1. Petition challenging delay in disciplinary proceedings and denial of promotion to a non-selection post under Rule 5(b), AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9496
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D Ramesh, J
Madhavilatha K. – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. No. 3873 of 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V Ravichandran
For the Respondents: GP For Services I, GP For Registration and Stamps
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V Ravichandran
For the Respondents: GP For Services I, GP For Registration and Stamps
Promotion to a non-selection post cannot be denied or deferred solely based on pending disciplinary proceedings; according to Rule 5(b) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, promotion may only be denied if the employee has been subjected to a penalty.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Promotion to Non-Selection Post - Pendency of Disciplinary Proceedings - Promotion to a non-selection post cannot be deferred solely due to pending departmental proceedings or charge memos; under Rule 5(b) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, such promotion can be denied only if a penalty has been imposed and not merely during the pendency of an enquiry. (Para 4, 6)
(B) Administrative Instructions vs. Statutory Rules - Conflict of Provisions - Executive orders or G.O.s not issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot override the statutory mandate of the Service Rules regarding promotions to non-selection posts. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to a non-selection post despite the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argues delay and denial of promotion violative of Rules; respondents rely on G.O.Ms.No.66 to defer promotion during pendency of charges. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Division Bench held promotion to non-selection post can be deferred only upon penalty, not by general orders under Article 309. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Rule 5(b)(i) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 permits denial of promotion only if penalty imposed, not during pendency. (Para 4 , 6 )
5. Writ petition disposed with direction to consider petitioner's promotion per Rule 5(b) without reference to pending charges. (Para 6 )
6. Can promotion to a non-selection post be deferred during pendency of disciplinary proceedings?
No, under Rule 5(b)(i) of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, promotion to a non-selection post may be denied only if a penalty is imposed, not during pendency. (Para 4 , 6 )
7. Do executive G.O.s like G.O.Ms.No.424 and G.O.Ms.No.66 override statutory rules for non-selection posts?
No, G.O.s not issued under Article 309 of Constitution cannot override Rule 5(b)(i) which states promotion may be denied only upon penalty. (Para 4 )
ORDER:
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in belatedly initiating and continuing disciplinary proceedings in relation to allegations pertaining to the year 2018 vide Charge Memo issued in G.O.Ms.No.752 Revenue Vigilance-II Department dated 16.09.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent and further denying promotion to Petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant which is a nonselection post on the said ground as being arbitrary illegal vitiated by delay contrary to the time limit stipulated for completion of enquiries in G.O.Ms. No. 91 dated 12.09.2022 and provisions of Rule 5b of A P State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same accordingly and further be pleased to declare that Petitioner is entitled to have his case considered and be promoted as Senior Assistant without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending vide Charge Memo issued in G.O.Ms.No.752 Revenue Vigilance-II Department dated 16.09.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent on the analogy of orders issued in similar cases including Order dated 10.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.3873 of 2026 with benefits incidental and ancillary thereto and to pass such orders.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Junior Assistant in the Registration & Stamps Department in the year 2010. The petitioner is eligible, qualified and within Zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, which is a non-selection post but for the charges pending against him vide G.O.Rt.No.752 Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department dated 16.09.2022 in relation to allegations pertaining to March, 2018. While doing so, ACB has caused surprise check on 12.03.2018 on the office of Sub Registrar, Avanigadda and thereafter after lapse of four years, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and two others and common enquiry was ordered, however, there has been no progress in the disciplinary proceedings thereafter. While so, in the list of Junior Assistants eligible for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistants, the name of the petitioner at Sl.No.2 and in the remarks column the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is mentioned and names of others are recommended for promotion. The petitioner immediately submitted a representation to the respondents on 02.01.2026 requesting them to consider his case for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant. However, the petitioner’s case has not been considered solely on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. 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
