Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

B Ratnamani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 September, 2024

                                                  1

 APHC010307622021
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                      AT AMARAVATI                                           [3310]
                               (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                           PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

           WRIT PETITION NO: 18285 OF 2021 and 17667 OF 2020

WRIT PETITION NO: 18285 OF 2021

Between:

B. Ratnamani and Others                                                       ...PETITIONER(S)

                                               AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others                                     ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

   1. P. VIVEK

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR SERVICES III

   2. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

Writ Petition No. 18285 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India

"to to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (a) declaring the action of the respondents in stalling the promotion orders of the petitioners to the post of Librarian Grade Grade-II in abeyance vide proceedings dated d 01.06.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to promote the

petitioners to the posts of Librarian Grade-I with all consequential benefits from 07.05.2021 (b) to declare the clearification Memo No. ESE01-LIBRODPL/59/2019- SER-I, dated 13.08.2021 which was issued by the respondents contrary to the well- established settled principles of law as arbitrary and unjust and further set aside the Memo No. ESE01-LIBRODPL/59/2019-SER-I, dated 13.08.2021 and to pass such other and further orders".

Writ Petition No.17667 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India

"to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of nd Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2 respondent herein in issuing the impugned proceedings Rc.No.041-A3/2017, dated 03.01.2020 in absorbing the unofficial respondents herein as Grade-II Librarians, who are juniors to the petitioners nd as per final seniority list of feeder category issued by 2 respondent on 01.09.2017 in violation of the Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 14 Education (PE.LIB), Department, dated 14.01.2012 and G.O.Ms.No. 37 Education (PE-LIB), Department, dated 24.03.2011 as highly illegal, totally discriminatory, unjust, unfair against the principles of natural justice and prays to set aside the impugned proceedings No.Rc.No.041-A3/2017, dated 03.01.2020 in absorbing the adhoc promotes in the higher cadre post of Librarian Grade-II in Zone-II and prays to set aside the nd Proceedings Rc.No.041-A3/2017, dated 03.01.2020 of 2 respondent with further direction to promote all these petitioners on par with the unofficial respondents to the higher cadre post of Librarian Grade-II with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority on par with their immediate juniors as per Zonal final seniority list dated 01.09.2017 and to pass such other and further orders".

2. Heard Mr. M. Srikanth, learned Counsel representing Mr. P. Vivek,

learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.18285 of 2021 and respondents

4 and 5 in W.P.No.17667 of 2020; Ms. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for

the petitioner in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 and learned Assistant Government

Pleader, Services-III for the official respondents.

3. These two Writ Petitions arise out of the same issue and therefore

are being disposed of by a common order.

4. W.P.No.18285 of 2021 is filed impugning orders keeping in abeyance

the orders of promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-I and consequently

sought a direction for promotion to the post of Librarian Grade I with all

consequential benefits from 07.05.2021. A further prayer is also made to

declare the Clarification Memo No. ESE01-LIBRODPL/59/2019-SER-I, dt.

13.08.2021 issued by the Government as arbitrary and unjust and set aside

the same.

5. W.P.No.17667 of 2020 has been filed challenging the orders of

absorption of Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 by Proceedings Rc.No.041-

A3/2017, dt. 03.01.2020. Further, consequential direction is also sought to

promote the petitioners on par with the unofficial respondents with all

consequential benefits to the post of Librarian Grade II.

6. The Respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 are the Writ

Petitioners in W.P.No. 18285/2021. The parties are referred to as arrayed in

W.P.No.17667 of 2020 for the sake of convenience.

7. The facts arising in both the Writ Petitions are that the posts of

Librarians in Zilla Grandhalya Samstha were initially governed by the

unamended rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.674, dated 21-3-1967. As per the said

rules, the unit of appointment indicated in Rule-3A is Zilla Grandhalaya

Samstha and the City Grandhalaya Samstha for the post of Librarian Grade-II.

The Petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 are working in the post of Librarian

Grade-III and they claim that they have been appointed from the year 1986.

They also state that they are seniors to the Respondent 3, 4 and 5. It appears

that when there were large number of vacancies of Librarian Grade II,

Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were temporarily promoted on 15.07.2011, to the said

post in the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, pending regular direct

recruitment by G.O.Ms.No.37, Education (PE-LIB) Department dated

24.03.2011. It is the case of the Petitioners in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 that

these promotions were only temporary and were given to the Respondents 3,

4 and 5, as at that particular point of time, the unit of appointment was

effectively district.

8. It is further submitted that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.14,

dated 14.01.2012 amending Rule-3A of the Library Service Rules issued in

G.O.Ms.No. 674, dated 21.03.1967 making 'Zone' as the unit of appointment

for the post of Category-II - Librarian Grade-II. It is the case of the Petitioners

in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 that after amendment, the respondents ought to

have been reverted, but unfortunately without reference to the seniority, the

Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been continued in the post of Librarian Grade-II.

It is further contended that the promotions given to the Respondents 3, 4 and

5 by G.O.Ms.No. 37, Education (PE-LIB) Department dated 24.03.2011 was

conditional. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

G.O.Ms.No.37 has clearly indicated that the promotions granted were in direct

recruitment vacancies and were temporary with a condition that they would be

reverted as and when direct recruitment takes place. It is also contended that

an undertaking has been given by the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 on promotion.

9. It is contended that a seniority list dated 01.09.2017 has been

communicated in the category of Grade-III Librarian in zone-II and in the

seniority list, the petitioners figure as seniors to the unofficial respondents. It

is also stated that ignoring the said seniority list, the unofficial respondents,

who are their juniors are continuing in the post of Grade-II illegally. It is now

contended that by the impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2020, the unofficial

respondents are now sought to be absorbed as Librarian Grade-II in the

vacancies meant for promotion with effect from 2013 to 2015. It is argued by

the learned counsel for petitioners that temporary promotions do not confer

any right and the absorption now sought to be granted to the unofficial

respondents is clearly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the seniority list

communicated in the year 2017.

10. The official respondents/ Government has filed its counter in

W.P.No.17667 of 2020, wherein it is stated that in view of the large number of

vacancies, the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been promoted on ad-hoc basis

in the vacancies meant for direct recruitment, as, at that particular point of

time, the post of Librarian Grade-II was a district cadre post and since the

Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were the senior most persons in the said district, they

were promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-II. Thereafter the post of

Librarian Grade-II was upgraded as zonal post, vide G.O.Ms.No.14, dated

14.01.2012 and in view of the unit of appointment being changed to zone, a

zonal seniority list had to be prepared. When certain Librarians Grade-III

promoted as Librarian Grade-II on ad-hoc basis were shown as juniors to

Librarian Grade-III in zonal seniority list, objections have been raised by the

said persons. A request has been made by Sri M.Venkateswara Rao,

Librarian Grade-II working on ad-hoc basis in Grade-III to include his name in

the seniority list of Librarian Grade-II and thereafter, to consider his case for

promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-I.

11. It appears that a clarification was sought from the Government. The

Government had issued a clarification dated 10.12.2019 stating that as per

clause 'C' of Circular Memo No.16, dated 21.04.1999, an employee promoted

to a post earmarked for direct recruitment would not commence his probation

from the date of his appointment but shall be reckon his seniority only from the

date on which he occupies vacancy meant for promotee. After the said

memo, it appears that the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been absorbed into

the post of Librarian Grade-II with effect from the date the vacancies meant for

promotions have arisen. It is stated that by the time of upgradation of the post

of Librarian Grade-II as zonal cadre post, since the Respondents 3, 4 and 5

were already attending duties of Librarian Grade-II, they were absorbed into

the vacancies meant for promotion and therefore G.O.Ms.No.14, dated

14.01.2012 has not been ignored.

12. The Respondents 4 and 5 have filed counter-affidavit and mainly

contended that they have been promoted to the post of Grade-II Librarian on

15.07.2011 on ad-hoc basis and have been continuously working in the said

post ever since then. It is stated that though they have been promoted in the

year 2011, their promotions have not been challenged by the petitioners, till

date. It is further contended that there is delay and latches on the part of the

petitioners and that the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned

proceedings dated 03.01.2020, which is merely consequential without actually

challenging the promotions granted to them. The petitioners were aware that

Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 have been working in the promotional posts from

2011 and further absorbed in promotee vacancies in the year 2014 and 2015;

but the petitioners have now approached this Court seek to challenge the

formal order of absorption.

13. It is further contended that after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.14, dt.

14.01.2012, the petitioners have never sought for issuance of a zonal seniority

list and have never objected to their continuation in the post of Librarian

Grade.II. The clarification dated 10.12.2019 is clear and that they would be

entitled to count their probation from the date of arising of the regular

vacancies meant for promotion. The reliance on the seniority list dated

01.09.2017 in the category of Librarian Grade-III is also misplaced and that

the seniority in the lower category loses its significance once they have been

promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-II. In the seniority list dated

14.02.2020 issued in the cadre of Librarians Grade-II the Respondent nos. 4

and 5 have been shown at Sl.Nos. 5 and 6 respectively and that this has not

been challenged. It is further contended that even though they were promoted

to the post of Librarian Grade-I on 07.05.2021, the orders have been kept in

abeyance vide proceedings dated 08.05.2021 illegally, which is impugned in

W.P.No.18285 of 2021. The Writ Petition filed by the Writ petitioners is bereft

of any details as to the date of appointment of the petitioners in the post of

Grade-III or their date of absorption into the said post.

14. It is further contended that the post of Librarian Grade-II could not

have been made into a zonal category as the consent of the President of India

has not been obtained. The main challenge of the Respondent No.4 and 5 in

both writs is on the ground of delay and latches. It is contended in W.P.No.

18285 of 2021 that the Director of Public Libraries has no power under the

rules to keep an order of promotion already granted in abeyance. It is stated

that Rule-23 of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 provide for

objections to be raised against promotions. It is further contended that there

is no power of review of promotions conferred on the Appointing authority after

a period of six months from the date of such order and it is only the

Government that can do so for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in

writing.

15. It is stated that when a seniority list in the category of Grade-III

Librarians has been issued on 27.11.2013, they were not included in the said

seniority list as they were working in the post of Grade-II Librarians. It is

further contended that in the tentative zonal seniority list of Grade-III

Librarians in Zone-II had been communicated on 03.02.2016 in which they

were shown in common seniority list. Assailing the same, they had submitted

their objections and the same was disposed of assuring that their seniority in

the post of Librarian Grade-II would be counted for further promotion as

Librarians Grade-I and that no injustice or inconvenience would be caused to

them. They reiterate that since no objections have been made to their

promotions and continuance to the post of Librarian Grade-II, no objections

could now be raised after 9 years.

16. It is also stated that though no interim directions have been

granted in W.P.No.17667 of 2020, the petitioners have exerted political

influence and have got their promotion orders kept in abeyance. It is further

contended that the rule prescribes a minimum service of two years in the post

of Librarian Grade-II for being further promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-

I. The petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 are working in the post of Librarian

Grade-III and are not eligible to be further promoted as Librarian Grade-I as

they do not have eligibility. The Government has issued the impugned Memo

dated 13.08.2021 directing recasting of the entire seniority list in the cadre of

Librarians Grade-III without giving any notice to the affected parties and is not

supported by any rules.

17. In view of the above facts, it is now to be considered as to whether

the Petitioners in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 are entitled to challenge the orders

of absorption of the Respondents 3 to 5.

18. It may be noticed that at no point of time have the Petitioners in

W.P.No.17667 of 2020 objected or represented against the continuance of

Respondents 3 to 5 in the higher category of Librarian Grade-II. It is clear

from the facts in the present Writ Petition that the unofficial respondents have

been continuing in the higher category post of Librarian Grade-II from 2011

onwards.

19. Mrs. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioners in

W.P.No.17667 of 2020 has vehemently argued that the petitioners have

challenged the orders of absorption dated 03.01.2020 and that there is no

delay on their part. It is further argued that the petitioners need not challenge

the orders of promotion but can challenge the absorption orders as it affects

them and it cannot be construed that there was any delay or latches on their

part. The petitioners specifically aver that the present action is wholly

arbitrary, since it ignores seniors, who have been working from a long time

and they are being denied their just promotion.

20. On the other hand, the respondents contend that when the orders of

promotion have not been challenged, the orders of absorption and seniority

are merely consequential. It is further argued that the petitioners cannot seek

to be promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-I, since they are ineligible as

they are working in the post of Librarian Grade-III. It is contended that

petitioners would have to first seek promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-II

and only after working for a minimum period of two years, could they be

treated as eligible to the post of Librarian Grade-I. It is specifically contended

that as a matter of record, no objections or even a representation has been

made challenging the promotions of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In support of

their contention for the proposition that delay and latches would be fatal in

claims for promotions and seniority, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 rely on the

catena of decisions viz., in Amarjeet Singh and Others v. Devi Ratan and

Others"1, wherein the Division Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-

"28. In the instant case, promotions had been made by two different DPCs held on 19-12-1998 and 22-1-1999. Both DPCs had made promotions under different Rules on different criterion and their promotions had been made with retrospective effect with different dates notionally. In the writ petition before the High Court, the promotion of the appellants had not been under challenge. The seniority which is consequential to the promotions could not be challenged without challenging the promotions. Challenging the consequential order without challenging the basic order is not permissions (Vide P. Chitharanja Memon v. A. Balakrishnan).

29. In Roshan Lal v. International Airport Authority of India the petitions were primarily confined to the seniority list and this Court held that challenge to appointment orders could not be entertained because of inordinate delay and in absence of the same, validity of consequential seniority could not be examined. In such a case, a party is under a legal obligation to challenge the basic order and if and only if the same is found to be wrong, consequential orders may be examined."

21. Therefore, it is categorically held that seniority which is

consequential to the promotions could not be challenged without challenging

the promotions. Further "Shiba Shankar Mohapatra V. State of Orissa and

others2" the Division Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R.Mudgal, this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has by furnishing satisfactory explanation".

(2010) 1 SCC 417

(2010) 12 SCC 471

22. It is very clear that for the proposition that claim against seniority

and promotions should be made within 3 years in the light of above decision.

23. In "Dr.Akshay Bisoi and Another. Vs. All India Institute of

Medical Sciences and others3, wherein the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in

"20. In holding that an unexpected delay on the part of the petitioners would disentitle them to relief, we place reliance on a judgment of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari". The learned Chief Justice, after adverting to the settled position of law in that regard, observed thus: (SCC pp.185-86, paras 27-28).

" 27. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled....the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer....

28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court".

24. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in "B.S.Bajwa and Another. Vs. State of Punjab and

others 4 , where in it is well settled that in service matters the question of

seniority should not be reopened in such situations after lapse of a reasonable

period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not

(2018) 3 SCC 391

(1998) 2 SCC 523

justifiable. In "H.S.Vankani and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others",5

wherein, it was held that the seniority once settled in decisive in the upward

march in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and

boosts the morale to do quality work. It instils confidence, spreads harmony

and commands respect among colleagues, which is a paramount factor for

good and sound administration. Therefore, it is silent that there is no

explanation as to why the promotions given to the petitioners in W.P.No.18285

of 2021 have not been ever objected earlier. In "State of Uttaranchal Vs.

Shiva Charan Singh Bandari" 6 and "Union of India and others Vs.

C.Girija 7 ", wherein it was held that representation relating to a stale claim

would not give rise to a fresh cause of action and further held that mere filing

of representation cannot also revive a dead claim. Therefore, the claim of both

the petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 and the unofficial respondents in

W.P.No.18285 of 2021 cannot be entertained.

25. At the time of admission, an interim direction to maintain status quo

has been granted in W.P.No.18285 of 2021. It is to be noticed that the

petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 have not objected to the continuation of

the unofficial Respondents in higher category of Librarian Grade-II. It would

also have to be particularly noticed that the continuation was not for a short

time but for a considerable period of almost 9 years. When a provisional

seniority list in 2016 was issued, objections seem to have been submitted by

(2010) 4 SCC 301

2013 (12) SCC 129,

(2019) 15 SCC 633

the Respondents 4 and 5pointing out that they have been promoted to the

post of Librarian Grade-II prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 14.01.2012

and that it would cause injustice to ignore their 4 ½ years of service in the post

of Librarian Grade-II, which would affect their prospect of further promotion to

the post of Librarian Grade-I. The 2nd Respondent in his final seniority list

dated 18.03.2016 has stated that the seniority of ad-hoc promotes would be

continued for the purpose of their further promotion to the post of Grade-I

Librarian. The said seniority list and the disposal of the objection by the said

order is not disputed. Petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 kept quiet for about

nine years and sought to challenge the promotions of unofficial respondents at

the time of their promotion to the category of Librarian Grade-I.

26. It is now well settled that delay and latches in service matters would

be fatal. In the case of "Bichitrananda Behera Vs State of Orissa and

others" (Civil Appeal No.6664 of 2023, Dated 11.01.2023), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has laid down that a belated claim in service matters ought not

to be entertained. The delay and latches would amount to acquiescence in

certain cases. Though it is averred that it is only the orders of absorption that

has been challenged; in the main prayer, the petitioners had also sought for

promotion on par with Respondents 4 and 5. The challenge to the absorption

orders would be meaningless unless the Petitioners are granted promotion on

par with the Respondents 4 and 5. Here, it is clear that the petitioners have

not chosen to challenge the promotion orders, or continuation of unofficial

respondents in the higher post from the year 2011 or their placement in

promotee vacancies in 2014 and 2015. The orders of absorption dated

03.01.2020 could not have been challenged without actually challenging the

promotion granted to Respondents 4 and 5. In essence what is being

challenged is seniority granted to the Respondents, which was merely

consequential on their promotion and absorption into promotee vacancies.

The entire Writ Petition is silent as to why the promotions of the unofficial

respondents had not ever been challenged or even a representation was

made against them. It is also clear that the official respondents are taking

contrary stand.

27. Earlier, the 2nd Respondent has filed counter in favour of the

unofficial respondents in W.P.No.17667 of 2020. Thereafter in W.P.No. 18285

of 2021, the 2nd respondent now seeks to state that the promotion granted to

the Respondents 4 and 5 was not proper.

28. A perusal of the impugned order dt. 08.05.2021 in W.P.No. 18285 of

2021 would reveal that no reasons are assigned for keeping the promotion of

the respondents in abeyance. It is stated that after W.P.No.17667 of 2020

was filed and no interim directions have been issued by the court, some of the

Librarians Grade-III had represented against the absorption and therefore the

promotions were kept in abeyance and a clarification was sought from the

Government. It reveals that the Government has clarified the same by Memo

dated 13.08.2021 and directed the recasting of the entire seniority list. The

Government has not put the affected parties on notice before issuing the said

memo and this amounts to a gross violation of principles of natural justice as

well as A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules. Further, no proper or cogent

reasons have been recorded. The said Memo does not disclose whether the

Government had noticed the fact that the Respondents 4 and 5 were working

from 2011 continuously without objections from any quarter. It is clear from the

counter that till the W.P.No.17667 of 2020 has been filed, no representation or

objection has ever been received. The stand of the 2nd Respondent is

unsustainable. It is not clear as to why the promotion of the Respondents 4

and 5 had been kept in abeyance when there are no interim directions granted

by this Court in W.P.No.17667 of 2020.

29. In view of the specific admission that no representations or

objections have ever been received against the promotion of the Respondents

3, 4 and 5 in Librarian Grade-II, no representation can be entertained against

their promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-I. It is clear that the petitioners

in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 have never filed a claim for review of promotions nor

have they objected to the Respondents 4 and 5 being placed in seniority list of

Librarians Grade-II. Further, since the petitioners are working in lower post of

Librarian Grade-III, they cannot claim for promotion to the post of Librarian

Grade-I. It is well settled that delay and latches are important factors to

consider when exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The High Court should not grant extraordinary relief to a

petitioner who is guilty of delay or latches, or who approaches the writ court

belatedly or sleeps over their rights for a considerable period of time. This has

allowed third party rights to be crystallised and therefore the W.P.No. 17667 of

2020 is liable to be dismissed.

30. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon

perusal of the material on record and considering the submissions of both the

counsel, the W.P.No.17667 of 2020 is dismissed. The impugned order dated

08.05.2021 in W.P.No. 18285 of 2021 and the Clarification Memo No. ESE01-

LIBRODPL/59/2019-SER-I, dated 13.08.2021 are hereby set aside and

W.P.No.18285 of 2021 is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to

costs.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

______________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: 06.09.2024

Note: L.R.Copy marked.

B/o KK

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 18285 OF 2021 and 17667 OF 2020

% 06.09.2024

+ WRIT PETITION NO: 18285 OF 2021

Between:

# B. Ratnamani and Others                                 ...PETITIONER(S)

                                     AND

$ The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others                ...RESPONDENT(S)



+ WRIT PETITION NO: 17667 OF 2020

Between:

# G. Srinivasa Rao and Others                             ...PETITIONER(S)

                                     AND

$ The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others                ...RESPONDENT(S)



! Counsel for the Petitioner    : P. Vivek

! Counsel for the 1st Respondent: Learned Government Pleader, Services-III

Ms. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020.

< Gist: