Reddy, a 2006-batch officer, had taken voluntary retirement from the Indian Administrative Service on November 15, 2021, and was announced as an MLC nominee of the then ruling Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) on the same day. He was set to superannuate in September 2022. At the time, he was posted as the district collector of Siddipet.

‘Centre’s consent not obtained’

The petitioner, J Shankar of Dharmapuri, contended that Reddy’s resignation was accepted by the state government without forwarding the same to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) under the Government of India, which is the competent authority to decide on such cases, and hence it bypassed the process. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the former officer’s resignation was accepted by the state government without the necessary consent from the Centre, as stipulated by the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), appearing as a respondent in the case, maintained that its role was limited in the matter. According to the ECI’s counsel, the returning officer accepted the nomination because a Government Order (GO) was issued by the state government, which stated that the officer’s resignation had been accepted. The ECI’s counsel emphasized that this GO had not been challenged, and therefore, the Commission’s action was based on the documents available at the time.

He quoted Rule 16(2) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, and stated that a member of the service can retire after giving at least three months’ notice to the state government, provided they have completed 30 years of qualifying service or are 50 years of age or older. The rule also specifies that a notice for retirement given by a member who has not completed 30 years of service or attained 50 years of age requires the acceptance of the Centre.

The petitioner’s counsel presented a Right to Information (RTI) response, which, according to him, showed that no resignation letter was received or accepted by the central government. He argued that this proved that the state government’s action was in violation of the rules. The petitioner’s counsel also highlighted a key distinction between “resignation” and “voluntary retirement,” a difference that could have significant implications for eligibility and service benefits.

HC finds issues with documentation

The court, however, pointed out significant issues with the documentation filed by the petitioner. The judge noted that the annexures were not in chronological order and that a key document—the officer’s original letter requesting retirement—was not properly included. “What was the total number of years of his service?… So then supplement the pleadings, otherwise it is incomplete,” the bench stated.

“You should have come prepared. The information that you have obtained under the RTI, you can’t simply stack up and file it as a sack. Your pages…have no index,” it added.

The case was subsequently adjourned to allow for the submission of a complete and organised set of documents to enable the court to appreciate the full scope of the arguments.