Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010297802026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15786/2026 Between: 1. K. KISHORE KUMAR REDDY, S/O. SUBBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT (DEPUTY TAHSILDAR), POLR SECTION, COLLECTORATE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (SERVICES) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION AND SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, 1ST AND 3RD FLOORS, APIIC BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522503. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLETOR, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR 2 DISTRICT.-517325. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent Authorities in non-considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the category of Tahsildar for the panel year 2025-2026 and passed over the candidature of the Petitioner vide impugned proceedings vide CCLAs Procgs No.REV02-32/78/2026-SER ll-SEC-CCLA, dated 02.06.2026 without issuing any charge memo/Article of Charges and denied the promotion of the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and violation of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.66, GA (Ser.C) Department dated 30.01.1991 hence the same is liable to be set aside in so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the category of Tahsildar for the panel year 2025- 2026 as per his seniority and eligibility in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 66 GA (Ser.C) Department dated 30.1.1991 by virtue of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570, 2009 (2) see 570 and Division Bench of the Honble High Court in W.P.No. 3315 of 2019 dated 23.01.2020 and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the category of Tahsildar for the panel year 2025-2026 as per his seniority and eligibility in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 66 GA (Ser.C) Department dated 30.1.1991 by virtue of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court reported in 1995 3 (2) SCC 570, 2009 (2) SCC 570 and Division Bench of the Honble High Court in W.P.No. 3315 of 2019 dated 23.01.2020 by suspending vide CCLAs Procgs No.REV02-32/78/2026-SER ll- SEC-CCLA, dated 02.06.2026 in so far as the petitioner is concerned, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.15786 of 2026 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed declaring the action of Respondent- Authorities in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Tahsildar for the panel year 2025-26 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Tahsildar pursuant to APPSC notification No.18/2016 dated 08.11.2016. In the course of time, Petitioner became eligible to the post of Tahsildar for the panel year 2023-2024 and in view of seniority disputes, no regular promotions to the post of Tahsildar were effected. However, the Petitioner was promoted as Tahsildar on adhoc basis in the month of June, 2025 and posted at Madanapalli, Annamayya District on 10.07.2025. 3. Meanwhile, a local public representative raised certain allegations against the Petitioner and based on the allegations, a show cause notice was issued by the District Collector on 15.04.2026. Though the Petitioner submitted an explanation, no further action was taken thereon. In the meantime, the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC) met on 02.05.2026 5 for effecting promotions to the post of Tahsildar. Though the Petitioner’s name stood at Sl.No.2, the promotion was deferred in terms of para 5(b)(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.257, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 as it would be against public interest. It is further stated that consequent on the recommendations of the DPC, promotions to the post of Tahsildar were effected on 02.06.2026 and subsequently, a charge memorandum was issued to the Petitioner under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1964 on 25.06.2026. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it is stated that upon receiving complaints against the Petitioner, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 15.04.2026. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.04.2026, denying the allegations and contending that the complaints are motivated and politically influenced. Subsequently, a charge memorandum was issued to the Petitioner under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1964 on 25.06.2026 wherein (04) Articles of charges were framed and basing on the charges, denial of promotion was sought to be sustained. Reliance was also placed on G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. 6 5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri K.S.Murthy, for learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 6. G.O.Ms.No.66, G.A.(Ser.C), Department dated 30.01.1991 was issued by the State Government to determine as to when an individual’s case for promotion should be deferred. This was issued pursuant to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh (1990 Crl. Ltd.1315). The said G.O. states that promotion of an individual can be deferred only when charges of misconduct are framed by the competent authority and served on the concerned delinquent Officer or a charge sheet has been filed against him. The relevant portion of the G.O. reads as under: 5. Government, however, hereby direct that promotion / appointment by transfer to a higher post in respect of officers who are facing disciplinary proceedings or a criminal case or whose conduct is under investigation and whose case falls under the group referred to in para 2 (iii) of the G.O. first read above, shall be deferred, only when charges of misconduct are framed by the competent authority and served on the concerned delinquent officer, or a charge-sheet has been filed against him in criminal court, as the case may be. 7 7. The twin requirement for deferring for a promotion of an individual facing departmental enquiry is that (i) the charges of misconduct should be framed; (ii) the said charges of misconduct should be served on the delinquent Officer. 8. In the present case, as on the date of DPC i.e. 02.06.2026, neither Articles of Charge were framed nor served upon the Petitioner as on that date. 9. The case of the Petitioner was deferred citing para 5(b)(ii)of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999. Fundamentally, G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 would come into play only after a charge memorandum is issued. In the present case, as no Charge Memorandum was issued on the crucial date of DPC and the date of promotions, i.e., 02.06.2026, there is no reason to defer the promotion of the Petitioner. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3315 of 2019 dated 23.01.2020 after referring to G.O.Ms.No.66 and G.O.Ms.No.257. 10. In the most cited judgment on this aspect, Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the same view; 8 “16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point.” 11. The above judgment has been referred to in the context of A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules,1991 in State of A.P A.P. v. Gandhi, (2013) 5 SCC 111. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring the action of the Respondents in deferring the promotion of Petitioner to the post of Tahsildar as unsustainable and consequently, the Respondents are directed to consider the Petitioner for promotion on par with his juniors with effect from 02.06.2026 within a period of (06) weeks. No order as to costs. 9 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date:19.09.2026 KLP