In a significant ruling that reaffirms longstanding practices within the judiciary, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has dismissed a writ petition challenging the assignment of domestic duties to office subordinates in the residences of judicial officers. The case, titled AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 14017 of 2024), was decided by a Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam on July 9, 2025.
The petition, filed by the AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association, sought directions to prohibit judicial officers from assigning domestic or unofficial work to office subordinates at their residences or quarters. The association argued that such practices violate a 1992 circular issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the erstwhile combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which they claimed did not include domestic services. The ruling underscores the court’s view that the circular is not exhaustive and that established customs in the district judiciary allow for such assignments.
Case Background and Key Facts
The petitioner, an association purporting to represent office subordinates in the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Services, highlighted several grievances in their writ petition. They contended that office subordinates working in district courts are often compelled to perform domestic tasks at the homes of judges, despite the 1992 circular not explicitly listing such duties. The association further alleged that these subordinates are required to work beyond normal office hours without compensatory leave, leading to exploitation.
To bolster their case, the petition cited specific incidents of harassment by some judicial officers, where subordinates were forced into extended hours and faced mistreatment. These examples were presented as indicative of a broader issue, arguing that no domestic work should be assigned to office subordinates under any circumstances.
The respondents included the State of Andhra Pradesh and others, with respondents 2 and 3 (likely representing judicial authorities) filing a counter-affidavit. They defended the practice by referencing prior judicial precedents and questioned the maintainability of the petition, noting that the petitioner association is not recognized and thus cannot represent its alleged members.
Arguments Presented by the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu argued that the 1992 circular, dated February 24, 1992, does not encompass domestic services, and therefore, assigning such tasks is unauthorized. He emphasized that the incidents detailed in the petition are not exhaustive but illustrative of systemic abuse. Anjaneyulu urged the court to issue a directive prohibiting domestic service assignments to prevent further exploitation and harassment.
On behalf of respondents 2 and 3, Smt. B. Vasantha Lakshmi, the learned Standing Counsel, countered that the 1992 circular had already been interpreted by Division Benches of the erstwhile combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in two prior cases: T.M. Manikumar vs. Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and Ors. (2002 (2) ALD 428) and T.M. Mani Kumar vs. Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr. (2005 (6) ALD 346 (DB)). She argued that these judgments upheld the assignment of duties beyond the circular’s explicit list, including those at judicial officers’ residences.
Lakshmi also challenged the petition’s maintainability, asserting that an unrecognized association lacks standing to file on behalf of its members.
The State of Andhra Pradesh was represented by the Government Pleader for Services I, though no specific arguments from this counsel are detailed in the judgment.
Legal Questions Involved and Court’s Analysis
The core legal issues before the court were:
- Whether the 1992 circular exhaustively defines the duties of office subordinates, thereby prohibiting domestic assignments at judicial officers’ residences.
- Whether incidents of harassment and overwork justify a blanket prohibition on such duties.
- The maintainability of the petition by an unrecognized association.
In addressing the first issue, the Division Bench, led by Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, extensively reviewed the precedents cited by the respondents. In the 2002 case of T.M. Manikumar vs. Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and Ors., an office subordinate had refused domestic duties at a judge’s residence, claiming the circular barred such work. A Division Bench rejected this contention, holding that the circular does not preclude additional duties.
The 2005 case involved the same subordinate, who was dismissed from service after challenging his dismissal in T.M. Mani Kumar vs. Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr.. There, the subordinate listed specific directions from the presiding officer that he deemed domestic in nature. The Division Bench again dismissed the petition, ruling that the circular does not bar domestic duties and that such assignments are permissible.
Relying on these judgments, the court in the present case held that the 1992 circular is not an exhaustive list of duties. It noted that the practice in the district judiciary has long involved attaching office subordinates to judicial officers’ residences for domestic tasks. Thus, the petitioner’s claim that domestic duties are inherently unauthorized was rejected.
On the second issue, the court acknowledged the allegations of harassment and overwork but classified them as individual complaints. It stated that such matters should be addressed administratively, with necessary steps taken upon receipt of complaints. The Bench emphasized that isolated acts of alleged misbehavior by judicial officers do not warrant altering the fundamental duties assignable to office subordinates.
Regarding maintainability, while the respondents raised the issue of the association’s unrecognized status, the judgment does not explicitly resolve it as a bar, proceeding instead to dismiss the petition on merits.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition, finding no merits in the arguments presented. It ruled that domestic duties at judicial officers’ residences are part of permissible assignments for office subordinates, consistent with judicial precedents and established practices. The court ordered no costs and closed any pending miscellaneous applications.
