Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr Raghu Kubireddy vs Dr Mvrks Bhagavan on 21 November, 2024
1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: W.A.No.922 of 2024
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
No. DATE ORDER REMARKS
2. 21.11.2024 GN,J & TCDS,J
I.A.No.3 of 2024
Heard Mr. S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned
counsel for the petitioners-appellants and
Mr. P. Raj Sekhar, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The learned counsel for the
respondents placed on record a Memo
No.1555565/HR/2024, dated 16.07.2024, whereby,
the Government of Andhra Pradesh in compliance
with the direction issued by the learned Single
Judge in paragraph 60 (c) of the impugned
Judgment, has been pleased to consider the cases
of the petitioners therein and further been pleased
to reject their claim for regularization and in that
view, he would submit that the Writ Petition relief
having worked out itself, the question of
entertaining Writ Appeal would not arise.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the
petitioners-appellants would invite the attention of
the Court to the observations of the learned Single
Judge in paragraph No.51, 55 and 56 and submit
that the said observations are highly misconceived
and he would submit that basing on the
observations, another batch of Writ Petitions have
now been preferred by different parties and in that
view, he would submit that the matter requires
consideration failing which, it could result in
serious miscarriage of justice.
4. The submission in our opinion merits
consideration. Prima facie, the observations
appear to be contrary to the law laid down and
rendered by the Constitutional Bench in
Umadevi's case. The directions that emanated
from the Hon'ble Apex Court did not reserve
unfettered liberty in the State. The State was to
consider cases of persons who were in
employment as on the date of the judgment and
who were eligible as per the criteria stipulated in
paragraph No.53 of the Judgment.
5. The reliance on the M.L.Kesari's
case by the learned Single Judge cannot be
faulted with but yet again, it needs to be pointed
out that those cases related to persons, who were
in employment as on the date of judgment. The
liberty has not been laid down as a principle to be
followed for all times to come. The scheme that
was a proposed by the Constitutional Bench was a
one-time affair and cannot be construed as a
measure that may be adopted for all times to
come. If such an approach is permitted, it would
virtually render the Public Service Commission a
redundant body and would clearly encourage back
door entries into the Public or Government
Services in complete violation of Article 14 and
Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. In that view, we are of the opinion that the
observations in the above paragraphs are required
to be stayed.
7. Accordingly, the observations shall stand
stayed.
8. Interim order granted today shall not come in
the way of original petitioners in seeking remedy
against the Memo No.1555565/HR/2024, dated
16.07.2024.
9. Accordingly, I.A.No.3 of 2024 is ordered.
List after four (04) weeks.
_____
GN,J
_______
TCDS,J
PKR
