APHC010208012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 10714/2025 Between: 1. TAMIRE CHINNA RAO, S/O. T. SYAMA SUNDARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.9/123-22- 1, BHAVANI NAGAR, RAVINDRA NAGAR, KADAPA-516 003 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH SCHEDULED TRIBES COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITEDTRICOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KONERU LAKSHMAIAH STREET, VIJAYAWADA-10, N.T.R. DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM CHAIRMAN DLC, TRICOR, KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. 4. THE DISTRICT TRIBAL WELFARE OFFICER, KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. 2 ...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 an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the petitioners request for implementation of the HR Policy, 2017, on par with other employees, despite receiving proposals from the respondent nos.3 and 4 recommending the candidature of the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for implementation of the HR Policy, 2017, by duly considering the recommendations of the respondent no.3 and 4, in a time bound manner and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 30.04.2024 and 24.07.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 ORDER The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the petitioner’s request for implementation of the HR Policy, 2017, on par with other employees, despite receiving proposals from respondent Nos. 3 and 4, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that, as per the HR Policy, the bye-laws were amended and, accordingly, one post each of Junior Assistant / DEO / Loan Recovery Inspector was sanctioned. It is undisputed that the petitioner was working in the said post on a contract basis. Based on the sanctioned posts under the policy, the 3rd and 4th respondents recommended the case of the petitioner in accordance with the policy for requisition. Despite the said proposals, the 2nd respondent is not considering and appointing the petitioner by implementing the HR Policy dated 25.09.2017, hence the present writ petition. 3. After notice, the 2nd respondent filed counter. As per the counter, it is stated that, in terms of G.O.Rt.No.35, Department of Tribal Welfare (GCC), dated 26.02.2024 issued by the 1st respondent, the Government ratified the action taken in engaging 4 four (4) personnel under the Human Resource Policy as approved by the Board of TRICOR, with specific instructions that TRICOR shall not engage any further appointments under the HR Policy without prior concurrence of the Finance Department. Hence, in view of the above mentioned G.O., the 2nd respondent is unable to implement the HR Policy with regard to the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4. 5. Considering the contentions made and on perusal of the HR Policy filed along with the writ petition and G.O.Rt.No.35 dated 26.02.2024, it is evident that the four posts approved by TRICOR were ratified in the said G.O., with an observation that no further implementation of the HR Policy shall be made without concurrence of the 1st respondent. However, the said observation does not mean that the respondents ought not to consider implementation of the HR Policy issued on 25.09.2017. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents, more particularly respondent Nos.1 and 2, to consider the request 5 made by the petitioner in accordance with the HR Policy, if there are existing vacancies. The 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders with regard to finance concurrence, if any, and thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall implement the orders in accordance with the HR Policy, taking into consideration that the petitioner is working in the existing post. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 05.02.2026 LSP