APHC010211842024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3625] MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 575/2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-aside the orders of the Learned Judge in W.P. No. 22504 of 2021, dated 06.01.2023 and to pass Between: 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING SCRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS,, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. K RAMANAIAH, S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, O/O DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, NOW ON DEPUTATION IN THE O/O THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, A.P., R/O TADEPALLY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. T ESWARAIAH, S/O VENKATESU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, O/O DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, A.P., NOW WORKING ON DEPUTATION IN SRI VENKATESWARA VETERNARY UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI, R/O TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 DR, J and AHHS, J W.A. No. 575 of 2024, 21st September, 2026 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to condone the delay of 450 days in filling the present writ appeal against the orders in W.P No.22504 of 2021 dated: 06.01.2023 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 pleased to suspend the orders in W.P No.22504 of 2021 dated: 06.01.2023 and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI The Court made the following: 3 DR, J and AHHS, J W.A. No. 575 of 2024, 21st September, 2026 JUDGMENT: This Intra-Court Appeal is filed by the appellants-State/respondents, aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22504 of 2021, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the appellants/respondents to consider the candidature of the writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Junior Accounts Officer for the DPC panel year 2021, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, in accordance with the seniority list dated 01.09.2022. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants-State/respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants- State/respondents would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in directing consideration of the candidature of the writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Junior Accounts Officer for the relevant DPC panel year, as the writ petitioners had not acquired the requisite qualification within the prescribed time. 4. It is submitted that, in terms of Rule 6(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, “the Rules, 1996”), 4 DR, J and AHHS, J W.A. No. 575 of 2024, 21st September, 2026 read with G.O.Ms.No.201, Finance (Administration) Department, dated 08.03.1963, and G.O.Ms.No.27, Finance (Admn.I) Department, dated 03.05.2021, certain conditions are required to be fulfilled for promotion to the higher category, including passing the prescribed departmental tests/special qualifications within the relevant period for consideration of an employee in the panel. 5. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that Rule 6(b) of the Rules, 1996 specifically provides that the 1st day of September of every year shall be reckoned as the qualifying date for determining the eligibility of a candidate for promotion or appointment by transfer to a higher category. Therefore, according to him, the eligibility of the writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Junior Accounts Officer was required to be determined with reference to the qualifications possessed by them as on 01.09.2020. 6. It is further submitted that the authorities prepare the panel every year during the month of September by taking into consideration the eligibility and qualifications of the employees as existing on the 1st day of September of that year. If an employee has not acquired the prescribed test qualification or special qualification as on the relevant qualifying date, his name cannot be included in the panel originally prepared for that year. 5 DR, J and AHHS, J W.A. No. 575 of 2024, 21st September, 2026 7. The learned Government Pleader would contend that the proviso to Rule 6(b) provides only a limited mechanism for review of the panel after a period of six months from the date of approval of the panel. According to him, the said provision is intended to cover cases where the prescribed tests or special qualifications were subsequently acquired by persons whose names were not included in the panel earlier. However, it is his contention that the writ petitioners, having appeared for the prescribed examination only after 01.09.2020, cannot claim inclusion in the panel of the relevant year merely on the ground that they acquired the qualification within the period of six months contemplated under the proviso. 8. The learned Government Pleader would therefore submit that the writ petitioners did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions as on the qualifying date, i.e., 01.09.2020, and consequently their candidature could not have been considered for the relevant panel year. It is his contention that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the scope and effect of Rule 6(b) of the Rules, 1996, read with the Government Orders referred to supra. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners contended that the language of the proviso to Rule 6(b) of the Rules, 1996, does not support the contention raised by the appellants. It is contended 6 DR, J and AHHS, J W.A. No. 575 of 2024, 21st September, 2026 that the proviso does not contain any specific stipulation that the prescribed examination must necessarily be passed before 01.09.2020 in order to enable an employee to be considered for inclusion in the panel upon review. On the contrary, the proviso expressly recognizes the subsequent acquisition of the prescribed qualification and provides a mechanism for consideration of such cases upon review of the panel. 10. The relevant portion of the proviso to Rule 6(b) of the Rules, 1996 reads as follows: “[Provided also that] the panel of candidates so prepared shall be reviewed after a period of six months reckoned from the date of approval of the panel, for the purpose of considering the cases of such other persons whose names were not included in the panel prepared earlier for not passing the prescribed tests or for not having special qualifications prescribed under the rules, if they have subsequently passed those tests or acquired the said qualifications and are otherwise found suitable for inclusion in the panel of the year. No such review of list of approved candidates shall, however, be undertaken where no tests or special qualifications are prescribed under the rules as condition precedent for promotion or appointment by transfer.” 7 DR, J and AHHS, J W.A. No. 575 of 2024, 21st September, 2026 11. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the proviso itself contemplates a subsequent review of the panel after six months from the date of its approval. The purpose of such review is to consider the cases of persons whose names were not included in the panel earlier for the reason that they had not passed the prescribed tests or had not acquired the special qualifications prescribed under the Rules. 12. No doubt, Rule 6(b) prescribes the 1st day of September of every year as the qualifying date for determining the eligibility of a candidate for promotion or appointment by transfer to a higher category. However, the proviso appended thereto creates a specific mechanism for subsequent review of the panel in cases where persons were not included earlier on account of their not passing the prescribed tests or not acquiring the requisite special qualifications. 13. The said aspect has been considered by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 10 of the impugned order. Upon consideration of the relevant statutory provision and the submissions advanced by the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no specific stipulation in the proviso requiring the prescribed examination to have been passed prior to 01.09.2020 in order to enable consideration of the 8 DR, J and AHHS, J W.A. No. 575 of 2024, 21st September, 2026 candidature of the writ petitioners in terms of the review contemplated under the said provision. 14. We have independently considered the submissions advanced by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants- State/respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners and have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the relevant provision of Rule 6(b) of the Rules, 1996. 15. On a consideration of the statutory provision, we are of the view that the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in the present Intra- Court Appeal. 16. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners that the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22504 of 2021 has already been complied with by the appellants/respondents and that the names of the writ petitioners have been included in the DPC panel for the panel year 2020-2021. 17. In view of the aforesaid submission regarding compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge, coupled with our consideration of 9 DR, J and AHHS, J W.A. No. 575 of 2024, 21st September, 2026 the statutory provision and the reasoning recorded hereinabove, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the order under appeal. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH _________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA 21st September, 2026 cst/gsn/cbn 10 DR, J and AHHS, J W.A. No. 575 of 2024, 21st September, 2026 112 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Writ Appeal No.575 of 2024 21st September, 2026 cst/gsn/cbn