APHC010342222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17475 OF Between: C. Venaiah, The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T D PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. B V APARNA LAKSHMI The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17475 OF 2025 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR SERVICES I B V APARNA LAKSHMI The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17475 OF 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of MPDO, inspite of representations dated 05.03.2025 before issuing Memo dated 26.03.2025 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading for filing the Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was selected as Extension Officer (PR & RD) Department, pursuant to APPSC Notification dated 26.02.2005. While he was working as Extension Officer, a Charge Memo was issued alleging misuse of Government funds to a tune of Rs. 2,35,883/- and an inquiry was initiated under Rule 20 of the A.P.Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Subsequently, a Criminal Case was registered vide Calendar Case No.40 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad for the same charges. 3. While so, in the year 2015, the Petitioner was promoted as Mandal Parishad Development Officer (in short MPDO) pending disciplinary enquiry and Criminal Case. However, the promotion was short listed, as the department, in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5099 of 2006 and adhering to the Presidential Order 1975, the selection of the Petitioner pursuant to the notification of APPSC was revised and the Petitioner was posted as Deputy Tahsildar in Revenue Department. 4. Subsequently, in the year 2018, the Petitioner was promoted as Tahsildar. It is stated that the selections to the Group-II post again revised vide Proceedings dated 12.01.2022. On account of the revision for the second time, the Petitioner was again posted back to the original department i.e Panchayat Raj Department and posted as Extension Officer. In the year 2023, the Petitioner did not opt the promotion to the post of MPDO as he was working as Personal Secretary to Member of Parliament. The promotion to the post of MPDO are again being considered by the department, but the name of the Petitioner was not included in the list of Extension Officers, on the ground that he had refused promotion on earlier occasion. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 5. Mr. T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner did not opt for promotion in the year 2023 on account of his personal reasons and the same would not be a bar to be considered for promotion as MPDO in the year 2025 and relied on Rule 28 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (in short “APSSS Rules”) as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.92, General Administration (Services-D) Department, dated 28.08.2023. It was also contended that the Petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Case for the very same charge for which disciplinary enquiry was initiated. 6. Mr. S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents, on instructions, would contend that the Petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Case, but disciplinary proceedings are being pending since 2009, the case of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this length of time for promotion. 7. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 8. As per explanation given under Rule 28 of “APSSS Rules” which amended by G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 28.08.2023, the relinquishment of promotion would not disentitle the candidate from being considered for promotion in future vacancy. The explanation added to introduce the Rule 28 of “APSSS Rules”, which extracted hereunder: Explanation: (i) In respect of promotion to a member of service, who has exercised relinquishment of promotion due to any reason, Rule 28 does not disentitle him/ her from being considered for promotion in a future vacancy merely because he/ she had relinquished his/ her right under the Rules for promotion earlier. (ii) Relinquishment of right or privilege of promotion to a particular vacancy would not amount to permanent relinquishment of right of privilege for promotion to that particular vacancy. The Rule-28 cannot be read or interpreted to mean that his/ her right to be considered for promotion to any vacancy arising in future also is permanently extinguished. (iii) The relinquishment of an opportunity for promotion, which arose for an employee occupying certain place in seniority list in the panel year, in view of a vacancy that arose then, in view of the fact that he/ she was eligible for promotion in the light of the criteria laid down in the Rules, would mean that the extent the privilege has been relinquished is confined to the privilege related to that particular vacancy/ panel year which was available to him/ her by virtue of the above mentioned circumstances. The Rule cannot be interpreted to mean that the relinquishment was in respect of future vacancies also. Therefore, the right of the Member of Service shall be considered in future vacancy for promotion, if otherwise eligible”. 9. Therefore, the candidature of the Petitioner for selection to the post of MPDO cannot be denied in view of explanation given under Rule 28 “APSSS Rules” extracted above. 10. As regards the second objection with regard to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, it is to be noted that the Petitioner was promoted as MPDO in the year 2015 and as Tahsildar in Revenue Department in the year 2018. Even in the year 2023, the Petitioner though offered promotion to the post of MPDO had relinquished the same due to his personal reasons. On all three occasions, the disciplinary proceedings never considered as a bar by the Respondent Department to promote the Petitioner to the post of MPDO. Further, the Petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Case vide C.C.No. 40 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class –cum- Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad. 11. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of MPDO. The Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions: i) The Respondent Authorities are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of MPDO, without referring to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 16.07.2025 KK