In a significant ruling on public appointments, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has set aside the re-appointment of the State’s Director of Animal Husbandry, holding that the extension granted after retirement violated statutory service rules.
Justice Nyapathy Vijay delivered a common order on January 29, 2026, allowing two writ petitions filed by officers’ associations and an individual aspirant to the post. The court issued a writ of quo warranto - a legal remedy that questions a person’s authority to hold a public office.
Read also:- Madras High Court Judge Recuses in CBI Case After ₹50 Lakh Bribery Allegation Letter Sent to Centre
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by the Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Gazetted Officers Association and two other service associations, along with a senior officer aspiring for promotion.
They challenged the re-appointment of Dr. T. Damodar Naidu as Director of Animal Husbandry through G.O.Rt.No.285 dated August 6, 2025. Dr. Naidu had retired on July 31, 2025, upon attaining the age of superannuation.
Before retirement, he wrote to the government seeking extension for one year on re-employment basis. The government accepted his request, citing “administrative exigencies,” and re-appointed him against the sanctioned post of Director.
The petitioners argued that:
- The re-appointment bypassed mandatory screening procedures.
- The statutory service rules allow appointment to the Director’s post only by promotion.
- The extension blocked promotional opportunities of eligible officers.
- The move violated the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Spectrum Is National Asset, Says Insolvency Code Cannot Wipe Out Govt Telecom Dues
Government’s Stand
The State defended the decision, stating that guidelines under G.O.Rt.No.1466 permitted re-appointment of retired officers in exceptional cases.
It argued that the file was circulated to the Chief Minister under the Andhra Pradesh Business Rules due to administrative urgency. The Chief Secretary recommended the proposal, and the Chief Minister approved it.
The government maintained that determining “public interest” was its prerogative.
Senior counsel for the re-appointed officer also contended that a writ of quo warranto was not maintainable since the officer possessed the required qualifications.
Court on Maintainability of Quo Warranto
Justice Vijay first addressed whether the associations had the right to file such petitions.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench observed that in quo warranto proceedings, strict rules of locus standi (legal standing) are relaxed.
“The primary obligation of the Court is to see that a public office is not usurped,” the judge noted, emphasizing that any citizen can bring to the court’s notice if a statutory post is occupied without legal authority.
The court held that the petitions were maintainable.
Screening Committee Was Bypassed Improperly
The court then examined whether the procedure under G.O.Rt.No.1466 was followed.
The order required proposals for re-appointment to be placed before a Screening Committee. Only in exceptional cases could this process be bypassed - and even then, the need must arise from the department, not from the individual seeking extension.
Read also:- Supreme Court Orders Regularisation of Income Tax Casual Workers, Slams Discrimination in 2006 Poli
In this case, the court found that the proposal originated solely from the officer’s personal request.
“There is no letter of the Department expressing dire need for continuance,” the judge noted.
The court held that bypassing the Screening Committee without demonstrating departmental necessity violated the prescribed procedure.
Statutory Rules Override Executive Orders
The most crucial finding concerned the service rules governing the post.
Under the A.P. State Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1996, the Director’s post “shall be” filled by promotion from the cadre of Additional Director. No other method is provided.
Justice Vijay underlined that statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be overridden by executive instructions.
“Every aspect of public employment is governed by statutory rules. These rules do not yield to executive instructions,” the bench observed.
The court further noted that the service rules do not contain any power of relaxation that would allow deviation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail of Absconding Murder Accused in 2017 MP Political
Superannuation Law Violated
The bench also examined the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, which mandates retirement at 62 years and overrides inconsistent laws.
“Any continuance in a statutory post governed by statutory rules beyond the said age is contrary to the Act,” the court held.
The judge clarified that while retired officers may be engaged in advisory or contractual roles, they cannot continue in statutory cadre posts after superannuation.
Decision
Holding that the re-appointment did not comply with the re-employment guidelines, violated statutory service rules, and ran contrary to the superannuation law, the court allowed both writ petitions.
A writ of quo warranto was issued against Dr. T. Damodar Naidu, effectively setting aside his re-appointment as Director of Animal Husbandry.
No costs were awarded. Pending applications were closed.
Case Title: Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandary Gazetted Officers Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. Nos. 24508 and 22832 of 2025
Decision Date: 29 January 2026
