APHC010121322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6980/2026 Between: 1. ERETI SEKHAR BABU, S/O. APPANNA DORA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC FOREST SECTION OFFICER, R/O. TUNI, SRINIVASA THEATRE BESIDE, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HOFF, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522503 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, RAJAHMUNDRY CIRCLE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT- 533101 4. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, KAKINADA DIVISION, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT-533001 ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer without reference to the pending charge memo, in terms of Rule 5(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Deputy Range Officer in terms of Rule 5(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 in the interest of justice and pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer, without reference to the pending charge memo, in terms of Rule 5(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, is illegal and arbitrary. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in similar circumstances, this Court disposed of W.P. No.3873 of 2026, vide order dated 10.02.2026, granting appropriate relief, and therefore seeks the same relief in the present writ petition. 5. The issue involved in the present case has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.550 of 2022 (State of A.P. vs. Ch. Venkata Rao), wherein it was held as follows- “4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services I has referred to G.O.Ms.No.66 General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 30.01.1991 to contend that 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, his case for promotion is required to be deferred. 5. We have heard Mr. Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services I appearing for the appellants and Mr. G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, and perused the material available on record. The learned single Judge has referred to the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Secretary, Home Department vs. Motupalli Narasimha Raju (W.P.No.3099 of 2017), dated 27.08.2021, to hold that G.O.Ms.No.424 GA (Ser.C) department, dated 25.05.1976 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, who is a constable and it is applicable to the selection post falling under Rule 5(a) and Rule 6 of the Rules, 1996, and the said G.O., does not come in the way of the petitioner to claim promotion during pendency of the departmental proceedings and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed for. 7. In the Division Bench judgment in Motupalli Narasimha Raju (supra), 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 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, GA (Ser.C) department, dated 25.05.1976 nor 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. The writ appeal has no substance and it deserves to be dismissed. 6. Following the said ratio laid down by the Division Bench, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.21608 of 2024 disposed of the writ petition in similar terms. The said legal position is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if he is otherwise within the zone of consideration, in terms of Rule 5(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, without reference to the Articles of Charge dated 15.09.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 13.03.2026 klk 44 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO:6980/2026 13.03.2026 klk