APHC010477882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 26231/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK SANDHANI BASHA, S/O SHAIK GHOUSE BASHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O D.NO.4 - 80 - 1, BADDULAVARI VEEDI, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, 522230. 2. LINGALA SATEESH KUMAR REDDY,, STUDENT S/O LINGALA UTHAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1 -23, VELPULA, KADAPA DISTRICT, 516349. 3. VARADA NANDA KISHORE,, STUDENT C/O VARADA VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O D.NO.26/507, VASANTHAPETA, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT, 516360. 4. MADIGA SUBBA RAYUDU, ,STUDENT S/O MADIGA OBULESU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1 -260B, KURUBAVANDLAPALLI, PENUKONDA, ERRAMANCHI, ANANTAPUR, 515164. 5. UPPATURU SUNEETHA, ,STUDENT W/O KOPPALA GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O D.NO.2/207, REPALLI, KOTHA SANGATIPALLI, PENDLIMARRI, KADAPA DISTRICT, 516216. 6. PULIBANTI TEJA, STUDENT S/O PULIBANTI SANYASI 2 VN,J W.P.NO.26231 OF 2026 RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O D.NO.5 - 135/5, AGANAMPUDI, NEAR BORRAMAMBA TEMPLE, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, 530053. 7. PALEM NAGARJUNA REDDY, STUDENT S/O PALEM C.VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O D.NO.2 - 35/1, VINAYAKA TEMPLE, SOMIREDDY COLONY, MACHERLA, PALNADU DISTRICT, 522426. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH VIDYUT RECRUITMENT COORDINATE COMMITTEE, ELURU ROAD, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, 520 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. ANDHRA PRADESH VIDYUT RECRUITMENT SUB COMMITTEE, ELURU ROAD, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, 520 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED, VIDYUT SOUDHA, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH, 520004, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 5. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LTD, KESAVAYAGUNTA, BESIDES SRINIVASA KALYANA MANTAPAM, TIRUCHANURU ROAD, TIRUPATHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 6. ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED, VIDYUT NILAYAM, 3 VN,J W.P.NO.26231 OF 2026 CORPORATE OFFICE, BESIDE VIDYUT SOUDHA, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, 520004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 7. EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED, 50-27-5/1, TPT COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530013, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 8. ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED, VIDYUTH SOUDHA, VIJAYAWADA, 520004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...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 topleased to issue a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, Declaring the action of the Respondents in providing questions from out of syllabus in the recruitment for the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical), in pursuance of the Notification Ro.No.85/26-27, Notification No.1/2026 and Notification No.1/2026 dated 25.06.2026 and in not conducting the said examination bilingually, i.e., in Telugu and English, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Official Languages Act, 1966, violative of Articles 14, 16(2), 19(1 )(g), 21 and SOOAofthe Constitution of India ii. Consequently, set aside the recruitment that is undertaken by the Respondents in pursuance of Notification Ro.No.85/26-27, Notification No. 1/2026 and Notification No. 1/2026 dated 25.06.2026 iii. Direct the Respondents to conduct the examination for the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) afresh bilingually, i.e., in Telugu and English and to 4 VN,J W.P.NO.26231 OF 2026 frame the questions in the said examination strictly in accordance with the syllabus stipulated in the Notifications IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 stay all further proceedings, including the publication of results, in pursuance of Notification Ro.No.85/26-27, Notification No.1/2026 and Notification No.1/2026 dated 25.06.2026 for the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 5 VN,J W.P.NO.26231 OF 2026 ORDER The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in including questions beyond the prescribed syllabus in the recruitment examination conducted for the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical), pursuant to Notification Nos. 85/26-27 and 1/2026 dated 25.06.2026, and in not conducting the said examination bilingually, i.e., in Telugu and English. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Notification No.1/2026 dated 25.06.2026 was issued by the 5th respondent-Corporation for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers and other posts. It is submitted that, under paragraph No.10 of the said notification, the syllabus for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) was specifically prescribed, comprising subjects such as Electric Circuits, Electrical Machines, Power Systems, Utilization and Control Systems, Measurements, Analog and Digital Electronics, Power Electronics and Drives. 3. It is further submitted that the recruitment examination was conducted on 26.08.2026 and 27.08.2026. According to the petitioners, several questions appearing in the examination were beyond the syllabus prescribed in the notification and did not pertain to the subject of Electrical Engineering. It is contended that the inclusion of such questions has adversely affected the prospects of the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates in the selection process. 6 VN,J W.P.NO.26231 OF 2026 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, as per the notification, the examination was required to be conducted bilingually, i.e., in Telugu and English. However, the examination was conducted only in English, thereby causing prejudice to the candidates who were entitled to participate in the examination in both the notified languages. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent/Corporation submitted that the grievance relating to the questions alleged to have been asked beyond the prescribed syllabus is presently under consideration by the respondent-Corporation. He submitted that the Corporation would examine the objections raised by the candidates and take an appropriate decision thereon before declaration of the results. 6. With regard to the grievance relating to the bilingual nature of the examination, learned Advocate General submitted that the Respondent-Corporation is an independent entity and that, having regard to the nature of the examination and the subject involved, examinations have traditionally been conducted in English. It is therefore contended that the petitioners cannot insist, as a matter of right, that the examination should necessarily be conducted bilingually. 7. Heard the learned counsels. 8. In view of the submission made by the learned Advocate General that the questions alleged to have been asked beyond the prescribed syllabus are under consideration by the 7 VN,J W.P.NO.26231 OF 2026 respondent-Corporation and that the results would be declared only after taking a conscious decision on the aspect, the grievance of the petitioners, to that extent, stands redressed for the present. In the event of any decision being taken adverse to the interests of the petitioners, it is open to them to challenge the same by way of an independent writ petition, in accordance with law. 9. As regards the prayer for conducting the examination bilingually, this Court is of the opinion that the manner and mode in which a recruitment examination is to be conducted, including the language in which the examination is to be held, falls within the domain of the recruiting authority, subject to the terms of the notification and the applicable rules. Further, the petitioners, having participated in the examination knowing that the same was being conducted in English, cannot now turn around and contend otherwise. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY,J 15.09.2026. LSP 8 VN,J W.P.NO.26231 OF 2026 51 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 26231/2026 15.09.2026. LSP