1 APHC010029672015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 30038 OF 2015 Between: 1. Jagarla Rama Rao @ Rambabu, S/o. Kannababu Aged: 36 years, R/o. Natavaram, Door No. 4-37, Natavaram Mandal Visakhapatnam District 2. Boddu Peddi Naidu, S/o.Rammoorthy Aged: 29 Years, R/o. D.No.4-43, Peddipalem Village, Makavarapalem 531113 Visakahapatnam District 3. Sukala Govinda, S/o. Kannappa Aged: 42 years, R/o. D.No. 2-28/A Bayyavaram Village, M.akavarapalem 531113 Visakhapatnam District 4. Maddala Chinavenkataramana, S/o. Chinna Pothuraju. Aged: 58 Years, Kalasapatnam Village, Kotauraila Mandal 531117 Visakhapatnam District ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Secretary, (Agricultural Marketing and Co-operation AM-III Department) Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Labour, State of A.P, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing, the State of A.P. Hyderabad. 4. The Assistant Director of Agricultural Marketing, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. 5. The Narasipatnam Agricultural Market Committee, Narsasipatnam, Visakhapatnam District Represented by its Secretary 2 6. M/s Siddhi Vinayaka Security Force (Reg No 145), Head Office: Kakinada 7. M/s Industrial Security Services, Rep. By its Proprietor, B. Venkat, Office at: S.V Maruthi Care Building, Beside RTC Bus stand Pydiparru, Tanuku- 534 211, West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh ...Respondents 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 a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the oral removal of the Petitioners from service as not only being void but also in violation of Memo No. 5492/AM-III(2)/2013 dated 06.03.2014 of the 1st Respondent and the Memo No. S III(1) 4220/2013 dated 27.03.2014 of the 3tr1 Respondent herein as well as being arbitrary and illegal and to consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service of the 5th respondent IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 38881 OF 2015 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 continue the service of the petitioners as Security Guards by paying regular Wages, pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP 455 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 vacate the interim order dated 22.09.2015 passed in WP No. 30038 of 2015 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: P SRI RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) 3 Counsel for the Respondents:CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents:GODEY SATISH Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR LABOUR (AP) Counsel for the Respondents:G.N.UMA RANI (STANDING COUNSEL FOR AMC) The Court made the following order: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.30038 OF 2015 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the oral removal of the Petitioners from service as not only being void but also in violation of Memo No. 5492/AM-III(2)/2013 dated 06.03.2014 of the 1st Respondent and the Memo No.S III(1) 4220/2013 dated 27.03.2014 of the 3rd Respondent herein as well as being arbitrary and illegal and to consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service of the 5th respondent and to pass….” 2. The principle grievance of the petitioners is that all the petitioners are working as security guards in the 5th respondent Agricultural Market Committee, petitioners 1 to 3 are working right from the year 2006 and the 4th petitioner is working from the year 1994 onwards. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the year 2015, when the respondent authorities threatened the petitioners orally about their removal, at that juncture, the petitioners approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 5 4. On 22.09.2015, this Court pleased to grant interim direction, where under the respondents are directed to continue the petitioners as security guards in the 5th respondent Agricultural Market Committee. 5. Now, Sri Dundi Maharaj, learned counsel representing Sri P.Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly submits that in view of afflux of time, all the petitioners are not working in the 5th respondent Agricultural Market Committee. The 3rd petitioner is working in Divisional Forest Office, Narsipatnam, on outsourcing basis, and the 4th petitioner who became old, is not doing any work and staying at home. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for 5th respondent Agricultural Market Committee Ms.G.N.Uma Rani, submits that in view of administrative exigencies taken place in the market committee, all the issues, i.e. appointment and services of security guards were entrusted to A.P. Corporation for Outsourcing Services in view of administrative policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the 5th respondent agricultural market committee is not able to continue them as security guards. Further learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent placed the written instructions 6 R.C.No.69/2025 dated 12.12.2025 and reiterated her submissions. The said letter dated 12.12.2025 is made as part of record. 7. In view of above peculiar facts and circumstances involved in the lis, and also taking into consideration the change of circumstances as well as administrative policies in the appointment of Security Guards, the instant writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: 1. The eligible petitioners are permitted a prefer a written representation to the 3rd respondent with all educational and their suitabilities other service details for their appointment as security guards within a period of eight (08) weeks from today; 2. After receiving the said written representation from the eligible petitioners, the 3rd respondent is hereby directed to forward the respective representations, to APCOS for taking necessary steps subject to the suitability of their candidatures as Security Guards and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law at the earliest. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:24.12.2025 Rns 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.30038 of 2015 Date:24.12.2025 Rns