The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of administrative law: once an employee has been regularly appointed and has served continuously for over a decade, their service cannot be arbitrarily unsettled on technical grounds long after the fact. This judgment provides critical clarity for public servants in religious endowments and similar institutions where regularization processes are often delayed or irregularly documented.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, J.S.V. Prasad, sought to restore his position as an Attender at the Sri Thirupatamma Ammavari Devasthanam in Penuganchiprolu, Krishna District, after his appointment was cancelled by the 2nd Respondent via order dated 08.10.2012. The cancellation was based on alleged non-compliance with Rule 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment’s Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000. The petitioner contended that his appointment was lawful, sanctioned by the Board of Trustees, and followed by over a decade of continuous service, including a promotion.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s father served as a cow keeper at the Devasthanam for approximately six years until his death on 03.05.2000.
- The petitioner was initially engaged as a casual labourer on a daily wage basis immediately after his father’s death.
- From 2003, he received a consolidated monthly payment of Rs. 1,200, increased to Rs. 1,500 per month with effect from 03.03.2007.
- The petitioner completed SSC in 1991 and submitted a representation on 13.09.2009 seeking appointment as an Attender in a regular vacancy earmarked for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
- The Board of Trustees of the 3rd Respondent passed a resolution on 13.11.2009 to regularize long-serving casual employees subject to eligibility.
- The 2nd Respondent issued appointment proceedings dated 10.12.2009, formally appointing the petitioner as an Attender against an existing vacancy.
- The petitioner served continuously from 10.12.2009 until the impugned order.
- On 25.04.2017, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Record Assistant with all attendant allowances.
- On 21.09.2012, the 2nd Respondent issued a show-cause notice seeking explanation as to why his appointment should not be cancelled.
- The impugned order dated 08.10.2012 cancelled the appointment, citing non-adherence to Rule 46 and absence of a sanctioned vacancy.
Procedural History
- 10.12.2009: Appointment order issued by the 2nd Respondent.
- 21.09.2012: Show-cause notice issued to the petitioner.
- 27.09.2012: Petitioner submitted his reply.
- 08.10.2012: Impugned order cancelling appointment issued.
- 2012: Writ Petition No. 34299/2012 filed before the High Court.
- 02.11.2012: Interim order passed by the Court directing continuation of service.
- 25.04.2017: Promotion to Record Assistant confirmed.
- 2015: IA filed to implead the State of Andhra Pradesh as Respondent No. 4.
- 2022: IA filed seeking vacation of interim suspension order.
- 04.05.2026: Final judgment delivered by the High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The appointment was lawful, sanctioned by the Board of Trustees, and approved by the Commissioner of Endowments. The petitioner had served for over 14 years with no challenge until 2012. The promotion in 2017 confirmed the legitimacy of his service. The reliance on Rule 46 was misplaced as the Devasthanam was not among the eight institutions listed under Rule 35 to which Rule 46 applied.
For the Respondents: The appointment violated Rule 46, which mandates direct recruitment through formal procedures. No sanctioned vacancy existed at the time of appointment. The Devasthanam, being a high-income institution, was bound by recruitment rules. The 2009 appointment was irregular and hence liable to be cancelled.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Declaration that the impugned order dated 08.10.2012 was illegal and arbitrary.
- Restoration of his appointment as Attender.
- Recognition of his service from 10.12.2009 onwards for all consequential benefits.
- Continuation of his promotion as Record Assistant with full allowances.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the service of a public employee, who was initially engaged on a casual basis and later regularly appointed with the approval of the Board of Trustees and the Commissioner of Endowments, could be lawfully cancelled after 14 years of continuous service on the ground of alleged procedural irregularity in the initial appointment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Devasthanam was not one of the eight institutions listed under Rule 35 of the Service Rules, 2000, and therefore Rule 46 - which prescribes formal recruitment procedures - was inapplicable. The appointment order of 10.12.2009 explicitly referenced an existing vacancy earmarked for a Scheduled Caste candidate, and was issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Endowments. The petitioner’s continuous service for over a decade, coupled with a promotion in 2017, established a legitimate expectation of continued employment. Reliance on Rule 46 was an afterthought, raised only after 14 years of service, and violated principles of natural justice and equitable estoppel.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that the Devasthanam, with an annual income exceeding Rs. 10,00,000, was governed by the formal recruitment rules under Rule 46. The appointment of the petitioner bypassed the mandatory process of public advertisement and selection. The absence of a sanctioned vacancy at the time of appointment rendered the order void ab initio. The respondents further argued that the promotion in 2017 was an administrative error and could not validate an illegal appointment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the respondents’ technical argument that Rule 46 applied to the Devasthanam. It noted that Rule 35 of the Service Rules, 2000, specifically lists eight institutions to which the detailed recruitment provisions apply. The Sri Thirupatamma Ammavari Devasthanam was not among them. Therefore, the requirement of formal recruitment under Rule 46 did not bind the institution.
"The appointment order specifically refers to the appointment of the petitioner as an Attender in an existing vacancy earmarked for a Scheduled Caste candidate, and the time scale was also fixed along with usual allowances."
The Court emphasized that the appointment was not merely an administrative act but one approved by the Board of Trustees and the Commissioner of Endowments - both competent authorities. The fact that the petitioner had served continuously for over 14 years, with no challenge until 2012, created a legitimate expectation protected under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court further observed that the promotion to Record Assistant in 2017, with full allowances, was a clear affirmation of the legitimacy of his service. To cancel the appointment after such a long period, and after a promotion, would be arbitrary and violative of the doctrine of approbation and reprobation.
The respondents’ reliance on a 2007 order permitting the filling of a cow keeper’s post was irrelevant, as it was not part of the record and did not pertain to the Attender position. The Court held that the respondents could not now raise objections that were neither raised at the time of appointment nor during the intervening 14 years.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 08.10.2012 cancelling the petitioner’s appointment as Attender is set aside. The petitioner’s service from 10.12.2009 onwards is deemed valid and continuous. His promotion to Record Assistant dated 25.04.2017 is confirmed, and all consequential service benefits, including pay, allowances, and pension eligibility, are restored. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Regularization After Long Service Cannot Be Undone
- Practitioners must argue that long-term, uninterrupted service coupled with formal recognition by competent authorities creates a legitimate expectation protected under Article 14.
- Technical violations of recruitment rules are not fatal if the appointment was made by a competent authority and the employee served without challenge for over a decade.
Applicability of Rules Must Be Precisely Established
- Institutions must prove that specific service rules apply to them before invoking procedural violations.
- If an institution is not listed under a rule’s scope (e.g., Rule 35), then provisions like Rule 46 cannot be enforced against its employees.
Promotion as Confirmation of Validity
- A subsequent promotion, especially with full allowances, operates as an implicit validation of the original appointment.
- Courts will treat such promotions as estoppel against later attempts to invalidate the service.
