Disposed

A.Venkatarao v. The State of A.P

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Jul 2026WP/18922/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Municipal Commissioner Grade-II sought promotion to Grade-I without reference to a 2024 charge memo, invoking G.O.Ms.No.257 (1999) on sealed-cover/delay in departmental proceedings. The respondents agreed to consider his case in terms of the G.O., noting delay in initiating and concluding the proceedings; the writ petition was disposed of on that submission.

What the court decided

AI extract

A.Venkatarao Vs The State of A.P — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Date of reserved for order s : nil Date of pronouncement :13.07.2026 Date of uploading : 17.07.2026

¶3

APHC010349652026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460]

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

MON D AY, THE 13^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 18922 OF 2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

A.VENKATARAO, S/O LATE RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,MUNICIPA L COMMISSIONER GR.LL, PRES E NT WORKING AS MUNICIPAL C O MMISSIONER, TUNI MUNICIPALIT Y , TUNI, EAST GODAVARI DISTR I CT- 533401.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL A DMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, S E CRETARIAT, VELGAPUD, GUNT E R DISTRICT522238.

¶15

THE COMMISSI O NER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION , A.P. CRDA BUILDING COMPLE X , NEAR MLA QUARTERS, RAY A PUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Artic l e 226 of the Constitution of India pr a ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig h Court may be pleased to issue a Writ , order or direction more particularly o ne in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring thy-action of the respondents not considering the petitioner claim for p r omotion to the post Municipal Commissioner Grade-I without reference to th e charge memo issued by the 1St r r espondent vide G.O. Rt. No. 552 MA a n d UD(VIG.I)Department dated 25.7. 2 024 ( the issue

¶18

¶19

relating to 2015) as per G.O.Ms.No. 257 General administration Department, dated 10.06.1999 as highly illegal, arbitrary , unjust, discrimination, unconstitutional and violation of Article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India and contrary to the orders of this Honble court and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Municipal Commissioner Grade-I without reference to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by considering the G.O.Ms.No. 257 dated 10.6.1999 with all consequential benefits and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 petitioner claim for promotion to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-I in terms of G.O.Ms.NO. 257 General Administration Department, dated 10.6.1999 pending disposal of the above Writ petition and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.T V V KOTESWARA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 18922 OF 2026

¶29

ORDER:-

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not considering the claim of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-I without reference to the Charge Memo dated 25.07.2024 issued by the Respondent No.1 as per G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration Department, dated 10.06.1999 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

The Petitioner was working as Municipal Commissioner Grade-II. A Charge Memo was issued on 25.07.2024 to the Petitioner containing four charges with regard to misconduct, while he was working as Municipal Corporation at Peddapuram Municipality, East Godavari District. The Petitioner is under promotion to the post of Municipal Commissioner, Grade-I. Since, the case of the Petitioner is not considering for promotion by Respondents to the post of Municipal Commissioner, Grade-I, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶32

During hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that it would suffice, if the case of the Petitioner consider for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration Department, dated 10.06.1999.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the Respondents would submit that the Respondent Authorities would be considered the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Municipal Commissioner, Grade-I, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration

¶34

¶35

Department, dated 10.06.1999 by taking note of date of delay in initiation and conclusion of departmental proceedings.

¶36

Recording the submissions made by learned Assistant Government

¶37

Pleader for Services-I for the Respondents, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶40

Date: 13.07.2026

¶41

¶42

Whether the order is :

¶43

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No

¶44

Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

A.Venkatarao v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A.Venkatarao v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arigela Sai Srinivas Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr G a Augustine Raj Vs the State of Ap

Smt M a Radha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed. Karimullah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ghouse Mohiddin Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Zilani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh