APHC010122432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Ch Sarada The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6313/2025 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR SERVICES I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3506] THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 HCGR,J W.P.No.6313 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature in WRIT of MANDAMUS aggrieved by the action of the Respondent in not considering Petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Town Planning Officer at 2nd Respondent/Directorate of Town and Country Planning which is highly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and violations of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to forthwith consider Petitioner’s case promotion to next level cadre post of Town Planning Officer as per G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Director, dated 10.6.1999 and as per law without referring the pending Departmental proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.493, dated 7.8.2023 & G.O.Rt.No.30, dated 8.1.2024 of 1st Respondent and to pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Service-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. The petitioner has been working as Town Planning Supervisor. While so, charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.30, dated 08.01.2024 was issued framing articles of charges, as per annexure I & II and the petitioner was framed with four articles of charges vide G.O.Rt.No.493, dated 07.08.2023, which essentially deal with not taking action against building construction deviations contrary to 3 HCGR,J W.P.No.6313 of 2025 sanctioned plan and unauthorized constructions and Annexure-I of G.O.Rt.No.30 contained single charge, which is also similar in nature. For which, the petitioner has submitted explanation for first set of charges and she is in the process of submitting appropriate explanation for the other. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that charge memo was issued when the petitioner’s case was under consideration for promotion to the post of Town Planning Officer and she would urge that it would suffice, if a direction be given to the respondents to consider his case for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I did not refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel, at the stage of admission, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Town Planning Officer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, if the petitioner is in the zone of consideration and fulfills all requisite qualifications. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 HCGR,J W.P.No.6313 of 2025 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 13.03.2025 MDP