reported as Omkar Sinha v. Sahadat Khan3. Reliance was placed on Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab4 to hold that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government, two things are necessary. First, the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and second, it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up, the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. The said judgment was followed in K.S.B. Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, and Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Limited6. In Bachhittar Singh, it has been held as under: “8. What we have now to consider is the effect of the note recorded by the Revenue Minister of PEPSU upon the file. We will assume for the purpose of this case that it is an order. Even so, the question is whether it can be regarded as the order of the State Government which alone, as admitted by the appellant, was competent to hear and decide an appeal from the order of the Revenue Secretary. Article 166(1) of the Constitution requires that all executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed in the name of the Governor. Clause (2) of Article 166 provides for the authentication of orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor. Clause (3) of that article enables the Governor to make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government and for the allocation among 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 601 4 AIR 1963 SC 395 5 (2018) 11 SCC 277 6 (2019) 20 SCC 1 the Ministers of the said business. What the appellant calls an order of the State Government is admittedly not expressed to be in the name of the Governor. But with that point we shall deal later. What we must first ascertain is whether the order of the Revenue Minister is an order of the State Government 9 i.e. of the Governor. In this connection we may refer to Rule 25 of the Rules of Business of the Government of PEPSU which reads thus: “Except as otherwise provided by any other Rule, cases shall ordinarily be disposed of by or under the authority of the Minister in charge who may by means of standing orders give such directions as he thinks fit for the disposal of cases in the Department. Copies of such standing orders shall be sent to the Rajpramukh and the Chief Minister.” According to learned counsel for the appellant his appeal pertains to the department which was in charge of the Revenue Minister and, therefore, he could deal with it. His decision and order would, according to him, be the decision and order of the State Government. On behalf of the State reliance was, however, placed on Rule 34 which required certain classes of cases to be submitted to the Rajpramukh and the Chief Minister before the issue of orders. But it was conceded during the course of the argument that a case of the kind before us does not fall within that rule. No other provision bearing on the point having been brought to our notice we would, therefore, hold that the Revenue Minister could make an order on behalf of the State Government. 9. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and then it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. As long as the matter rested with him the Revenue Minister could well score out his remarks or minutes on the file and write fresh ones. 11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the remarks or the order of the Revenue Minister, PEPSU are of no avail to the appellant.” As this case is also identical, it is only an internal correspondence, no decision has been taken. Hence the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents has submitted that there is no seniority list finalized so far and the respondents have to finalize the seniority list based on rules and once the seniority list is finalized and it should be integrated to the next higher post 10 which is a zonal post as per Rule 33(b). Hence he requested to remand the matter to competent authority to prepare the seniority list as per rules before making integrated seniority list under Rule 33(b) of State and Subordinate Service Rules for effecting the promotions to the next higher cadre. 8. Considering the rival submissions as contended by the petitioner, initially the respondents have prepared the seniority list on 08.8.2020 based on Rule 16(h). But surprisingly on perusal of the impugned correspondence and with the same he has annexed seniority list based on the merit without taking the declaration of probation under Rule 16(h). Definitely this Court is of the opinion that the said action is contrary to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the above referred judgment. This Court is also in concurrence with the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader as he has contended that it is only an internal correspondence but surprising to see the annexure made with the internal correspondence on what circumstances he made changes to the seniority list prepared under Rule 16(h). Once the District Collector has changed the list and directing the social welfare officer, he has no other option except to confirm the list submitted by the District Collector. Hence the objections raised by the learned Government Pleader and also made in the Hon‟ble Apex Court‟s order is not applicable to the instant case. 11 9. The other Writ Petition i.e. W.P.No.29927 of 2024 filed by the unofficial respondents in the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel has submitted that the orders of the Director, Social Welfare Department dated 12.11.2024 effects the integrated seniority of the petitioners. Hence they have filed Writ Petition No.13262 of 2025 questioning the said instructions issued by the social welfare department. Finally, he also made his submissions that the respondents may finalize the seniority list as per rules and prepare the integrated seniority list as per Rule 30(3)(b). 10. Considering the above submissions, respondent no.4 District Social Welfare and Empowerment Officer is directed to prepare and finalize the seniority list based on selections and also in terms of declaration of probation under Rule 16(h) after finalizing the said list the same may be sent to the competent authority for finalization of the integrated seniority list under Rule 33(b). Till such time, the respondents are directed not to make any further promotions. 11. Accordingly both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 09.4.2026 RD 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION Nos. 13262 of 2025 and 29927 of 2024 Dated: 09.4.2026 RD