Date of reserved for orders : 16.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 22.09.2026 Date of uploading : 22.09.2026 APHC010190372022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.12150, 11859, 11890, 11900, 11947, 12159, 14106, 14108, 14111, 14299, 16205, 17445 & 22069 of 2022 and 31655 of 2023 WRIT PETITION No.12150 of 2022 Between: 1. M.YESAIAH, S/O.M.MANIKYA RAO, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.D.NO.2-92/3, PUTTAGUNT VILLAGE, NANDIVADA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. Y.HARI KRISHNA, S/O.Y.GURAVAIAH, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.D.NO.6-74, PATIMEEDA, PEDDAPARUPUDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. GOVADA SURESH, S/O.G.NAGABHUSHANAM, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.D.NO.3-143-1, NANDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. T.RAJESH KUMAR, S/O.VEERABHADRA RAO, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.D.NO.2-201/2, KOTTAPALLI, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. K.VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.K.PRASAD, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.BOMMULURU VILLAGE, BAPALAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. G.RAJESH, S/O.G.GURAVAIAH, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.D.NO.1-30/1, KOYYURU VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2 7. P.MANOHAR, S/O.P.PRATHIPATI, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.SIVALAYAM STREET, RUSTUMBADA, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 8. KOLLI PRASAD, S/O.K.SUBBA RAO, AGE.46 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.KOTTAPALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 9. K.MURALI KRISHNA, S/O.KANAKARAO, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.EDARA VILLAGE, AGIRIPALLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 10. B.SRINIVASA DURGA PRASAD, S/O.B.KANNARAO, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.BONDILI PETA, NUZ VID MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 11. P.RAMESH BABU, S/O.P.SRINIVASA RAO, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.HARIJANAWADA, HANUMANTHULAGUDEM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 12. CHENNU VENUGOPALARAO, S/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.SEETHARAMPURAM VILLAGE, AGIRIPALLE MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 13. G.SARATH BABU, S/O.RAVINDRA NADH THAGUR, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.KOMMURU VILLAGE, AGIRIPALLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 14. P.SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.P.VENKATESWAR RAO, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.CHINNA AGIRIPALLI, AGIRIPALLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 15. CHINTA GOPALA RAO, S/O.CH.SHOBANACHALAM, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ASSISTANT, R/O.EDARA VILLAGE, AGIRIPALLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF 3 SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 7. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH LIVE STOCK DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 4TH BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 9. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 10. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, LABBIPETA, 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 to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1 and 2 respondents in terminating the National Project on Cattle and Bovine breeding (NPCBB) Goplamitras system (MAITRIS) was inducted to provide door step breeding services from 2000-2001 to 2013-2014 (Phase-I and II) without providing any job security to the petitioners and the respondents 3 and 4 in not granting any Financial Aid to the petitioners and the respondent No.5 to 8 in not regularizing the petitioners as permanent employees of Veterinary Department as 4 Animal Husbandry Assistants and not paying the salary at par with the Veterinary Assistants in the State as per 6th Pay Commission from the date of their joining as Gopalamithras / RLU (Paravets) by creating AHA post in RBKs centres as against the Gopalamithras Centres without adopting Constitution and Statutory obligations is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art.12, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to follow the General directions given by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-44 of the Judgment reported in 2006 (4) SCC -1 and the decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court by regularizing the petitioners as Animal Husbandry Assistants in their respective jurisdictions in the Veterinary Department of A.P. Govt. from the date of their joining as Gopalamithras with all service benefits including seniority as per the 6th pay Commission in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N PREMRAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.12150, 11859, 11890, 11900, 11947, 12159, 14106, 14108, 14111, 14299, 16205, 17445 & 22069 of 2022 and 31655 of 2023 COMMON ORDER: Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 Constitution of India for the following reliefs may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in terminating the National Project on Cattle and Bovine breeding (NPCBB) Goplamitras system (MAITRIS) was inducted to provide door step breeding services from 2000-2001 to 2013-2014 (Phase-I and II) without providing any job security to the petitioners and the respondents 3 and 4 in not granting any Financial Aid to the petitioners and the respondents 5 to 8 in not regularizing the petitioners as permanent employees of Veterinary Department as Animal Husbandry Assistants and not paying the salary at par with the Veterinary Assistants in the State as per 6th Pay Commission from the date of their joining as Gopalamithras/RLU (Paravets) by creating AHA post in RBKs centres as against the Gopalamithras Centres without adopting Constitution and Statutory obligations is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice 6 and in violation of Articles 12, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to follow the General directions given by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-44 of the Judgment reported in 2006 4 SCC 1 and the decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court by regularizing the petitioners as Animal Husbandry Assistants in their respective jurisdictions in the Veterinary Department of A.P.Government from the date of their joining as Gopalamithras with all service benefits including seniority as per the 6th Pay Commission in the interest of justice. 2. The issues involved in all these writ petitions are being common, all these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Writ petition No.12105 of 2022 is treated as the lead petition and the facts are derived from the said writ petition. 3. According to the prayer and the facts that divulged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it appears that the Central Government evolved a scheme to provide door step breeding services from 2000-2001 to 2013-2014 with an aim to improve the breeding activities under the National Project on Cattle & Bovine Breeding (NPCBB). Upon the termination of the National Project on Cattle & Bovine Breeding (NPCBB) Gopalmithras system in the year 2019, since 7 the Gopalmithras were absorbed in the Veterinary Department and their services are being utilised by the Animal Husbandry Department, the respondents should be directed to regularise the services of the petitioners as Gaumithras, treating them as Animal Husbandry Assistants and to pay them a pay scale at par with the regular government employees as they have been discharging their duties as Gaumithras since 2019. 4. The fifteen-page affidavit has been filed, delineating and detailing how the 'Gaumithras' came into existence, how they operate, and what their specified duties are. It emphasizes animal welfare and details how they provide para-veterinary assistance, such as, performing medical checks, facilitating artificial insemination programmes, and evacuating injured, distressed, or stray cattle. Furthermore, the affidavit outlines their salaries and allowances, and how they have been deprived of their job security and rightful salaries and allowances, inter alia, it is stated, that the Gopalmithras are constrained to receive the salary of Rs.6,500/- from the Department of Animal Husbandry and there is a variation of receiving salaries by the petitioners who are constrained to receive salary of Rs.6,500/- from the Department of Animal Husbandry. Whereas the Animal Husbandry Assistants who recruited directly in the 8 RBKs are receiving salary of Rs.15,000/- from Panchayatraj Department and there is a lot of discrimination between the Gopalamithras who are working as Animal Husbandry Assistants in RBKs and the Animal Husbandry Assistants who were appointed directly and they were entitled to be treated at par with the Veterinary Assistants in their pay and pay scales and allowances and benefits and they are entitled for regularisation of the services. 5. 5. Though the petitioners rendered their services for a period of 20 years, they were not taken on a daily wage basis or on any contract basis; the service rendered by the petitioners is perpetual in nature and they are to be treated as permanent employees. Not taking any steps to allocate the funds or grant-in-aid to the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. Accordingly, they prayed for the regularisation of the petitioners' employment equivalent to Veterinary Assistants in the State, as well as an order for backdated salary parity starting from their commencement as Gopalmithras, in accordance with the 6th Pay Commission. 9 6. The 10th respondent has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry Department and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 9, denying all the contentions raised by the writ petitioners, inter alia, asserting that the claim of the petitioners that they are discharging their duties for the last 20 years in their respective jurisdiction as Gopalmithras as Animal Husbandry Assistants is false claim and they are Gopalmithras only, even though they are mapped to any RBKs to render their services to farming community in the village where Animal Husbandry Assistant Post is not filled up and Village Secretariat System is under the control of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, which is releasing the salaries of Animal Husbandry Assistants, while the Animal Husbandry Assistants are rendering services at RBKs which is under the control of Agriculture Department. 7. The qualification that required to Animal Husbandry Assistant in Category-5 of the A.P.Animal Husbandry Subordinate Rules is pass in two years Animal Husbandry Polytechnic course conducted by SVVU or Intermediate Vocational course in dairying and poultry science as one of the subjects of study/two years poultry diploma course conducted by the polytechnic college at Ramachandrapuram of AVVU/Two years 10 Intermediate vocational course in multipurpose veterinary assistant provided that the candidate selected with the qualifications in clause-b shall undergo one year departmental training in veterinary assistants course to be conducted by the Animal Husbandry Department. 8. 8. Whereas the Gopalmithras were taken into service on self- employment basis when Gopalmithra scheme was introduced with an objective of providing artificial insemination at doorstep of the farmers in the rural areas, and the rural educated unemployed youth who passed 10th class were selected and trained in conducting artificial insemination and they were provided with artificial insemination equipment and established Gopalamithra centres in villages on self-employment basis. 9. The qualifications prescribed for Animal Husbandry Assistant are different from that of qualifications required to be a Gopalamithras. Gopalamithras when asked to work in RBKs where Animal Husbandry Assistant Posts are not filled does not mean that they are Animal Husbandry Assistants and as such Gopalamithras deprived to get the equal work to equal pay is not right claim. 10. And the petitioners were given an opportunity to work as Gopalamithras on self-employment basis and the training component provided for Veterinary Assistants is different from that of Gopalamithras 11 who are primarily private artificial insemination service provides and the office subordinates who are appointed as Veterinary Assistants by transfer are regular employees of the Department who are entitled to receive all the benefits before their promotion as Office Subordinates as well as after their promotion as Veterinary Assistants, whereas Gopalamithras are self-employed human resource in the Department, but are provided sustenance allowance by the Government as the earnings of the Gopalamithras were dependent on number of inseminations done by them and remuneration paid by the farmers previously, as such they were thriving on the income generated through artificial insemination activity from farmers and they cannot be treated at par with the Veterinary Assistant in the State in the matter of pay and pay scales and allowance sand benefits does not fit in this context. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 11. Learned petitioners’ counsel would submit that the petitioners have been discharging their duties as Gopalamithras for two decades since the date of inception of the Gopalamithras scheme in 1999-2000, and they are entitled to be regularised. The Director of the Animal Husbandry Department has addressed a letter dated 03.06.2021 to the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, DD & F 12 Department, A.P. Secretariat, Amaravathi, noting that there is a proposal to fill 1576 vacant posts of Office Subordinates in the Department on an outsourcing basis with eligible Gopalamithras who are rendering their services to the farmers. The petitioners are rendering their services on par with the regular employees and they are entitled for the salary at par with the other employees and placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others and Anita and Others Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2025 SC 296, Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1735, Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221, State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Aravind Kumar Srivastava and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347, and also relied of the ruling in the case of Kola Ravinder Vs. The State of Telangana reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) (Tel) 50673. More or less all of the judgments cited above give the same ruling: The Apex court held that : held that the pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often 13 characterised by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy, but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 12. On entire reading of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioners, it should be understood that the petitioners are seeking to regularise their services as Animal Husbandry Assistant, as they are rendering their service as Gopalamithras and pay scales at par with other Animal Husbandry Assistants. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that nature of employment of the petitioners has to be treated as an employment not as a self-employment and prayed to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners. According to the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioners are joined as Gopalamithras in 2019. 14 13. At the outset, the respondents’ counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioners cannot be treated as regular employees at par with the other Animal Husbandry Assistants and they do not possess requisite qualifications and they were not appointed through regular selection procedure and the judgments relied on by the petitioners’ counsel are not applicable to the present facts of the case and even according to the petitioners, they have joined in the post of Gopalamithras in the year 2019 and their experience in Gopalamithra post is only 6 years and their employment is a self- employment and the petitioners were never paid any salaries as regular employees and the petitioners were paid only honorarium and the initial payment is Rs.1,500/- per month and it is gradually increased to Rs.11,500/- and relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1417, the Supreme Court held that mere continuation on work does not create any legal right in favour of the employee to be absorbed and in the event there was any scheme for regularisation, they could have availed of such scheme and rejected the case of the petitioners therein for absorption. 15 14. The Apex Court in the case of Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar (referred supra) after referring to the judgment in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 13 SCC 432 Paragraph- 7 of the judgment held as under: “7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Umadevi. The prime intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale. That spirit of the Umadevi has been ignored and conveniently overlooked by various State Governments/authorities. We regretfully make the observation that Umadevi has not been implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularising the services of incumbents. They 16 are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Articles 14, 16 read with Article 34(1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305, from cradle to grave. In heyday of lime they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in oldage they are going to be destitute, there being no provision for pension, retrial benefits, etc. There is clear contravention of constitutional provisions and aspiration of downtrodden class. They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have to strike a balance to really implement the ideology of Umadevi. Thus, the time has come to stop the situation where Umadevi can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such employment way back in the year 2006. The employment cannot be on exploitative terms, whereas Umadevi laid down that there should not be back door entry and every post should be filled by regular employment, but a new device has been adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry system on contract/ad hoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible when we consider the pith and substance of true spirit in Umadevi.” 17 15. The Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Vikas Adhikari reported in (2003) 5 SCC 12, their Lordships held that when posts temporarily created for fulfilling the needs of a particular project or scheme limited in its duration comes to an end, a person employed in such a scheme, cannot claim regularization of service. 16. Unless the petitioners establishes prima-facie that their employment claiming for regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, and not that back door entries against sanctioned vacant posts; Courts cannot issue any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for regularisation or permanent absorption or continuance or appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. The petitioners have joined as Gopalmithras in the year 2019 and they have not completed 10 years of service even to apply the judgement of the Apex Court in the case Umadevi (referred supra); and the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification, i.e., Intermediate Vocational course in dairying and poultry science as one of the subjects of study/two years poultry diploma course conducted by the polytechnic college to discharge the duties as Animal Husbandry 18 Assistants and they were not appointed in any substantive post nor was their appointment conducted through a regular procedure and as narrated above the petitioners were appointed based on a scheme evolved by the Central Government and which has not been in force since for the last 10 years and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled for the relief sought in these writ petitions. 17. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 22.09.2026 siva 19 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.12150, 11859, 11890, 11900, 11947, 12159, 14106, 14108, 14111, 14299, 16205, 17445 & 22069 of 2022 and 31655 of 2023 Date: 22.09.2026 siva