As per case facts, petitioners, non-teaching staff of the 1st respondent university, challenged a 2017 Executive Council resolution mandating departmental tests through APPSC for promotions to Senior Assistant and Assistant ...
Date of reserved for orders : 06.07.2026
Date of pronouncement : 07.08.2026
Date of uploading :
APHC010051122018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3333]
FRIDAY, THE 7
th
DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2348/2018
Between:
1. P. ADINARAYANA REDDY, P. ADINARAYANA REDDY, S/O P. RAMI
REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
2. R. KESAVA REDDY, R. KESAVA REDDY, S/O R. NARIGAPPA,
AGED 54 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
3. Y. RAJAMMA, Y. RAJAMMA, D/O Y. VISWANATHAM(LATE), AGED
52 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
4. B. ESWARAIAH, B. ESWARA IAH, S/O. B. BAYANNA, AGED 50
YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
5. M. SREENIVASULU, M. SREENIVASULU, S/O. M. VENKATA
RAMUDU, AGED 45 YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K.
UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
6. M. NARESH, M. NARESH, S/O. M. NAGA BHUSHANAM, AGED 29
YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
2
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
7. V. KRISTAPPA, V. KRISTAPPA, S/O. V. KULLAYAPPA, AGED 49
YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
8. A. VEERA REDDY , A. VEERA REDDY, S/O A. KONDA REDDY,
AGED 48 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
9. S. VENKATA RAVANA, S. VENKATA RAVANA, S/O. S. LINGANNA,
AGED 54 YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
10. N. KESAVA REDDY, N. KESAVA REDDY, S/O. N. SUBBARAYUDU,
AGED 56 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
11. K. VENKATESULU, K. VENKATESULU, S/O. K. HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED 51 YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
12. N. ANANDA RAJU, N. ANANDA RAJU, S/O N. RANGAIAH, AGED 43
YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT, S.K. UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -
515001, A.P.
13. K. MARUTHI, K. MARUTHI, S/O K. PEDDANNA, AGED 30 YEARS,
JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001,
A.P.
14. M. SUBRAMANYAM, M. SUBRAMANYAM, S/0 M.
VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K.
UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
15. M. RAJU, M. RAJU, S/O M. PEDDANNA, AGED 50 YEARS,
SUPERINTENDENT, S.K. UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001,
A.P.
16. J. GOVINDA RAJULU, J. GOVINDA RAJULU, S/O. 3. RAJAPPA,
AGED 52 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
3
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
17. M. SANTHA KUMAR, M. SANTHA KUMAR, S/O. M. VIRUPANNA,
AGED 43 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU-515001, A.P.
18. D. PRATHAP REDDY, D. PRATHAP REDDY, S/O. D. SIVA RAMI
REDDY, AGED 45 YEARS, JUNIOR ASISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
19. D. MURALI, D. MURALI, S/O D. ANAND, AGED 41 YEARS, SENIOR
ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
20. M.V. SIVA REDDY, M.V. SIVA REDDY, S/O. M. VENKATA REDDY,
AGED 54 YEARS, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
21. T.S. SYAMASUNDAR, T.S. SYAMASUNDAR, S/O. T.
SESHACHARYULU, AGED 52 YEARS, SENIOR ASSIST ANT, S.K.
UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
22. N. LAKSHMI NARASIMHULU, N. LAKSHMI NARASIMHULU, S/O N.
NARASAIAH (LATE), AGED 52 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K.
UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
23. R. CHANDRA SEKHAR, R. CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O R.
MUVTHAPPA (LATE), AGED 56 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT, S.K.
UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
24. C. SANTHA LINGAM, C. SANTHA LINGAM, S/O. C. NARAYANA
(LATE), AGED 42 YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
25. C. RAMA MOHAN, C. RAMA MOHAN, S/O. C. LINGANNA (LATE),
AGED 44 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
26. R. NAGA BHUSHANAM, R. NAGA BHUSHANAM, S/O. R.PEDDA
VEERANARAPPA (LATE), AGED 51 YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT,
S.K. UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
27. M. SURESH REDDY, M. SURESH REDDY, S/O M. RANGA REDDY,
AGED 30 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
4
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
28. T. ROHITH KUMAR REDDY, T. ROHITH KUMAR REDDY, S/O T.
RAVI (LATE), AGED 27 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K .
UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
29. V. GOVINDA REDDY, V. GOVINDA REDDY, S/O. V. ANJANAIAH,
AGED 51 YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
30. S. RAMU NAIK, S. RAMU NAIK, S/O S. SAKRE NAIK, AGED 50
YEARS, SUPERINTEND ENT, S.K. UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -
515001, A.P.
31. S. CHINNA PEDDANNA, S. CHINNA PEDDANNA, S/O. S.
SAMARANNA, AGED 46 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K.
UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
32. D. NAGA MUNINDRA, D. NAGA MUNINDRA, S/O D. SUBBANNA,
AGED 52 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
33. B. VENKATA RAMUDU, B. VENKATA RAMUDU, S/O. B.
VENKATAPPA, AGED 49 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT, S.K.
UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
34. S. BASAVA RAJU, S. BASAVA RAJU, S/O. VEERA B ADRAIAH,
AGED 40 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
35. J. SIVA PRASAD, J. SIVA PRASAD, S/O J. KATAMAIAH, AGED 37
YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
36. E. GOVINDU, E. GOVINDU, S/O. E. BOJJANNA, AGED 41 YEARS,
JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001,
A.P.
37. K. SUBBARAO, K. SUBBARAO, S/O K.S. PRAKASH RAO, AGED 52
YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
5
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
38. H. CHINNAPPA, H. CHINNAPPA, S/O. H. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED
56 YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
39. N. VIJAYA, N. VIJAYA, D/O. N. VENKATAIAH, AGED 51 YEARS,
SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001,
A.P.
40. B. KESAVA KUMAR, B. KESAVA KUMAR, S/O. B. KRISHNA
MURTHY, AGED 40 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K.
UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
41. P. VENKATESH, P. VENKATESH, S/O P. NARAYANA, AGED 34
YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
42. D. CHINNA NARAYANA, D. CHINNA NARAYANA, S/O D.
KULLAYAPPA, AGED 54 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, S.K.
UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
43. M. PRABHAKAR, M. PRABHAKAR, S/O. M. BAYANNA, AGED 55
YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
44. B. DHARMAIAH, B. DHARMAIAH, S/O B. MUSALAIAH, AGED 49
YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
45. S. SREERAM NAIK, S. SREERAM NAIK, S/O. S. BHEEMLA NAIK,
AGED 53 YEARS, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
46. S. GOVINDU, S. GOVINDU, S/O S. CHINNA PEDDANNA (LATE),
AGED 41 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
47. B. RAMA KRISHNA, B. RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. B. CHANDRAYUDU,
AGED 53 YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU -515001, A.P.
...PETITIONER(S)
6
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
AND
1. SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA
UNIVERSITY, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA
UNIVERSITY, S.V. PURAM, ANANTAPURAMU, A.P. -515003.
2. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR -522501.
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIS TRICT.
4. A MALLIKARJUNA, S/O LATE A.ADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46
YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU.
5. M VENKATARAMA, S/O LATE M LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 46
YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSIT Y,
ANANTAPURAMU
6. KATIJA BEE, W/O. S.MOHAMMADLLIYAZ, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU
7. G BALA VEERANNA, S/O. LATE G. VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT
29 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT, S .K.
UNIVERSITY. ANANTAPURAMU
8. R SAI SIVA, LATE. S/O.R. CHANDRASCKHAR, AGED ABOUT 29
YEAR'S, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT, S.K. UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU
9. JAMALUDDING, S/O.S. SHAIKSHAVALI, AGED ABOUT 24
YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSIS TANT, S.K.UNIVERSITY,
ANANTAPURAMU
10. R SREENIVASULU, S/O. LATE, R VELUGONDAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT,
7
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
S.K.UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU
11. K BRAHMANANDA, S/O. LATE K. BALAPEDDANNA, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEAR S, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT
S.K.UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU
12. K V VIJAYASARATHI, S/O, LATE K. SAMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT
41 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT,
S.K.UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU. RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 12
IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 VIDE IA
NO.1 OF 2024 IN WP NO.2348 OF 2018.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of
WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring declaring the Executive Council resolution
No.159-2964(A-4) Dated. 13-10-2017 as illegal, irrational, arbitrary and is not
applicable to those of Non-Teaching employees who are in service as on the
date of passing of the said resolution, and cleared the departmental tests
conducted by the University and in respect of the vacancies available prior to
the resolution and consequently direct the respondent University to promote
all the petitioners who cleared the departmental tests conducted by the
University against the available vacancies and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
To stay all further proceedings in respect of the Executive Council resolution
No.159-2964 (A-4) Dated. 13-10-2017 pending disposal of the above writ
petition and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased to implead the petitioners as proposed respondents 4 to 12
in to the WP.No. 2348/2018 and pass
8
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. A V S LAXMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. O UDAYA KUMAR SC For S K UNIVERSITY
2. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA
3. K RADHIKA SC FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
4. K RADHIKA
The Court made the following:
9
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:
“…to issue any writ, order or direction particularly
one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS
declaring declaring the Executive Council resolution
No.159-2964(A-4) Dated. 13-10-2017 as illegal,
irrational, arbitrary and is not applicable to those of
Non-Teaching employees who are in service as on
the date of passing of the said resolution, and
cleared the departmental tests conducted by the
University and in respect of the vacancies available
prior to the resolution and consequently direct the
respondent University to promote all the petitioners
who cleared the departmental tests conducted by the
University against the available vacancies and
pass…”
2. The petitioners herein are working in various cadres of non-
teaching staff in the 1
st
respondent university, which came into existence
in the year 1981 and is governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh
Universities Act, 1991. The 1
st
respondent university framed service cadre
rules for non-teaching staff and the same was approved by the Board of
Management vide resolution No.320 (A.2), dated 11.07.1992. As per the
said regulation, the petitioners appeared for departmental tests conducted
by the University from time to time and attained eligibility for promotion to
the higher cadre as stipulated under the cadre rules.
10
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
3. While the matter stood thus, the 2
nd
respondent – Andhra
Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, vide letter bearing
No.APSCHE/UM-1052/FO-Univ-Accounts Test/2017, dated 04.09.2017
advised all the universities in the State to mandate passing of accounts
test for Sub-Ordinate Officers Part-I for promotion to the post of Senior
Assistant and Accounts Test for Sub-Ordinate Officers Part-I and II or
Executive Officers test for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar
conducted by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. The 2
nd
respondent further held that the universities have no jurisdiction to
conduct accounts test. Pursuant to the said direction, the Executive
Council of the 1
st
respondent, vide the impugned resolution bearing
No.159-2964(A-4), dated 13.10.2017, resolved to consider the letter
addressed by the 2
nd
respondent dated 04.09.2017 and accorded
permission to conduct departmental test to non-teaching staff through
APPSC for promotions to the posts of Senior Assistant and Assistant
Registrar. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2
nd
respondent is not
empowered to direct the 1
st
respondent university to place its advice
before the Executive Council for consideration and that the 2
nd
respondent
invaded the autonomy of the 1
st
respondent university. The impugned
resolution is contrary to the earlier resolution passed by the Board of
Management of the 1
st
respondent university dated 11.07.1992. Hence,
the present writ petition is filed.
11
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
4. The 2
nd
respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that
the 1
st
respondent university is governed by Andhra Pradesh University
Act, 1991 and the Executive Council of the 1
st
respondent has the power
to define duties, conditions of service, fixation of emoluments, appoint,
dismiss, remove or suspend any member of non-teaching staff as under
Section 19(7) and (8) of the A.P. University Act, 1991. It is further stated
that the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission has been conducting
various departmental test for various departments of the State and
Universities. However, the 1
st
respondent university has not updated the
service rules of the non-teaching staff either in conformity with the rule of
the 3
rd
respondent or with the rules of the 2
nd
respondent. It is further
stated that the 3
rd
respondent, vide G.O.Ms.No.411, General
Administration department dated 18.07.2011 issued orders declaring that
the pass in accounts test for executive officers is not equivalent to pass in
the accounts test for sub-ordinate officers part-I and part-II. Later, the 3
rd
respondent clarified that Government servants who passed accounts test
for sub-ordinate officers part-I and II can be exempted from passing
accounts test for executive officers, but the Government servants who
have passed accounts test for executive officers cannot be exempted
from a pass in accounts test for sub-ordinate officers part I and II.
5. The 3
rd
respondent, vide letter dated 12.04.2017
communicated the mandatory guidelines made out in report dated
12
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
27.01.2017 to all the universities, as per which, in addition to the
departmental tests conducted by AP Public Service Commission, the
Universities are required to conduct standardized tests covering statutory
provisions, statutes, academic regulations, affiliation rules, service rules,
accounts rules etc. As such, the claim of the petitioners that the
departmental tests conducted by the 1
st
respondent is to be considered for
their promotions cannot be sustained as the 1
st
respondent university is
not authorized to conduct departmental tests. The departmental test
conducted by the 1
st
respondent university, which is a statutory body
cannot override the departmental test conducted by the APPSC which
admittedly is a constitutional body. The advice of the 2
nd
respondent to all
the universities is with a view to improve quality in administrative
governance and avoid administrative and financial irregularities. It is
further stated that the 3
rd
respondent has extended State Sub-Ordinate
Service Rules to all universities vide Government letter bearing
No.1398958/UE/A2/2021, dated 03.11.2021. The impugned resolution
passed by the 1
st
respondent university is part of administrative reforms
and the same need not be interfered with by this Court. Hence, requested
to dismiss the writ petition.
6. The 8
th
respondent filed a counter affidavit in similar lines to
that of the 2
nd
respondent, however, it was specifically contended that the
respondent university received recommendations of APSCHE on
13
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
04.09.2017; that Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission conducted
departmental tests in November – 2017, May – 2018 and November –
2018 wherein, all the petitioners have participated, however, being
unsuccessful in the said examination, the present writ petition is filed.
Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Sri. P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Smt. A.V. Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri. O. Udaya Kumar,
learned Standing Counsel for 1
st
respondent, Smt. K. Radhika, learned
counsel for the 2
nd
respondent and Sri. S. Harinath Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 12.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the impugned resolution dated 13.10.2017,
passed pursuant to the letter dated 04.09.2017 issued by the 2
nd
respondent, is arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions
of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991. It is contended that the 1
st
respondent University, being an autonomous statutory body, framed the
Service Cadre Rules for its non-teaching staff, which were approved by
the Board of Management on 11.07.1992. In accordance with the said
Rules, the petitioners passed the departmental tests conducted by the
University and became eligible for promotion. The learned counsel
submits that the 2
nd
respondent has no authority to direct the 1
st
respondent University to conduct departmental tests through 2
nd
14
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
respondent or to alter the existing Service Cadre Rules. It is further
contended that the Executive Council of the 1
st
respondent mechanically
acted upon the advice of the 2
nd
respondent, thereby compromising the
statutory autonomy of the University. Since the Cadre Rules have not
been amended in accordance with law, the respondents cannot impose
APPSC Accounts Tests as an additional condition for promotion. Hence,
requested to set aside the impugned proceedings.
9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent university submits that the impugned resolution is valid and
was passed by the Executive Council of the 1
st
respondent University in
exercise of its powers under Sections 19(7) and 19(8) of the Andhra
Pradesh Universities Act, 1991. It is contended that the University's
Service Rules were not updated in accordance with the Government
guidelines and the recommendations of the Andhra Pradesh State Council
of Higher Education. The 2
nd
respondent, being a constitutional body, is
the competent authority to conduct departmental tests, and the University
cannot conduct such tests on its own. The impugned resolution was
passed to ensure uniform standards, improve administrative efficiency,
and prevent financial irregularities. The learned counsel further submits
that all the petitioners participated in the APPSC departmental
examinations conducted subsequent to impugned resolution, few
petitioners succeeded and were promoted to the next higher cadre but,
15
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
certain petitioners failed to qualify. Having participated in the selection
process without objection, they cannot now challenge the impugned
proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Perused the entire material available on record. The
petitioners, who are non-teaching employees of the 1
st
respondent
University, challenged the proceedings dated 04.09.2017 issued by the
2
nd
respondent and the consequential Resolution dated 13.10.2017
passed by the Executive Council of the 1st respondent University,
whereby departmental tests for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant
and Assistant Registrar were directed to be conducted through the 2
nd
respondent – Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC). It is
the case of the petitioners that as per the Service Cadre Rules approved
by the respondent University in the year 1992 the University itself can
conduct departmental tests and that the 2
nd
respondent had no authority
to interfere with the autonomy of the respondent University or alter the
existing service conditions. However, from the material available on
record, it can be seen that the Executive Council, being the competent
authority under Sections 19(7) and 19(8) of the Andhra Pradesh
Universities Act, 1991, is empowered to regulate the conditions of service
of the non-teaching staff and to take administrative decisions concerning
promotions. Sections 19(7) and 19(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Universities
Act, 1991 reads as under:
16
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
Section 19(7): Gives the Executive Council the
power to appoint, dismiss, remove, or suspend any
member of the non-teaching staff of the university.
Section 19(8): Gives the Executive Council the
power to fix the pay and financial allowances
(emoluments) for the employees of the university.
11. The impugned resolution was passed by the Executive Council
in the exercise of its statutory powers, keeping in view the
recommendations of the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher
Education and the need to maintain uniform standards in departmental
examinations. Merely because the University had earlier conducted
departmental tests does not preclude it from adopting a different
procedure in the interest of administrative efficiency and uniformity.
12. It can also be observed that, pursuant to the impugned
resolution, many of the petitioners have participated in the departmental
examinations conducted by the APPSC, successfully qualified therein,
and were consequently promoted to the next higher post. The remaining
petitioners also participated in the said examinations without raising any
objection but could not qualify. Having voluntarily subjected themselves to
the selection process under the impugned resolution and having taken a
chance of securing promotion, the petitioners cannot now turn around and
challenge the very procedure to which they had willingly submitted. It is a
settled principle of law that a candidate who participates in a selection
17
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
process without protest and takes a chance of being selected is estopped
from questioning the process after being unsuccessful. The said list of the
petitioners is as under
Petitioner
No.
Name of the
Employee
Date of
passing of
APPSC
Departmental
Test
Promoted to next level post Remarks
1 P Adinaraya Reddy Not passed
exam
Nil Nil
2 R Kesava Reddy
R Kesava Reddy S/o
R Narigappa aged 54
years Superintendent
S K University
Anantapuramu515001
A P
Retired from the Service Retired from
the Service
03
Y Rajamma
Y Rajamma D/o Y
Viswanatham Late
aged 52 years
Superintendent S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
A P
May-2019
Assistant Registrar
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2023,
dated.23.11.2023)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
04
B Eswaraiah
B Eswaraiah S/o B
Bayanna aged 50
years Senior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
A P
November-
2020
Superintendent
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2023,
dated.23.11.2023)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
05
M Sreenivasulu
M Sreenivasulu S/o M
Venkata Ramudu
aged 45 years Senior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
May-2019 Superintendent
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2023,
dated.23.11.2023)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
18
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
A P
06
M Naresh
Passed
Appsc
departmental
exam
Senior Assistant
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2025,
dated.23.11.2025)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
07 V Kristappa Passed
APPSC
departmental
exam
08 A VEERA REDDY NOT
PASSED
9 S Venkata Ravana
S Venkata Ravana
S/o S Linganna aged
54 years Senior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
Retired from
the Service
10 N Kesava Reddy
N Kesava Reddy S/o
N Subbarayudu aged
56 years
Superintendent S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
Retired from
the Service
11 K Venakatesulu Not passed
exam
Now working as Senior Assistant
12
N Ananda Raju
N Ananda Raju S/o N
Rangaiah aged 43
years Superintendent
S K University
Anantapuramu515001
A P
May-2019 Assistant Registrar
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2023,
dated.23.11.2023)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
13 K Maruthi Passed
APPSC
departmental
Now he is being promoted referred to
departmental promotion committee
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
19
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
test Test
14 M Subramanyam Not passed
departmental
exam
Now working as Junior Assistant
15 M Raju Not passed
departmental
exam
Now working as superintendent
16 J Govinda Rajulu Not passed
departmental
exam
Now working as Junior Assistant going
to retired in December-2026
17
M Santha Kumar
M Santha Kumar S/o
M Virupanna aged 43
years Junior
AssistantS K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
November-
2020
Senior Assistant
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2024,
dated.02.12.2024)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
18 D Prathap reddy Not passed Now working as Junior Assistant
19 D Murali
D Murali S/o D Anand
aged 41 years Senior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
20 M V Siva Reddy
M V Siva Reddy S/o
M Venkata Reddy
aged 54 years Deputy
Registrar S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
Retired from
the Service
21 T Shyam sundar Retired from
the serivce
22 N lakhmi Narashimulu Now working
as Junior
Assistant and
going to
20
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
retired in
August-2026
23 R Chandra Sekhar
R Chandra Sekhar
S/o R Muvthappa
Late aged 56 years
Superintendent S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
Retired from
the Service
24 CShantha Lingam Passed
APPSc test
Now working as senior Assistant
25 C Rama Mohan
C Rama Mohan S/o C
Linganna Late aged
44 years Junior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
26 R Nagabuhsanam Not passed Now working as senior assistant
27
M Suresh Reddy
M Suresh Reddy S/o
M Ranga Reddy aged
30 years Junior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
A P
November-
2018
Senior Assistant
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2024,
dated.02.12.2024)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
28 T Rohith Kumar reddy Passed
APPSc
departmental
exam
Now working as Junior assistant
29
V Govinda Reddy
V Govinda Reddy S/o
V Anjanaiah aged 51
years Senior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
A P
May-2019 Superintendent
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2023,
dated.23.11.2023)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
21
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
30 S Ramunaik Not passed Now working as superintendent
31 `S Chinna Peddanna Not passed Now working as junior assistant
32 D Naga Munindra
D Naga Munindra S/o
D Subbanna aged 52
years Junior Assistant
S K University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
Retired from
the Service
33
B Venkata Ramudu
B Venkata Ramudu
S/o B Venkatappa
aged 49 years
Superintendent S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
A P
November-
2021
Assistant Registrar
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2023,
dated.23.11.2023)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
34
S Basava Raju
S Basava Raju S/o
Veera Badraiah aged
40 years Junior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
May-2019 Senior Assistant
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2024,
dated.02.12.2024)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
35 J Siva Prasad
J Siva Prasad S/o J
Katamaiah aged 37
years Junior Assistant
S K University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2024,
dated.02.12.2024)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
36 E Govindu Passed
departmental
test
Promoted to junior library assistant
37 K Subbarao
K Subbarao S/o K S
Prakash Rao aged 52
years Junior Assistant
S K University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
Retired from
the Service
22
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
38 H Chinnappa
H Chinnappa S/o H
Hanumanthappa aged
56 years Senior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
Retired from
the Service
39 N Vijaya
N Vijaya D/o N
Venkataiah aged 51
years Senior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2024,
dated.02.12.2024)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
40
B Kesava Kumar
B Kesava Kumar S/o
B Krishna Murthy
aged 40 years Junior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
November-
2020
Senior Assistant
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2024,
dated.02.12.2024)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
41
P Venkatesh
P Venkatesh S/o P
Narayana aged 34
years Junior Assistant
S K University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
May-2019 Senior Assistant
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2024,
dated.02.12.2024)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
42 D Chinna Narayana Retired from the serive
43 M Prabhakar
M Prabhakar S/o M
Bayanna aged 55
years Senior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
AP
Retired from
the Service
44 B Dharmaiah Not passed Now working as senior assistant
23
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
45 S Sreeram Naik Not passed Now working as Assistant Registrar
46
S Govindu
S Govindu S/o S
Chinna Peddanna
Late aged 41 years
Superintendent S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
A P
May-2020 Superintendent
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2023,
dated.23.11.2023)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
47
B Rama Krishna
B Rama Krishna S/o
B Chandrayudu aged
53 years Senior
Assistant S K
University
Anantapuramu515001
A P
May-2018 Superintendent
(Vide proceedings
No.SKU/N.T.Estt/E1/Promotions/2023,
dated.23.11.2023)
Promoted
based on
the APPSC
Departmental
Test
13. It can be seen that petitioner Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 17, 19, 25,
27, 29, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 46, and 47 have passed the departmental
tests conducted by the 2
nd
respondent and were promoted to the next
higher cadre. Petitioner Nos. 2, 9, 10, 20, 21, 23, 32, 37, 38, 42, and 43
got retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation.
However, petitioner No.1, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 26, 30, 31, 44 and 45
have not passed the departmental tests conducted by the 2
nd
respondent.
Having taken part in the examination process with full knowledge that they
would be promoted if they had passed the examination, the petitioners
waived their right to question the impugned resolution passed by the
respondent university. It is a well settled principle of law that when a
candidate appears at an examination without objection and is
24
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is
precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an
examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and
participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that
the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because
result is not palatable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Tajvir
Singh Sodhi and Ors., Vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and
Ors.,
1
while dealing with the principle of estoppels by participation held
that challenge by unsuccessful candidates should generally not be
entertained by Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as
their participation amounts to implied acquiescence to the rules governing
the examination. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
“13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having
taken part in the selection process without any
demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after
having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates
cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In
other words, simply because the result of the
selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he
cannot allege that the process of interview was
unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process.
Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these
cases, could not have questioned before a Court of
law, the rationale behind recasting the selection
criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection
process even after the criteria had been so recast.
1
(2023) 17 SCC 147
25
VS,J
W.P.No.2348 of 2018
Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the
amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against
the same only after they had been declared
unsuccessful in the selection process, at which
stage, the challenge ought not to have been
entertained in light of the principle of waiver and
acquiescence.”
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merits in
the present writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition
shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
07.08.2026
Gss
In a significant ruling, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in Writ Petition No. 2348/2018, has delivered a crucial judgment concerning university promotion guidelines and departmental test eligibility. This detailed analysis of the court's decision, delivered by Smt. Justice V. Sujatha, is now available on CaseOn, highlighting its implications for non-teaching staff in educational institutions across the state.
The case revolves around 47 non-teaching employees of Sri Krishnadevaraya University (SK University), which was established in 1981 and operates under the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991. For years, the university had its own Service Cadre Rules, approved in 1992, under which it conducted internal departmental tests. Petitioners appeared for these tests, aiming for promotion to higher cadres.
The petitioners contended that the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE) issued a letter on September 4, 2017, advising all state universities to mandate passing specific accounts tests conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) for promotions to Senior Assistant and Assistant Registrar posts. Subsequently, on October 13, 2017, the SK University Executive Council, acting on this advice, resolved to implement APPSC-conducted tests. The petitioners argued that this directive was arbitrary, beyond the APSCHE's jurisdiction, and infringed upon the university’s statutory autonomy, especially since their existing Cadre Rules permitted internal examinations.
According to the petitioners, the university's original Service Cadre Rules, approved in 1992, allowed them to conduct their own departmental tests. Having already passed these internal tests, they believed they were eligible for promotion. The new mandate to use APPSC tests was seen as an additional, unlawful condition imposed without proper amendment to the university's rules.
The High Court was tasked with addressing two primary questions:
The case prominently features Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus. Crucially, the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991, specifically Sections 19(7) and 19(8), grants the Executive Council of a university broad powers to regulate the conditions of service for its non-teaching staff, including defining duties, fixing emoluments, and handling appointments and dismissals. These sections underscore the Executive Council's authority in administrative decisions concerning promotions.
A fundamental legal principle at play was that of estoppel by participation. This doctrine prevents individuals from challenging a selection process if they have voluntarily participated in it without protest and only raise objections after being declared unsuccessful. The court referenced the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (2023), which reinforces that unsuccessful candidates generally cannot challenge a process they willingly engaged in.
The petitioners consistently argued that the APSCHE lacked the authority to dictate how the university should conduct its departmental tests, emphasizing the university's autonomous status. They felt the Executive Council had merely rubber-stamped the APSCHE's advice, thereby undermining the university's self-governance and imposing new conditions without amending the established Service Cadre Rules.
In response, the 2nd (APSCHE) and 8th (impleaded respondents) respondents asserted that the Executive Council acted within its statutory powers under the 1991 Act. They highlighted that the university's service rules were outdated and not aligned with government guidelines. The shift to APPSC tests was presented as a move towards uniformity, improved administrative efficiency, and prevention of financial irregularities. They argued that APPSC, as a constitutional body, was the appropriate authority for such tests, and the university's internal tests could not override this.
The High Court carefully considered both sides. It found that the Executive Council's resolution was a valid exercise of its statutory powers, taking into account the APSCHE's recommendations for establishing uniform standards in departmental examinations. The court clarified that the university's past practice of conducting its own tests did not prevent it from adopting a new procedure in the interest of better administration and uniformity. For legal professionals seeking swift comprehension of such detailed judgments, CaseOn.in offers 2-minute audio briefs that distill complex legal arguments and rulings, making it easier to analyze specific decisions like this without extensive reading.
Crucially, the court observed that many petitioners had already participated in the APPSC examinations subsequent to the impugned resolution. Some successfully qualified and were promoted, while others did not. The court reiterated the principle that candidates who voluntarily participate in a selection process without protest are estopped from challenging it later, especially when the outcome is not favorable. Their participation implied acquiescence to the new rules.
Based on the detailed examination and the application of legal principles, the High Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 2348/2018 was dismissed, affirming the validity of the Executive Council's resolution to adopt APPSC-conducted departmental tests for promotions. There was no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
This judgment serves as a critical precedent regarding the interplay between university autonomy and state regulatory directives, particularly in the realm of employee promotion. For legal professionals, it underscores the robust powers granted to university Executive Councils under the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act and the state's legitimate interest in standardizing administrative procedures. Students of administrative law and service law will find it a valuable case study on the application of the principle of estoppel by participation, highlighting the importance of challenging rules at the outset rather than after an unfavorable result. It reinforces that engaging in a process without objection often waives the right to subsequent challenge, a lesson vital for both legal strategy and understanding public sector employment law.
Please note that all information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on specific legal issues.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....