APHC010218992019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3543] TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 9631 OF 2019 Between: 1. J.S.BHASKARA RAO BALIJA, S/O.(L)RAMAKRISHNA RAO, AGED 35 YEARS, HINDU, WORKING AS PROCESS SERVER, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT, CHODAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. POTNURU SRIDEVI, W/O.APPARAO, AGED 38 YEARS, HINDU, WORKING AS PROCESS SERVER, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT, CHODAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE REGISTRAR ADMN, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VELAGAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. 2. THE DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G U R C PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N V SUMANTH 2 The Court made the following ORDER: (Per NJS,J) 1) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who appeared through online. Also heard Mr.N.V.Sumanth, learned counsel for the respondents. 2) Petitioners were selected as Office Subordinates in the Unit of District Judge, Visakhapatnam, as per the proceedings dated 02.02.2012. On 29.02.2012 they joined as Office Subordinates and their services were regularized with effect from the said date vide proceedings dated 28.04.2016. Subsequently their probation was declared with effect from 27.02.2014 and proceedings to that effect were issued on 25.04.2016. 3) In the meanwhile, they were promoted as Process Servers vide Proceedings dated 14.07.2014, and joined in Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Chodavaram on 01.08.2014. The 1st petitioner prosecuted Intermediate course through National Institute of Open Schooling and completed the same in October, 2014. The 2nd petitioner passed intermediate examination through A.P. Open School Society in April, 2015. They applied to the 1st respondent to accord permission to enter their Intermediate qualifications in the Service Registers. Vide impugned order dated 13.04.2017, the 1st respondent accepted the request, however subject to the condition that “such Senior Secondary School Examination/Intermediate will not be the basis for the purpose of claiming any service benefits.” 4) The grievance of the petitioners is that in view of the above said condition, the very purpose of acquiring higher qualification for the purpose of promotion is defeated. 3 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the condition as imposed is not just and deprives the petitioners of the monetary benefits during the currency of the service and will have an impact on pensionary benefits after retirement. He submits that in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by orders dated 29.08.2018 allowed W.P.Nos.6024 and 6052 of 2018. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the Writ Petition and grant relief as prayed for. 6) Mr.N.V.Sumanth, learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the position in law, more particularly, the decision on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that no appeal appears to have been preferred against the decision rendered in W.P.Nos.6024 and 6052 of 2018. 7) On consideration of the submissions made and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter is covered by the decision in W.P.Nos.6024 and 6052 of 2018. In the said Writ Petition, petitioners appeared for Intermediate examination under a scheme promoted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and they did not obtain prior permission before prosecuting their intermediate Course. Learned Division Bench referring to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench dated 30.12.2015 in W.P.No.30688 of 2013, wherein it was opined so long as the Government Memo dated 06.04.1978 is not communicated to the employees, their failure to obtain prior permission cannot be put against them, allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the orders of reversion. 4 8) In the case on hand, nothing is stated in the counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioners are well informed of the contents of the said Memo at the time of their joining in service in the year 2012, nor was any material filed to show that the said Memo was served to the petitioners. In the absence of the same, condition as set out in the order dated 13.04.2017 is unsustainable. Accordingly, the same to the extent of the rider therein is set aside. 9) In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above and Intermediate qualification acquired by the petitioners shall be treated as valid for all purposes. No costs. 10) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J T.C.D.SEKHAR,J Date:15.09.2026 Ssv Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 9631 OF 2019 Date:15.09.2026 Ssv