APHC010002662020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 24 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 543/2020 BETWEEN: 1. S. SOMLA NAIK, S/o. S. BHEEMULA NAIK, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FACTION ZONE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HOF, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL RANGE, KURNOOL. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction on the 2art of the respondents in giving notional seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police as assured by the 3 Memorandum Rc.No. C1/05/2010 dated 24.01.2012 as punitive, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 543/2020 NAIK, S/o. S. BHEEMULA NAIK, AGED 56 YEARS, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FACTION ZONE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HOF, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL RANGE, KURNOOL. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one f Mandamus to declare the inaction on the 2art of the respondents in giving notional seniority to the petitioner in the cadre Inspector of Police as assured by the 3rd respondent in Memorandum Rc.No. C1/05/2010 dated 24.01.2012 as punitive, [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO NAIK, S/o. S. BHEEMULA NAIK, AGED 56 YEARS, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FACTION ZONE, ...PETITIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HOF, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one f Mandamus to declare the inaction on the 2art of the respondents in giving notional seniority to the petitioner in the cadre respondent in Memorandum Rc.No. C1/05/2010 dated 24.01.2012 as punitive, 2 perverse, arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police on par with his junior Sri V.T. Ramdas Naik w.e.f. 27.12.2010 in “B” List instead of 23.04.2013 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The Writ of Mandamus is filed to declare the inaction on the part of the respondent in giving notional seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police as ordered by the 3rd respondent in Memorandum Rc.No.C1/05/2010 dated 24.01.2012, as perverse, arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to fix seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Sub Inspector on par with his junior Sri V. Ramdas Naik, w.e.f. 27.12.2010, in ‘B’ list, instead of 23.04.2013. 2. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner was given accelerated promotion as Head Constable in the year 2003 and later he was reverted back as Police Constable on 11.08.2026, challenging the same, the petitioner file O.A. No.5604 of 2006, before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed and the 3rd respondent was directed to treat the seniority of the petitioner from the initial date of promotion as Head Constable for the purpose of further promotion, as the petitioner is continuously worked as Head Constable, till the date of regular promotion. 3. Aggrieved by the orders in O.A. No.5604 of 2006, dated 12.03.2010, the State preferred Writ Petition No.21820 of 2010. The 4 Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dismissed the writ petition confirming the orders of the Tribunal, inter alia it is observed that the office recommended the case of the petitioner for accelerated promotion considering the outstanding services rendered by him. There was no justification in issuing proceedings, dated 11.08.2006 reverting the petitioner to the police constable post. 4. Aggrieved by the order in W.P. No.21820 of 2010, the State preferred S.L.P. (CC) No.7545 of 2011, before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the said S.L.P. was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 06.05.2011, confirming the orders of the Tribunal and the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Learned petitioner’s counsel would submit that the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 24.01.2012, informing that the case of the petitioner will be considered for promotion to the post of S.I. on par with his junior, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and qualifies in the test and training. 6. Learned petitioner’s counsel further submitted that the 3rd respondent has issued proceedings dated 13.11.2018 requesting the 2nd respondent to address letter to the Government to assign notional 5 seniority, in respect of petitioner S. Somlanayak on par with his junior Sri V. Ramadas Naik, Junior S.I. with effect from 27.12.2012. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequent to the dismissal of the S.L.P. by the Hon’ble Apex Court, a review petition filed by the State was also dismissed on 30.12.2025. And it is settled principle that successive review petitions are not maintainable. 8. Without adverting to merits of the case, the 1st respondent is directed to take necessary steps on the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent, dated 24.01.2012 and 30.11.2018, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and communicate the decision to the petitioner herein, as the petitioner is on the verge of retirement. 9. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 24.08.2026 Harin 6 66 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 543 OF 2020 Date: 24-08-2026 Harin