IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7573 OF 2018 Between: Solla Bojji Reddy, S/o Somi Reddy, aged 43 years, Hindu, Working as Secondary Grade Teacher, TWAHS, Bandapalli, R/o Bandapaili Village and Post, Rampachdavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings Vangalapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Tribel Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, V-Plaza, Maruthi Nagar, Chittugunta Junction, Near BSNL Office, Vijayawada. 3. The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District. 4. The Deputy Director(TW), Rampachodavarm, East Godavari District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the Petitioner representation dated 11-08- i may n 2015, to regularize the service from 20-03-2009 to 25-06-2012 by extending all the service benefits and granted also other benefits granted for regular employee, in pursuance of the 4th respondent remarks vide Rc. No.D9/DD/(TW)/245/2009 dated 20-11-2016 to the 2nd respondent, as consider Sri V. S. Nayik, Tahisladar of Nalgonda District- in the 2004 Elections by issuing G.O. Rt. No. 653 dated 30-03-2000 illegal, arbitrary, violation of principal of natural justice and bias. as , as lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 1st and 2nd respondent to take steps for in pursuance of the 4th respondent remarks vide Rc. No.D9/DD/(TW)/245/2009 dated 20- 11-2016 to the 2nd respondent, pending the above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. G SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010174282018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [33»dj TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7573/2018 Between: Solla Bojji Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GSIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “ to issue a Writ, order or direction more particulariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the Petitioner representation dated 11-08-2015, to regularize the service from 20-03-2009 to 25-06-2012 by extending all the service benefits and granted also other benefits as granted for regular employee, in pursuance of the 4*^ respondent remarks vide Rc.No.D9/DD/(TW)/24 5/2009 dated 20-11-2016 to the 2'"^ respondent, as consider Sri V.S.Nayik, Tahisladar of Nalgonda District- in the 2004 Elections by issuing G.O.Rt.No.653 dated 30-03-2000, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principal 2 of natural justice and bias and pass such other order or orders. Heard Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and 2. Ms.C.Radha, learned counsel, representing learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked as Secondary Grade Teacher since 1988, till his resignation in the year 2009. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has submitted his resignation in the year 2009 for contesting in General Elections and he lost in the General Elections. Thereafter, he submitted application to 3. withdraw his resignation and that was not considered. The petitioner filed W.P.No.17504 of 2011 before this Court seeking direction to the government to consider his reappointment. By virtue of order dated 05.09.2011 in W.P.No.17504 of 2011, the Government considered his application and appointed him as Secondary Grade Teacher, as a fresh candidate. Learned counsel would further submit that for a similarly situated person, who is a Tahsildar, the Government considered the period of absence i.e. from the date of voluntary retirement till the date of his withdrawal of the resignation, as leave period and he was allowed to continue in the service. But in case of the petitioner, the Government issued order appointing him as a fresh candidate. Learned counsel, to support his arguments, relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6764 of 2021 in State of Tamil Nadu and another ‘Agriculturist Association. V. National South Indian River Interlinking 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government W.P.No.17504 of 2011 directing the Government to | made by the petitioner and the by the respondent No.2 petitioner, within three months from In the light of the Pleader would submit that was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench of this Court pass appropriate orders on the representation recommendations said to have been submitted regarding withdrawal of the resignation of the the date of receipt of copy of that order, a decision to consider the petitioner and passed orders vide same, the Government has taken withdrawal of the resignation of the G.O.Ms.No.20 Social Welfare (TW.Ser.III/A1) Department, dated 11.05.2012 following Rule 30{b)(c) and (d) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate that his appointment shall be treated forfeit all his past service and he is not Service Rules, subject to the condition as a fresh appointment and he shall entitled to count any portion of his Accordingly, the petitioner orders dated 26.06.2012. The present petition in the the count that the similarly situated are reckoned by accepting the absence previous service for any benefit or was reinstated into concession. service by the petitioner after joining in service preferred the year 2018 chailenging the orders of the Government on person, who is a Tahsildar, his period as leave. services 4 5. For ready reference, it is beneficial to extract Rule 30 (b) (c) and (d) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules; “30. RESIGNATION:- (a) A member of a service may resign his appointment and the acceptance of his resignation by the appointing authority shall take effect:- (i) in case he is on duty, from the date on which he is relieved of his duties in pursuance of such acceptance; (ii) in case he is on leave, from the date of communication of such acceptance to the member or if the said authority so directs, from the date of expiry of leave; and (iii) in any other case, from the date of communication of such acceptance to the member or from such other date, not being earlier than the date on which he was last on duty, as the said authority may, having regard to administrative exigencies, specify. Provided that the resignation of a member of a service, who is placed under suspension from service, pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges or who is deemed to have been suspended under rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 shall not be accepted during the period of such suspension. Provided further a member of a service may with draw his resignation before it takes effect. Provided also that no withdrawal of resignation shall be permitted except with the sanction of the Government, if the withdrawal is made after the resignation takes effect, (b) If the resignation of a member of a service has been accepted, but has not taken effect and he withdraws his resignation before it has taken effect, he should be deemed to be continuing in service. If the person is permitted to withdraw his resignation after ithas taken effect and is re-appointed to the post from which he resigned, such reappointment shall be subject to the conditions specified in sub-rules (c) and (d). (c) A member of service, shall, if he resigns his appointment, forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the particular post held by him at the time of resignation but all his previous service under the Government. 5 (d) The reappointment of a person, who has resigned from Government service and who is re-appointed to any service, shall be treated in the same way as a first appointment to such service by direct recruitment and all rules governing such appointment shall apply; and on such re-appointment, he shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit or concession admissible under any rule or order. Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall affect the operation of clause (b) of Article 418 or Article 422 of the Civil Services Regulations or of any other rules similar thereto for the time being in force.” Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material 6. placed on record, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has submitted his resignation for the purpose of contesting in the General Elections in the year 2009. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner lost the election, thereafter he submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation to the authorities. When the respondents did not consider his representation for reinstatement, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.17504 of 2011. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by nd the petitioner and recommendations said to have been submitted by the 2 respondent as to withdrawal of resignation of the petitioner. In the light of the said orders, the Government have considered the representation of the petitioner by virtue of the authority under Rule 30 (b) (c) and (d) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, specifically mentioned in the order that the order is subject to the individual foregoing his past service. 7. In the light of the language employed in Rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, one has to forego his past service in the case of the Government considering his case for withdrawal of the resignation. It is not in dispute that the G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 11.05.2012 is very vivid on that point. It is beneficial to extract the relevant portion in G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 11.05.2012, which reads as under: “The Government after careful examination of the matter has decided to consider the request of Sri S.Bojji Reddy, as a special case on humanitarian grounds and permit him to withdraw his resignation tendered to the post SGT and accordingly hereby order to withdraw the resignation of Sri Bojji Reddy, and to re-appoint him to the post of SGT in terms of sub-rule (b) (c) and (d) of Rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules with immediate effect, subject to condition that his appointment shall be treated as fresh appointment and he shail forfeit aii his past service and not entitied to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit or concession admissible under any rule or order and also to comply with the orders of Hon'ble High Court in WP.No.17504 of 2011, dt.05-09-2011 8. In the light of the order referred supra, the petitioner is having knowledge that he lost his past service by the date of his re-entry into service even in the year 2012. The petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2018 after lapse of six years. The contention of the petitioner that he is similarly situated person like Tahsildar, who also contested the election and lost the election and submitted for withdrawal of the resignation which allowed by the Government considering his past service, has no force since there may be several circumstances to the Government to consider the of the individual depending on the facts and circumstances of the The G.O. issued in favour of the said Tahsildar i.e. G.O.Rt.No.653 Revenue was cases persons. 7 (Services III) Department, dated 30.03.2007, as per which, Sri V.Shakru Naik, M.R.O., who retired voluntarily, was reinstated into service as Tahsildar. This order is not relating to withdrawal of his resignation and reappointing him. But it is a subsequent and consequential order. In the light of the aforementioned premises, the Government passed 9. order dated 26.06.2012 considering the case of the petitioner under Rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, which stipulates that one has to forego his past service. The petitioner has approached this court in the year 2018 after lapse of 6 years claiming similar order like that of one Sri V.Shakru Naik. On the point of delay also, there is no plausible explanation forthcoming from the petitioner. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find force to show indulgence on the petitioner to consider the present writ petition. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as 10. to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT ^IpGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. G Simhadri Advocate [OPUC] GP for Services II, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 2. Two CCs to 3. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED;25/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.7573 of 2018 ANos;^ of f<rS‘ 5 0 3 OCT 2025 milJ ^ . Current iiection DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS