Y. Prasada Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. PRASADA R AO,, S/O. Y. ATCHAIAH, AGED ABO U T 58 YEARS, OCC S ENIOR PHARMACY OFFICER WOR K ING AT GOVERN M ENT GENERAL HOSPITA, NANDYAL, ERSTWHILE K U RNOOL DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE O F ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL S E CRETARY, MH AND FW DEPART M ENT SECRETARIA T , VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶13

THE DIRECT O R OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND FA M ILY WELFARE ST A TE OF A P, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAW A DA. KRISHNA DIS T RICT.

¶14

THE REGION A L DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HE A LTH SERVICES, ZONE-IV, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DIST R ICT. ...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.VADAPALLI R A MESH

¶17

2

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

3

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.24679 of 2025

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

In the present Writ Petition the Petitioner is questioning the non-consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Chief Pharmacy Officer though he is shown at Sl.No.1 in the final seniority list published on 19.08.2025.

¶25

The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

¶26

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Pharmacist GradeII on 13.05.1985. Subsequently, the Petitioner was promoted as Pharmacist Grade-I on 02.07.2011 and further he was promoted as Pharmacy Supervisor on 01.09.2017. While so, the Petitioner sought for reversion to the post of Pharmacist Grade-I in view of personal problems at that point of time. Taking note of the request of the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 11.01.2018 reverted the Petitioner to the post of Pharmacist Grade-I and the Petitioner is working in the said post presently at Government General Hospital, Nandyal. On 10.10.2024, Respondent No.3 had published seniority list of

¶27

4

¶28

Pharmacy Officers in Zone-IV and the Petitioner is shown at Sl.No.1. However, on publishing the final seniority list, ACRs to Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 20.08.2025 directed the concerned to send ACRs and individuals including the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Pharmacy Officer for the panel year 2024-25. However, the Petitioner was informed that the promotion of the Petitioner was not being considered on the premise that the Petitioner is not eligible for promotion to the post of Chief Pharmacy Officer as he was earlier reverted on request of said post. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that

¶30

reversion to the post of Pharmacist Grade-I on 11.01.2018 was on personal request of the Petitioner considering his family situation at that point of time and the same cannot be considered to be a bar for further promotion. He stated that an amendment was brought in by the State Government to Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 vide G.O.Ms.92, General Administration (Services-D) Department, dated 28.08.2023 to oppose this anomaly and in view of G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 28.08.2023, there is no bar for

¶31

5

¶32

consideration of the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Pharmacy Officer.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that

¶34

the case of the Petitioner would be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 28.08.2023 and appropriate decision will be taken by the Respondent Authorities.

¶35

Taking note of the respective submissions, G.O.Ms.No.92 was introduced Explanation to Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules. The Explanation reads as below:

¶36

“Explanation: (i) In respect of promotion to a member of service, who has exercised relinquishment of promotion due to any reason, Rule 28 does not disentitle him/her from being considered for promotion in a future vacancy merely because he/she had relinquished his/her right under the Rules for promotion earlier.

¶37

(ii) Relinquishment of right or privilege of promotion to a particular vacancy would not amount to permanent relinquishment of right of privilege for promotion to that particular vacancy. The Rule-28 cannot be read or interpreted to mean that his/her right to be considered for

¶38

6

¶39

promotion to any vacancy arising in future also is permanently extinguished.

¶40

(iii) The relinquishment of an opportunity for promotion, which arose for an employee occupying certain place in seniority list in the panel year, in view of a vacancy that arose then, in view of the fact that he/she was eligible for promotion in the light of the criteria laid down in the Rules, would mean that the extent the privilege has been relinquished is confined to the privilege related to that particular vacancy/panel year which was available to him/her by virtue of the above mentioned circumstances. The Rule cannot be interpreted to mean that the relinquishment was in respect of future vacancies also. Therefore, the right of the Member of Service shall be considered in future vacancy for promotion, if otherwise eligible.”

¶41

In the light of the Explanation to Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, there is no bar for consideration of the case of the Petitioner for future vacancy i.e., the vacancies existing as on date.

¶42

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Pharmacy Officer in terms of amendment to

¶43

7

¶44

Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service

¶45

Rules. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

¶47

stand closed.

¶48

_______________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY