The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an association of judicial service office subordinates, challenging the assignment of domestic work at the residences of judicial officers.

The Court held that a 1992 circular issued by the Registrar (Administration) outlining the duties of office subordinates is not exhaustive and does not bar the allocation of such responsibilities.

The petition stemmed from complaints that office subordinates in district courts were being compelled to perform unofficial and domestic chores at judges’ residences, work beyond official hours without sanctioned leave, and were allegedly subjected to harassment. The petitioner association contended that these practices were not authorized under the 1992 circular and sought judicial intervention to put an end to them.

Arguing on behalf of the petitioners, counsel submitted that the examples cited in the petition reflected a wider systemic issue and urged the Court to prohibit the use of court staff for non-official tasks.

In response, the counsel for the respondents countered that the matter had already been settled in earlier rulings by Division Benches of the then undivided Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that the circular was not a comprehensive code of duties and did not preclude subordinates from being deputed to judges’ residences. The respondents also questioned the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the association was not a recognized body and hence lacked locus standi.

The Court referred to prior decisions in T.M. Manikumar v. Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and T.M. Mani Kumar v. Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., where similar objections to domestic assignments were rejected. In those cases, the Court held that posting office subordinates to judges’ residences was an accepted administrative practice and did not fall outside the permissible scope of duties.

Reaffirming this stance, the present Bench observed that such assignments have been a long-standing practice in the district judiciary. It further held that individual grievances related to overwork or harassment must be addressed through administrative channels and cannot be grounds for judicially altering institutional norms.

The Court concluded that the petition lacked merit and did not warrant any relief. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs, and all pending applications were closed