APHC010650432023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 271 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-21 [3552] Bethapudi Ravi Prakash ...Petitioner Vs. The Hon’ble Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Narasimha Rao Gudiseva representing Ms Marupilli Sarada Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) : GP for Services IV, Mr. Jupudi V K Yagnadutt CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 16th February, 2026 P C : The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 17.10.2023, passed by the Office of the Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh, whereby recommendations are made to the competent authority i.e., the District Coordinator of Hospital Services, Kurnool, and the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, to consider the request of the complainant to appoint him to the post of Bio-Medical Engineer under roster point No.7 – SC - Open Category. 2. The main point urged before us today is that the Lokayukta did not have any jurisdiction to entertain and issue directions as it has done in the instant case. 2 HCJ & CGR, J WP_271_2024 3. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: A notification was issued on 08.08.2022 inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the post of Bio-Medical Engineer on contract basis in Kurnool District. Three candidates were short listed in the ratio of 1:3, who are as follows: 1. N. Kiran Kumar with 54.39 marks 2. B. Ravi Prakash with 46.50 marks 3. P. Rathna Kumar with 44.10 marks. The counseling date was fixed on 30.08.2023, as per the stand of the official respondents, in the belief that the post had to be filled up before 31.08.2023. Accordingly, with a view to complete the selection process, according to the stand of the official respondents, N. Kiran Kumar, the complainant, who was otherwise at the top of the merit list, was sought to be approached through phone bearing Nos.8019959591 and 7799030377 but could not be communicated the date of counseling which had been fixed on 30.08.2023. It is in that context that the petitioner, B. Ravi Prakash, who stood at Sl.No.2, came to be appointed with the approval of the District Collector & Magistrate and the order of appointment came to be issued on 30.08.2023 3 HCJ & CGR, J WP_271_2024 appointing the petitioner as Bio-Medical Engineer on contract basis for a period of one year. This period has been extended from time to time. 4. It is in the backdrop of the aforementioned facts that the complainant, who otherwise stood at Sl.No.1 in the merit list, approached the Lokayukta at Kurnool with a complaint that despite being more meritorious the said complainant had been ignored for consideration for appointment. 5. Before the Lokayukta, the stand of the District Coordinator of Hospital Services, Kurnool, was that the complainant had not responded to the phone call from the office of the District Coordinator of Hospital Services and as such since he failed to attend the counseling session, appointment was given to the next candidate in the merit list. 6. The Lokayukta in those circumstances was of the opinion that it was obligatory on the part of the District Coordinator of Hospital Services to take alternative methods to contact the complainant, who stood at Sl.No.1 in the merit list, by sending an official letter, e-mail or SMS and that the use of a single communication channel was not desired especially when the post to be filled up was an important one. 7. It is in that backdrop that the Lokayukta in the relevant paragraph of its order observed as under: “In light of these circumstances, it can be concluded that the denial of employment to the meritorious candidate under the Scheduled Caste roster point was not justified on the part of the District Coordinator of 4 HCJ & CGR, J WP_271_2024 Hospital Services, Kurnool and the same is against to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is necessary to the authorities to rectify the injustice caused to the complainant in adopting phone call communication especially in dealing with important matters like appointments and the District Coordinator of Hospital Services, Kurnool is hereby recommended to rectify the injustice caused to the complainant in adopting unfair procedure in communicating the date of counseling to the complainant and consider the request of the complainant to appoint him to the post of Bio Medical Engineer under Roster point No.7 – SC – Open Category. With this observation, this complaint stands closed.” 8. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Lokayukta had exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order inasmuch as no directions at all could have been given to the concerned authorities especially those pertaining to service matters and that the order passed by the Lokayukta was more in the nature of a direction rather than in the nature of a recommendation. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. We are not quite convinced with the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was any error committed by the Office of the Lokayukta in passing the order impugned before us in the present writ petition. 11. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 and in particular Section 9 envisage that a complaint may be made by any person to the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta relating to an allegation in respect of any action. It also further envisages that if the person aggrieved is dead or for any 5 HCJ & CGR, J WP_271_2024 reason unable to act for himself, the complaint may be made by any person who in law represents his estate or a person authorized by him. Reference is also apt to the definitions of ‘action’, ‘allegation’ and ‘grievance’ as defined under Sections 2(a), 2(b) and 2(ea). ‘Action’ as defined under Section 2(a) means an administrative action taken by a public servant by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner, and includes any omission and commission and failure to act in connection with or arising out of such action; and all other expression connecting action shall be construed accordingly. Section 2(b) defines an ‘allegation’ in relation to a public servant means any affirmation that such public servant has abused his position as such to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person, or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person; was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by improper or corrupt motive and thereby caused loss to the State or any member or section of the public; or is guilty of corruption, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant. ‘Grievance’, as defined under Section 2(ea), means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration. 12. The scope of jurisdiction of the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta is clearly defined through the aforementioned sections. Any action which 6 HCJ & CGR, J WP_271_2024 results in hardship or any action which indicates maladministration would fall within the scope and powers and jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. 13. In the present case also when we read the order which is reproduced hereinabove, it can be seen that contrary to the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that directions had been issued by the Lokayukta, we feel that there was no direction specifically issued but only recommendations made to rectify the injustice caused to the complainant in adopting the procedure which was unfair on the face of it as the method and manner adopted by the official respondents fell short of the obligation which was cast upon the official respondents to communicate to the complainant the date of counseling, which had been fixed on 30.08.2023, for filling up the post of Bio-Medical Engineer. 14. Although the counsel for the petitioner has tried to emphasize repeatedly that the petitioner was more meritorious than the complainant, yet, the petitioner has not rebutted the stand of the official respondents as is contained in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit wherein the merit position inter se of the candidates which includes the petitioner was reflected which shows the complainant to have secured 54.39 marks and the petitioner to have secured 46.50 marks. In that view of the matter, we feel that the issue with regard to merit of the petitioner being better than that of the complainant needs no further debate. 7 HCJ & CGR, J WP_271_2024 15. We feel that the order passed by the Lokayukta warrants no interference at all. We find that there is no merit in the present writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Vjl