The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.R.K.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : SRI B.NARASIMHA SARMA, ADDL.SOL.GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : SRI B.RAJESHWAR REDDY, GP FOR AP The Court made the following: ORDER l ^ I. h THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18462 OF 2025 OR-DER: eer Lhe Han'ble Sn Justrce AbLLLnatLd KunLdr SrlauiLi) Aggrieved by the order dated 03.O4.2025 passed in O.A.No.O2 1/001613 of 2024 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri K.R.K.V. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for General Administration, appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri B. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh, appearing for respondent No.4

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was selected S Deputy Collector, Group-l Cadre, 1n the year 1990 through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, ) AI(S,J & VRKR,J ,tp 1a462 2025 and she was conferred IAS lor meritorr ous service in

1995. She has been discharging her duties in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel had further contended that the petitioner has studied LKG to Post Graduation in Hyderabad District and is a permanent resident of Hyderabad.

4. Learned counsel lor the petitioner had further contended that the State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh or, lnd June, 2Ol4 and consequent upon the bifurcation of the State, the petitioner was; allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh uide proc,:edings dated

05.03.20 15. Aggrieved by the saicl allotrncnr to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner hasr submitted a detailed representation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requesting to allot her to the State of Telangana, AS admittedly the petitioner has studied frorr LKG to Post Graduation in Hyderabad. The ailocation r,r,as not done based upon the information furnished by the State Government. The State Government had categorically --'-ry:l7 a, g "3tr '-x?3: 'l .,,t 3 AKS,J & VRKR,J \\-p 18462 2025 stated that the petitioner is a domicile of Hyderabad in terms of the Presidential Order under Article 371D of the Constitution of India. In spite of the State Government furnishing the details that the petitioner is a permanent domicile of Hyderabad, respondent No.1 and 2 have allocated the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh. When the representation of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Tribunal by hling O.A.No.34B of 2015 and the Tribunal was pleased to grant interim order on

13.03.20 15 and in view of the interim order granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner was allowed to continue in the State of Telangana

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the Tribunal was pleased to allow O.A.No.348 of 2015 uide order dated 29.03.2016 by allocating the petitioner to the State of Telangana. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.348 of 2015, the respondents have filed W.P.No.7263 of 2OI7 and this Court disposed of the said 4 AI(S,J & \TRI{R,J \w 1a462 )025 writ petition uide order dated 03.01.2024 by setting aside that portion of the order of the Tribunal rvhere it has allocated the petitioner to the State of Telangana and the matter was remitted back to the Union of India to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the guidelines framed for allocation i.e., Praty.ush Sitrha Committee Guidelines. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that ir-r pursuance of the ordcr passed by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation to the Department of Personnel & Training (hereinafter referred to as "DOPT") on 04.04.2024 and the DtlPT, however, rejected the case of the petitioner uide proceedings dated

09.10.2024. In pursuance of the rejection order dated

09.1O.2024, the respondents have relieved the petitioner from the State of Telangana and she was 'lonstrait-red to join duty in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 17.1O.2O24. Thereafter, the petitioner had hled O.A.N,c.O2ll001613 of 2024 challenging the rejection order datr:d 09.1O.2024 and the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the said O.A. .ryJ#/ -a- AKS,J & VRKR,J wp ta462 2025 uide judgrnent dated Q3.O4.2O25 without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Page No. 104 ol the material papers filed along with the writ petition wherein the State Government had categorically stated that the petitioner is a domicile of Hyderabad in terms of Presidential Order issued under Article 37 1-D ol the Constitution of India. When once the State Government has furnished the details that the petitioner 15a permanent domicile of Hyderabad, the respondents were not justified in allocating the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh only based upon her place of birth learned counsel had further contended that as per Clause iO of Article 37 l-D of the Constitution of India, the provisions of this Article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force. When Clause 1O of Article 37 l-D categorically 6 AKS;J & VRI(R,.J v,p 18462 2025 states that if there is any conflict between l\7 l-D and any other provision of iaw, Article 37 I - D wili prevail. Admittedl],, the petitioner was shown as a permanent domicile of Hyderabad, therefore, the respondents were not justified in allotting the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh only based upon the placc of birth of the petitioner. Therelore, appropriate orders may be passed in the rvrit petition by setting aside the lej ection order dated 09.10.2024 and also set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.O2llOO76l3 <>f 2024 dated

03.04.2025 and aliow the writ petition and further direct the respondents to allocate the petitioner io the State of Telangana in terms of guidelines of Praty'ush Sinha Committee by duly taking into account the lact that the petitioner is a pernanent domicile of Hyderabad in terms of Article 37 7-D of the Constitution of India..

7. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 had contenrled that the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the guidelines of Prat5rush w 7 AKS,.J & VRKR,J wP 18q62 2025 Sinha Committee and the State Government has furnished the details of the petitioner wherein it was categorically stated that the place of birth of the petitioner is Guntur. Therefore, the respondents were justified in taking the place of birth of the petitioner as Guntur and rightly allocated her to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified 1n dismissing the O.A.

8. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 had further contended that the respondents have taken into account the Para 4 of the allocation guidelines, wherein it is categorically stated that the domicile status, as intimated bv the State Government, only will be taken into account. As admittedly the place of birth of the petitioner was shown as Guntur, the respondents were justihed in allocating the petitioner to lhe State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8 AIiS..)&, \'RKR..J up 18.162 2025

9. This Court. having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the considered r.ierv that the guidelines, more particularly Para L of the said guidelines, state that allocatron will be based upon domicile status. Admittedly in the instant case, the State Government has furnished the cetails of the pr:titioner to the DOPT in tcrms ol the Prcsidential order, u here in it u as categoricall_r, statcd that the pctitioner is a pcrmanent domicile ol Hl,dsrr6rd and [hercfore, the respondents \ /ere not justihr:d in allocating the petitioner to the State of Andhra Praclesh. Therefore, the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for allocation to the State of Tclangana in tcrms ol don-ricilc status which was determined by the State (iovernment in terms of Article 37I -D of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the respondents were not justified in rejecting the case of the pe trtloner.

10. In view of the above, the rejection order of DOPT dated 09.1O.2024 is liable to be set aside and acc6idingl'5,. the same is set aside. The order passed by i i I l I l l I I I l l w I AKS,J & VRKR,J w_14162 2025 the Tribunal in O.A.No,021/00161S of 2024 dared

03.O4.2025 is also liablc to bc sct aside and accordingiy, the same is set aside. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for allocation to the State of Telangana by duly taking into account the fact that the domicile status of the petitioner 1S Hyderabad, AS furnished by the State Government, in terms of Article 37 I-D of the Constitution of India.

11. With the above observations / directions, the Writ Petition is allowcd. There shall be no order as to costs L2. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

6.- SECTION OFFICER ,/ To,

1. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (All lndia Services - IAS), Government of lndia, Union of lndia, North Block, New Delhi-l10 001. 2. The Shri Deepak Khandekar, Single Member Committee, Order No.22012 I 04 I 2024-AlS.l, dated 21.03.2024 Department of Personnel and Training, North Block Buildings, New Delhi-1 '10 001 .

3. The Chief Secretary, B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariate, State of Telangana, Hyderabad-S00 022.

4. The Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, State of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh.

5. One CC to SRI K.R.K.V.PRASAD, Advocate. [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI B.NARASIMHA SARMA, (Addl. Solicitor General of lndia), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OPUC]

7. Two CCs to GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] O

8. Two CCs to GP FOR AP, High Court for the State of Telangana. at Hyderabad. [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 I CC TODAY i I : t ! I i i I I I I l (" l:.'r ti-- +1. i i rtP ?i125 )t- '" - {;l ORDER WP.No.18462 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ ,