Allowed

MD Ismail Khan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jul 2024WP/5518/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a Motor Vehicles Inspector, the High Court disposed of the matter after hearing counsel for both parties. Without touching the merits, the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion in terms of GO Ms. No.257.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 subject to required qualification.

MD Ismail Khan Vs the State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

<br>s
V s JL
V

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ;; AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUL^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5518 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

¶8

MD Ismail Khan, S/o late.Md.Mustafa Khan, Aged 49^{yearsWorkingas} Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, (AMVI) 0/0.DTC,^{ChittorDistrict} ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By its^{PrincipalSecretary} Transport & Roads And Buildings Department, State of^{AP,Secretariat,} Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, AP.

¶11

The Commissioner, Transport Department AP, Bus Bhavan^{3'^'^Floor,x} Pandit Nehru Bus Stand, Vijayawada, Krishna District

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatin} the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature^ofMandamus in declare the action of the respondents in not promoting^{thepetitionertothe} post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (MVI) on account of^pendency of departmental enquiry arising out of Charge Memo GO Rt No.1241 Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department Dated.03.12.2015,^issuedbythe 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative^{ofArticles14and16} of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct^{therespondentsto} consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to^{thepostofMotor} Vehicles Inspector (MVI) in terms GO Ms No.257 Administration^(SER.C) Department dated.10.06.1999, and without reference^{toChargeMemoGO}

¶14

Rt No. 1241 Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department Dated.03.12.2015, issued by the 1®' respondent duly taking into consideration the final orders passed by this Honorable Court in judgment dated. 29.03.2023 in WP No.6848/2023 judgment dated.29.03.2023 and Apex Court Judgment and / the fact that the charges were held not proved by the enquiry officer in his report dated. 15.02.2024.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (MVI) ,in terms of GO Ms. No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated.10.06.1999 and without reference to Charge Memo GO Rt No.1241 Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department Dated.03.12.2015, issued by the 1 respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. K R SRINIVAS

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following Order:

¶18

ip;

¶19

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.5518 OF 2024

¶21

Md.Ismail Khan, S/o late Md.Mustafa Khan, Aged 49 years. Working as Assistant, Motor Vehicles Inspector, (AMVI), 0/o.DTC, Chittoor District.

¶22

... Petitioner

¶23

Versus

¶24

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport & Roads and Buildings Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District^and another.

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.R.Srinivas Counsel for respondents : GP for Services-ll :: ORDER ::

¶27

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶28

“...to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus in declaring the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Motor

SRS, J wp_5518_2024

Vehicles Inspector (MVI) on account of pendency of departmental enquiry arising out of Charge Memo GO Rt.No.1241 Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department, dated 03.12.2015, issued by the 1®‘ respondent, as illegal^and arbitrary...”

¶33

Heard Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner,^andSri T.Bheemanna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.1241 Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department, dated 03.12.2015 (Ex.P.1). The Inquiry authority submitted a report (Ex.P.2) vide Ref.No.BI/164/2014 dated 02.03.2023 to the Disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority has not agreed with the findings of the Inquiry authority and issued a disagreement report as per Rule 22(2) of Andhra Pradesh^CivilService (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short “the Rules”) vide Ex.P.12 dated 10.11.2023. Learned counsel would further submit that pending further proceedings, in view of, the Charge Memo Ex.P.1, the

SRS, J wp_5518_2024

e- ^

( (

case of the petitioner is not being considered for promotion for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector.

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted instructions of respondent No.2 vide Lr. No.13024/25/C2/2024, dated 04.07.2024. In the instructions, it was stated as follows;

¶43

“It is submitted that the Government in G.O.Rt.No.44 of Tr.R&B, (TR.I) Dept, dated 29.01.2024 have constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee for selection of candidates from the category of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector to the post of Motor vehicles Inspector (MVI). The name of the applicant Sri M.d.Ismail Khan, AMVI^will be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration as per his seniority and eligibility as per existing rules in force and the Departmental Promotion Committee will examine and take a decision on his case. It is submitted that Sri Md.Ismail Khan, AMVI was deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee earlier in the DPCs held on 17.08.2018 for the panel year 2017-18 and on 29.12.2022 for the panel year 2022-23”.

¶44

¶45

7 w

¶46

SRS, J ’ wp_5518_2024

¶47

The instructions further disclose that the petitioner’s^case will be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999.

¶48

Given the facts and circumstances of the case and without touching the merits of the matter and considering the instructions of respondent No.2, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel, at the stage of admission, directing respondents^{toconsiderthe} case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 subject to petitioner possessing required qualification. No order as to costs.

¶49

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶50

Sd/- J.SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶51

To,

¶52

SECTION OFFICER

¶53

The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Transport & Roads And Buildings Department, State of AP, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, AP.

¶54

The Commissioner, Transport Department AP, Bus Bhavan 3^"^ Floor, Pandit Nehru Bus Stand, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶55

One CC to Sri. K R SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Two CCS to GP FOR SERVICES II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶57

Two CD Copies.

Writ NS Sec.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 23/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.5518 of 2024

'/O
X m
2 <1 IAN T'n
o Co
. Currenl becuon ^
^£esPATC?S:V^

¶65

DISPOSING WRIT PETITION AT NO COSTS

MD Ismail Khan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Ismail Khan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N Vara Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

T Ramyamani Vs the Special Chief Secretary to Govt

Sri Sakalabattula Neelakanteswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

Mr. M. Devadasu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M Madhusudhana Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalingiri Naganna, Vs The State of A.P.