' APHC010324192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WM Sa^ FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 16711 OF 2025 Between: SK Salam, S/o Late S.A. Rasheed, Age 55 years, Occ: Junior Assistant, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, D.No.15-8.192/B, Z.H.Nagar, Nandi Velugu Road, Old Guntur, Guntur District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration State of AP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Guntur. Guntur District. Secretariat, ...Respondents 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 an appropriate order or directions more particularly the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents considering the petitioner claim for promotion to the post Senior Assistant without reference to the Charge Memo RCC.No.4144/2020/A1 , one in not dated 11.12.2023 in terms of Rule 5(b) (i) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discrimination , unconstitutional ,-and violation of Article 14 and 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble Court and consequentially direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Senior Assistant in terms of Rule 5(b) (i) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Senior Assistant in terms of Rule 5(b) (i) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K ASAD AHAMED Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS) The Court made the following order: APHC010324192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.16711 of 2025 Between: 1.SK SALAM, S/0 LATE S.A. RASHEED, AGE; 55 YEARS OCC: CORPORATION, GUNTUR, D.N0.15-8.192/B, Z.H.NAGAR, NANDI VELUGU ROAD, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF A.P., REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISTRICT. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR 2.THE COMMISSIONER & DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF A.P., MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR. GUNTUR 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 an appropriate order or directions more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents not considering the petitioner claim for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant without reference to the Charge Memo ROC.No.4144/2020/A1 dated 2 CGR,J W.P.No.16711 of 2025 11.12.2023 in terms of Rule 5(b)(i) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discrimination, unconstitutional and violation of Article 14 and 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble Court and consequentially direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Senior Assistant in terms of Rule 5(b) (i) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: I.K. ASAD AHAMED Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FORSERVICES-I 2. A.S.C. BOSE, STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following: 3 C6R,J W.P.No.16711 of 2025 ORD E R: Heard Sri K. Asad Ahamed, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. Petitioner is working as Junior Assistant in 3'^ respondent- corporation. He was issued charge memo vide Roc.No.4144/2020/ 2. A1 dated 11.12.2023, setting out three charges alleging that, while working as Revenue Inspector, he failed to levy property tax in respect of certain properties and also failed to supervise the duties of concerned Ward Administrative Secretary. Petitioner is stated to have submitted statement of defence on 19.12.2023, refuting aforesaid charges. As disciplinary proceedings were not being concluded within timelines provided by the Government, petitioner filed W.P.No.12672 of 2025 and this Court, by order dated 08.05.2025, directed respondents to conclude the inquiry in terms of G.O.Ms.No.QI, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Now, petitioner is stated to be within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, but however, in view of pendency of aforesaid disciplinary proceedings his case is not being considered for promotion. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that posts in the cadre 3. of Senior Assistant are non-selection posts and, therefore, in view of 4 CGRJ W.P.No.16711 of 2025 the ratio laid down by Division Bench in W.A.No.550 of 2022, unless there is any specific punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader and also learned Standing Counsel for 3’’^ respondent-Corporation have placed on record written instructions inter alia stating that petitioner stands at SI.No. 10 in the final seniority list of Junior Office Assistants for the panel year 2024-25 and in view of pendency of disciplinary proceedings and as there are grave charges pending against him. his case is not being considered for promotion. 5. In W.A.No.550 of 2022, the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:- “1. In the Division Bench judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Secretary, Home Department vs. Motupalli Narasimha Raju, Writ Petition No. 3099 of 2017, dated 27.08.2021, 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 Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the promotion can be deferred only upon imposition of penalty and not otherwise. It has also been 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)(1) 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, General 5 i CGRJ W.P.No.16711 of2025 Administration (Services.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. ...” 6. In the case at hand, the charge memo is dated 11.12.2023 (Ex.PI). However, the inquiry has not been concluded so far. For the fault on the part of the disciplinary authority in not concluding the inquiry, the petitioner shall not be penalized. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ 7. Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, as per Rule 5(b)(i) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, if the petitioner’s case is in the zone of consideration. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration State of AP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur. Guntur District. 4. One CC to Sri K Asad Ahamed, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn Urban Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:11/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16711 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION, WITHOUT COSTS \ I •