APHC010003362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 128/2025 Between: 1. P MADHUSUDHAN, S/O VENKATA SUBBIAH, AGE 54 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, AT TIRUPATHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (VIG-I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTORATE OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MGM CAPITAL, GROUND FLOOR, NRI HOSPITAL, JUNCTION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AMRAVATI. ...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 pleased 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 Assistant Director/ Assistant City Planner at 2nd Respondent Directorate of Town and Country Planning which is highly illegal, unjust, 2 arbitrary and contrary to law and violations of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary 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 Assistant Director/Assistant City Planner as per GO Ms No 257 General Administration (SER.C) Director Dated 10.6.1999 and as per law without referring the pending Departmental proceedings 1st Respondent vide Go Rt No 156 Dated 9.2.2024 of and to pass IA 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 Petitioner’s case for promotion to next level post of Assistant Director/ Assistant City Planner as per GO Ms No 257 General Administration (SER.C) Dated 10.6.1999 and as per law without referring the pending Departmental proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No 156, Dated 9.2.2024 of 1st Respondent and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following order: The petitioner, Town Planning Officer, filed the above writ petition in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant City Planner due to the pendency of charge memo vide G.O.R.T.No.156 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.III) Department, dated 09.02.2024 (Ex.P1), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 3. A charge memo vide G.O.R.T.No.156 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.III) Department, dated 09.02.2024 (Ex.P1) was issued to the petitioner. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though a charge memo vide G.O.R.T.No.156 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.III) Department, dated 09.02.2024 was issued. The same was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the article of charges recently from the Office of the 2nd respondent and got a copy of the same, hence, the petitioner could not submit a written defence/explanation. Learned counsel would also submit that though the petitioner is entitled to promotion, however, the respondents are ignoring the petitioner due to the pendency of the charge memo vide G.O.R.T.No.156 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.III) Department, dated 09.02.2024. 5. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments and urged to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services did not refute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the learned 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, if the petitioner’s case is in the zone of consideration, whenever the DPC is conducted. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 06.01.2025 SNI 4 183 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.128 of 2025 Dated: 06.01.2025 SNI