APHC010357432011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 33611/2011 Between: 1. G.V.N.APPA RAO, RJY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT., S/O SRIRAM MURTY, R/O 31-1-1, FORT GATE, RAJAHMUNDRY EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. REGISTRAR ADMN HIGH COURT OF A P HYDERABAD AND 3 OTHERS, REP BY REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) HYDERABAD. 2. DISTRICT JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU. 3. DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AT MACHILIPATNAM. 4. SECOND ADDL AND DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURTCUM, METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other proceedings (i) declaring the proceedings order dated 15.11.2011 of the District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru reverting the petitioner to the post of Superintendent with retrospective is illegal and arbitrary; (ii) declare the proceedings Roc.No.1981/2011-C-1 2 issued by the Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad dated 14.09.2011 is irrational and arbitrary; and (iii) consequently relieve all the consequential benefits by setting aside the same (iv) and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 41791 OF 2011 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 respondents to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner in the cadre of Administrative Officer by suspending the order dated 15.11.2011 issued by the District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2011(WPMP 183774 OF 2011 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 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 may be pleased to grant leave prelimiting the 2nd respondent to submit the counter affidavit in W.P.No. 33611 of 2011 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y MAHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR 3 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner, had joined the Judicial Subordinate Services as a Lower Division Clerk on 06.09.1976. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk, in the year-1996 and as a Head Clerk/Superintendent, in the year-1999. Ultimately, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer by proceedings, dated 21.07.2010, by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. 2. The petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2011, in the post of Administrative Officer. After his retirement, the petitioner had received a notice, dated 28.09.2011, called upon the petitioner to show-cause why his selection to the post of the Administrative Officer should not be reviewed on the ground that he did not fulfill the required qualification of graduate, for the post of Administrative Officer. The petitioner filed his objections and relied upon the Note-(2) of the Annexure under Rule-8 of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Services Rules, 2003 [for short “the Rules, 2003”] and contended that the requirement of possessing a graduate degree, was not necessary, for being promoted to the post of Administrative Officer, by persons who had joined service when such a qualification was not necessary. 3. The Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, relying upon the communication of the Registrar (Administration), Common High Court as well as the Circular in Roc.No.725/2009-C1, dated 12.08.2009, had issued the proceedings, dated 15.11.2011, reverting the petitioner to the post of Superintendent with retrospective effect. 4. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, dated 15.11.2011, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 5. The ground on which the petitioner had been reverted and the ground which has been pressed into service by Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, is that the Rules, 2003, stipulate that the minimum academic qualification for the post of 4 Administrative Officer is graduation and that the petitioner did not possess such a degree. Further, reliance is also placed on the Judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, dated 11.07.2011, in W.P.No.8412 of 2011. 6. In this case, a person working as a Superintendent, had challenged the selection process to the post of Administrative Officer, on the ground that the persons who had been called for the interview did not possess the necessary qualification while he was not called despite possessing required qualifications. The Division Bench had held that the petitioner therein ought to have been called for the interview and that the promotion given to three persons who had been called for the interview should be set aside. A perusal of the said Judgment would show that the Judgment proceeded on the ground that no instructions or the circulars, permitting promotion of a non- graduated to the post of Administrative Officer had been placed before the Court. It appears that Note-(2) of the Annexure under Rule-8 of the Rules, 2003, had not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench. 7. Note (2) of the Annexure under Rule-8 of the Rules, 2003 reads as follows:- “A person appointed to a post in accordance with the Rules applicable to him at the time of his appointment shall not be required to acquire higher qualifications prescribed to that post subsequent to his appointment”. 8. In the present case, as can be seen from the record that the petitioner had joined service, in the year-1976 when the Rules, 2003 were not in force. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner could not have been rejected. Further, it may also be noted that the petitioner did not obtain a promotion on the basis of any false statement or on the basis of any fabricated documents. The promotion to the petitioner was done on good faith and in such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to revert the petitioner at this length of time and especially after he had retired. 5 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, dated 15.11.2011, reverting the petitioner from the post of the Administrative Officer to the post of Superintendent. 10. This order shall not be treated as a precedent, for any purpose and has been passed on the facts of this case above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 15.09.2025 BSM 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.33611 of 2011 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 15-09-2025 BSM