IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI^ MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO- c Ui ui WRIT APPEAL NO: 108 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 13.09.2024 in W.P. No. 14326 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.^ Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief (R & B), Administration, Roads and Buildings Department, State of Andhra Pradesh MG.Road, Vijayawada-10. ...APPELLANTS AND 1. M. S. S. S. Venkata Rao, S/o. Late M.V. Rama Rao, aged 57 years Working as Assistant Executive Engineer (R and B) R and B, G.Madugula Section, Paderu Division, Visakhapatnam Dist., A.P. 2. K. S. Prabhu, S/o. Late K. Dharrna Rao, aged 54 years Working as Assistant Executive Engineer (R & B) R and B Quality Control Section Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS * lA NO: 2 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 suspend the operation of the orders passed in W.P.No. 14326 of 2021, dt.13.09.2024 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellants : SRI KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETUI, LEARNED GP ATTACHED TO OFFICE THE ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL ^ Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. BUGULU SREETEJA ^ The Court made the following: JUDGIVIENT V APHC010564632024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3526] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT APPEAL No.108 of 2025 Between: 1.The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2.The Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), Administration, Roads & Buildings Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, M.G.Road, Vijayawada-10. ...Appellants AND 1.M S S S Venkata Rao, S/o Late M.V. Rama Rao, aged 57 Years, Working as Assistant Executive Engineer (R&B), R&B Department, G.Madugula Section, Paderu Division, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. 2.K S Prabhu, S/o Late K. Dharma Rao, aged 54 Years, Working as Assistant Executive Engineer (R&B), R&B Quality Control Section, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents Learned Addl. Advocate General Counsel for the Appeliants Smt.Bugulu Sreeteja Counsel for the Respondents : 2 WA_108 2025 This Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: (perNJS.J) The present appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.9.2024 in Writ Petition No.14326 of 2021. Heard Mr.Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants. Also heard Smt.Bugulu Sreeteja, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. 3. The writ petitioners filed the above mentioned writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering their candidature for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Dy.EE), and promoting their juniors as Dy.EEs on 04.6.2021, which is contrary to the existing seniority list dated 17.6.2019 issued by the respondent No.2, in the absence of any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners and not considering their seniority for promotion is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, etc., and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Dy.EEs in the four (4) existing vacancies, in the present Promotion Committee meeting, which is scheduled to be held before 23.7.2021. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, the grievance ventilated by the writ petitioners is that in the seniority list issued by the respondent No.2 in the category of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs), both the petitioners are in the zone of consideration for promotion, however their juniors were considered for promotion as Dy.EEs by ignoring the seniority of the petitioners. The respondents filed counter affidavit setting out all the relevant details and specifically asserted that the meeting of the 5. 3 WA 108 2025 Promotion Committee was scheduled on 23.7.2021 as stated by the writ petitioners is a mere misapprehension. The learned-Single Judge after referring to the various contentions advanced on behalf of both sides, disposed of the writ petition declaring that the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioners for promotion as illegal and arbitrary. The learned Judge also directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Dy.EE in the four existing vacancies in the present Promotion Committee meeting which was held on 23.7.2021 by following the existing seniority list dated 17.6.2019 and to complete the exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6. The learned Government Pleader assailing the said order, inter alia, contends that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that none of the juniors to the petitioners in the cadre of AEE, R&B Zone-1 was promoted as Dy.EE. He submits that temporary promotions were effected from the category of AEEs and so far as the case of one S.V.Rama Krishna Rao is concerned, his seniority was altered vide Proceedings dated 08.4.2022 of the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), Administration and he was placed at serial No.54 by revising the seniority list dated 17.6.2019. Be that as it may. 7. The learned Government Pleader submits that in fact no Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was scheduled on 23.7.2021 observed by the learned Single Judge and further that conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge and the declaration that the action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary is bereft of reasons. He points out that none of the so-called juniors, stated to have been promoted as Dy.EEs by ignoring the candidature of the petitioners, were arrayed as 8. as 4 WA 108 2025 ■ parties to the writ petition. He also submits that in so far as the first petitioner is concerned, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.2 of 2025 in the Writ Appeal, he is at serial No. 102 and the second petitioner is at serial No. 110. He also submits that as the promotionswere considered upto serial No.lOO i.e., Sri S.Sampathi Rao in the seniority list of AEEs dated 17.6.2019, the turn of first petitioner may come in the current panel year 2024-25, subject to availability of vacancies in Zone-1 as AEE at serial No. 101 has left the Department. Making the said submissions and that the case of the petitioners would be considered as and when vacancies arise, learned Government Pleader seeks appropriate orders as deemed fit. The learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners, on the other hand, sought to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge, inter alia, contending that as the petitioners are not being considered for promotion though there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against them, they were constrained to file the writ petition. She submits that as the case of the juniors to the writ petitioners was considered for promotion, the action of the respondents is not justifiable, the learned Judge, after considering ail the relevant aspects, had rightly granted directions while disposing of the writ petition. She, therefore, pleads for dismissal of the appeal. 9. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 10. At the outset, it may be noted that before the learned Single Judge the appellants/respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the various averments made in the writ affidavit and it appears that no reply affidavit is filed to the said counter. Be that as it may. So far as the direction by the learned Judge with reference to DPC scheduled to be 11. 5 WA 108 2025 k-. A 1^. held on 23.7.2021, it was specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners only with an apprehension that the DPC meeting was scheduled to 23.7.2021 approachefi the Court. In such circumstances, the direction witf;! reference to th^ DPC meeting on 23.7.2021 iS not sustainable. The learned Judge while referring to the contentions advanced on behalf of both sides, as noted earlier, disposed of the writ petition with certain directions while declaring that the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the writ petitioners as illegal and arbitrary. Such a conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge, without examining the issue with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit and without assigning any cogent reasons, in the opinion of this Court, is not sustainable. Though the matter deserves to be remanded for consideration afresh on that ground, this Court, in the light of the submissions rnade by the learned Government Pleader, more specifically with reference to the averments made in the affidavit of the 2"'^ appellant dated 07.1:2025, is inclined to dispose of the writ appeal with a direction to the appellants herein to consider the case of the respondents/writ petitioners for promotion as Dy.EEs in the current panel year 2024-25, subject to seniority and arising of vacancies. 12. The order of the learned Single Judge is accordingly modified and Miscellaneous 13. the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs, petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- Nl.RANlESH BABU deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFiCtifK To, 1 Two CCs to The AddI Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Praclesh [OUT] 2. One CC to Smt. Bugulu Sreeteja, Advocate [OPUC]^ 3. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:17/03/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.108 of 2025 fg 2 7 m 2e?5 ^ . Uurreni bection ^ ^So^gSPATCV^^I*^^ DISPOSING OIF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS