APHC010459402026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25239 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-2 [3584] Dr.Gandavaram Syam Prasad ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 7th September 2026 Present: Advocate for Petitioner: MR.SYED KHADER MASTAN Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, *** ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “(i) a writ or writs or order or orders, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 5th Respondent in issuing Notification No. 4/SVU/E.II(2)/Assoc.Prof.& Prof/Regular/2026, dated 15.05.2026, and Notification No.3/SVU/ E.II(2)/Assoc. Prof./ Backlog - SC & ST, BC/2026, dated 15.05.2026, for recruitment of Associate Professors and Professors providing reservation under the category of Backward Castes and Economically Weaker Sections, without excluding Creamy Layer, as illegal, contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as arbitrary and unconstitutional; (ii) a writ or writs or order or orders or directions, particularly, one in the nature of a declaratory Writ to declare Section 2(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Regulation of Reservations for Appointments to Public 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.25239 of 2026 Services Act, 1997 as ultra vires the Constitution of India, being violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, null, void, manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional; (iii) a writ or writs or order or orders or directions, particularly one in the nature of a declaratory Writ to declare Rule 22 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as ultra vires the Constitution of India being violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, null, void, manifestly arbitrary, in violation of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (AIR 1995 SC 1371), and unconstitutional; (i) Consequently set aside the Notification No 4/SVU/ E.II(2)/Assoc. Prof & Prof/Regular/2026, dated 15.05.2026 and Notification No.3/SVU/E.II(2)/Assoc. Prof /Backlog SC and ST, BC/2026, dated 15.05.2026, issued by the 5th Respondent for recruitment of Associate Professors and Professors; and (ii) direct the Respondents to issue fresh notification for recruitment of University Teachers by excluding Creamy Layer and to pass…” 2. Petitioner is working as an Associate Professor in a private college, and since completed Ph.D in Chemistry, he claims to have experience to apply for the post of Associate Professor. Petitioner belongs to Other Community category and is not entitled to any reservation. 5th respondent issued two notifications, vide Notification No.4/SVU/E.II(2)/Assoc.Prof. &Prof/Regular/2026, and Notification No.3/SVU/ E.II(2)/Assoc. Prof./ Backlog - SC & ST, BC/2026, even dated 15.05.2026, for recruitment of Associate Professors and Professors in various departments, as mentioned therein. As per the 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.25239 of 2026 notifications, the last date for submission of online applications was 08.06.2026 and offline submission was 15.06.2026. Petitioner challenged both these notifications as well as Section 2(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Regulation of Reservations for Appointments to Public Services Act, 1997 and Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, to the extent of not excluding Creamy Layer from amongst category of Backward Classes community and Economically Weaker Sections to be manifestly arbitrary and in violation of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in R.K.Sabharwal v. State of Punjab1. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned notifications providing reservation under the category of Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections without excluding Creamy Layer are unsustainable in the teeth of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in R.K. Sabharwal1, therefore, sought to set aside the same. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for respondents, while opposing aforesaid submissions, submitted that the 1 (1995) 2 SCC 745 = AIR 1995 SC 1371 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.25239 of 2026 very institution of writ petition for mandamus without making any representation before respondents is not maintainable; petitioner has not demonstrated violation of any fundamental right inasmuch as petitioner neither made any application for the posts notified nor the relief sought for in the writ petition would in any manner enure to the benefit of petitioner since he belongs to O.C. category and not B.C. or EWS. 6. At the outset, when this Court has pointed out as to whether petitioner made any application for any of the posts notified, learned counsel for petitioner fairly admitted that petitioner did not make such application, however, tried to explain that since the posts notified in the stream of Chemistry were reserved for Backward Classes, he was not eligible to apply. Further, when we have specifically pointed out if in case the prayer in the writ petition is acceded, would it enure to his benefit, yet again, learned counsel for petitioner fairly stated that petitioner would not stand any chance of applying for the post, let alone getting selected. 7. The impugned notifications were issued on 15.05.2026, with last date for submission of online applications on 08.06.2026, and offline applications as 15.06.2026, whereas present writ petition is filed on 01.09.2026. It is also an undeniable fact that petitioner has not made 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.25239 of 2026 any representation raising grievance before the 5th respondent, but rather chose to prefer writ petition straightaway seeking writ of mandamus. 8. Therefore, given the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the reason that, firstly, petitioner straightaway approached this Court without making representation before the 5th respondent, secondly, that writ petition has been preferred nearly after almost three months after the cutoff date for receiving the applications; and lastly, petitioner, being neither an applicant nor an aggrieved person under the recruitment notifications, has no locus standi to file and maintain present writ petition. The issue raised in the writ petition is, therefore, rendered academic as petitioner belongs to O.C. category, but not any Backward Class/Economically Weaker Section. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed, however, the other legal issues raised in the writ petition are left open to be decided in an appropriate case. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs