APHC010049602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2535/2025 Between: Rapuru Venkateswarlu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Sekhar, learned counsel representing Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sarath, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner, Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub division, Atmakur Circle, filed the above writ petition to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer due to pendency of charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.1252 Water Resources (Vig.III.2) Department, dated 12.05.2022, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. A charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.1252 Water Resources (Vig.III.2) Department, dated 12.05.2022 was served on the petitioner vide Memo 2 No.SE/IC/Nlr/AB/Supdt/EC.1, dated 10.01.2025 (Ex.P.2). Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted his written defence. The petitioner made a representation dated 09.01.2025 (Ex.P.1) to consider his case for promotion. Learned counsel would also submit that due to the pendency of the aforementioned charge memo, the petitioner’s case has not been considered for promotion. 4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments and urged the Court to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services did not refute the said submission. 6. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 to meet the contingency referred to supra. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, if his case is in the zone of consideration strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 whenever DPC is constituted. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 03.02.2025 KA 3 32 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2535/2025 Date: 03.02.2025 KA