P Ratnamma Vs the Deputy Inspector General

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 501

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶18

<to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as it is a non-selection post, solely on the ground of pendency of charge memo dated 04.07.2025 for an issue relating to 2021 is arbitrary, violation of Rule 5(b) of the A.P State and Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1996 and violation of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and pass….=

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not considered the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, which is a non-selection post, solely on the ground of pendency of charge memos vide Procgs. No.E/397/2024 dated 06.03.2024 and Procgs. No.E/886/2024 dated 16.07.2024 relating to an issue of the year 2020, and that such action is arbitrary and in violation of Rule 5(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 . It is further submitted that, in similar cases, this Court has considered the issue

¶21

and disposed of the same vide order in W.P. No.5627 of 2026. Hence, the petitioner seeks a similar relief from this Hon’ble Court .

¶22

The issue involved in the present case has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.550 of 2022 (State of A.P. vs. Ch. Venkata Rao), wherein it was held as follows-

¶23

4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I has referred to G.O.Ms.No.66 General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 30.01.1991 to contend that when charges of misconduct are framed by the competent authority and served on the concerned delinquent officer, or a charge sheet has been filed against him in criminal court, his case for promotion is required to be deferred.

¶24

5 . We have heard Mr. Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services I appearing for the appellants and Mr. G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, and perused the material available on record. The learned single Judge has referred to the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Secretary, Home Department vs. Motupalli Narasimha Raju (W.P.No.3099 of 2017), dated 27.08.2021, to hold that G.O.Ms.No.424 GA (Ser.C) department, dated 25.05.1976 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, who is a constable and it is applicable to the selection post falling under Rule 5(a) and Rule 6 of the Rules, 1996, and the said G.O., does not come in the way of the petitioner to claim promotion during pendency of the departmental proceedings and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed for.

¶25

7. In the Division Bench judgment in Motupalli Narasimha Raju (supra), a Coordinate Bench has held that the post of Head Constable is a non-selection post for the purposes of promotion and therefore, in view of Rule 5(b)(i) of the Rules, 1996, the promotion can be deferred only upon imposition of penalty and not otherwise. It has also been

¶26

held that the additional embargo, if any created under a G.O., which is not issued in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, would not override Rule 5(b)(i) of the Rules, which clearly states that promotion to a non-selection post may be denied only if the incumbent is subjected to a penalty and not otherwise. Thus, neither G.O.Ms.No.424, GA (Ser.C) department, dated 25.05.1976 nor G.O.Ms.No.66, General Administration (Services.C) department, dated 30.01.1991 would come in the way of the writ petitioner to claim relief of promotion as has been held by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal has no substance and it deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

Following the said ratio laid down by the Division Bench, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.21608 of 2024 disposed of the writ petition in similar terms. The said legal position is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader.

¶28

Considering the submissions made and without going into the merits of the case this Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if he is otherwise within the zone of consideration, in terms of Rule 5(b)(i)

¶29

of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, without reference to the Articles of Charges issued by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

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

JUSTICE D RAMESH

09.04.2026

klk

64

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH