Authority: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 07 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Ten individuals (B K Kiran Kumar, M Vijaykumar Reddy, M Chandrasekhar Reddy, T Chandra Reddy, P Subramanyam, P S Muraga Reddy, M Krishna Murthy Reddy, B Yuvaraja, T Narayana Reddy, P Ramachandra Reddy) employed as Assistants/Helpers in the Radio & Broadcasting Department of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD).
  • Respondents: 1) State of Andhra Pradesh (Principal Secretary, Endowments Department), 2) Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) represented by its Executive Officer, 3) Joint Executive Officer, TTD, 4) A S Chalapati (Assistant Technician Grade‑II).
  • Relief Sought: (i) Declare illegal the absorption of the 4th respondent into the P.A. Wing of the Radio & Broadcasting Department instead of the TV Wing, violating Articles 14, 16 and Government instructions; (ii) Set aside the revised provisional seniority list dated 08‑06‑2020 (R.O.C No. TL8/3007/CE/2020) which rejected petitioners’ objections without proper reasons.
  • Background: Petitioners argued that vacancies for Assistant Technician Grade‑II arose in 2001 and, having served in the feeder cadre since 1991‑1995, they were eligible for promotion. The 4th respondent was appointed as Technician Grade‑II over them, allegedly breaching service rules (T.T.D. Employee Service Rules 1989) which require a minimum five‑year tenure as Helper and promotion rather than direct appointment.
  • The 2nd respondent had invited objections to the provisional seniority list; petitioners objected that the 4th respondent should be placed in the TV Wing. The respondent replied that the appointment complied with directions in W.P. No. 19850 of 2011 and rejected the petitioners’ request via R.O.C No. TL8/3007/CE/2020 dated 08‑06‑2020.
  • The court examined prior judgments, including Amarjeet Singh vs Devi Ratan (2010 1 SCC 417) and Roshan Lal vs International Airport Authority of India (AIR 1981 SC 597), emphasizing that consequential orders cannot be challenged without first challenging the basic order and that undue delay bars examination of seniority.
  • The court also cited State of U.P. vs Neeraj Awasthi (2006 (1) SCC 667) stating that appointments made contrary to statutory provisions are illegal and void, conferring no legal right even if the employee continues in post.
  • Service rule excerpt (Rule 38) was reproduced, showing that Assistant Technician Grade‑II is a promotional post requiring: (i) SSC qualification, (ii) ITI certificate in Radio & Electronic trade, and (iii) at least five years of service as Helper in the Public Announcement or Broadcasting Section.
  • The court concluded that the 4th respondent’s appointment as Assistant Technician Grade‑II was made directly, not by promotion, violating the rule and therefore illegal.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is allowed.
  • The order dated 08‑06‑2020 (R.O.C No. TL8/3007/CE/2020) is set aside.
  • The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent (TTD) to reconsider the 4th respondent’s absorption into the TV Wing in accordance with the 1989 service rules and to issue a fresh provisional seniority list.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Any interlocutory applications pending in this writ petition stand closed.

Topics: Appointment Law, Service Rules, Seniority List