APHC010350972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 178n« of PRADESH Between: P. V. Lakshmana Rao. S/b. P. Purpose Health Supervisor (M), Sub-Unit, Nuzvid, Krishna District. Vara Prasada Rao, Age 57 years, Occ; Multi Now working as Filaria Inspector, NFCP, ...PETITIONER AND rep by its Principal Secretary, Health Secretariat, Velagapudi, At Amaravathi 1. The State of A.P, Family Welfare Department Guntur District. 2. The Director of Public Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Regional Director i ' Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari Medical and Health and Family Welfare, State of A.P of Medical and Health Services j District. . Zone - II, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india praying that in the arcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be P eased to issue an appropriate order or directions more particularly, one in respondents not promotion to the post Multi Purpose non selection post without reference the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the considering the petitioner claim for Health Extension Officer which IS to the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No. 72 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.1) Department dated 25.01.2023 (issue relating to the year 2015-16 and 2016-17) in terms of Rule 5(b) (i) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discrimination 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 Multi Purpose Health Extension Officer in terms of Rule 5(b) (i) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules consequential benefits. unconstitutional and 1996 with all 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 Multi Purpose Health Extension Officer 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 T. S. N. SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: APHC010350972025 f IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17808 OF 2025 Between: P V Lakshmana Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TSNSUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17808 OF 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not considering the claim of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Multi Purpose Health Extension Officer without reference to the Charge Memo is Illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as Multi Purpose Health Assistant (Male) in the year 1995. Subsequently he was promoted as Multi Purpose Health Supervisor (Male) in the year 2009. The Respondent No.1 issued a Charge Memo dated 25.01.2023 against the Petitioner alleging that he had submitted fake bank housing loan statements for the financial year 2015-16 and 2016-17 to get income tax exemption and misused the provisions of Section 24 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petitioner had submitted explanation denying the charge. The Respondents did not consider the Petitioner for promotion on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, though the Petitioner is eligible to hold the post of Multi Purpose Health Extension Officer. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. an 3. Heard the respective counsel: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the post in the cadre of Multi Purpose Health Extension Officer is a non-selection post. Despite the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, and G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 fixing timelines to complete the inquiry within six months in complicated and three months in simple cases respectively, the respondent authorities failed to complete the inquiry. The learned counsel would submit that the promotee post is a non-selection post and the Petitioner can be considered for promotion notwithstanding disciplinary enquiry in view of Rule 5(b)(i) of Andhra Pradesh State and Sub ordinate Service Rules, 1996. A Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.550 of 2022 was replied upon. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents would submit that the Respondent Authorities will conclude the inquiry in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 initiated against the Petitioner. 6. Having heard respective counsel, this Courts reasons as under. In W.A.No.550 of 2022, the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows;- "7. 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)(i) 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 Department, dated 25.05.1976 nor Administration (Services. C) 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. ...” 7. Secondly, the enquiry has not been concluded so far contrary to the time lines fixed vide G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022. As the fault is on the part of the disciplinary authority, in not concluding the inquiry, the petitioner shall not be made to suffer. 8. In that view, the Writ 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 Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996, in case the petitioner is in the zone of consideration. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SEC To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, At Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, State of A.P, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Zone - II, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 4. One CC to Sri T. S. N. Sudhakar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Services-1, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED: 18/07/2025 ORDER WP No.17808 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS