APHC010121322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

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. E RETI 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. T HE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238

2. T HE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HOFF, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-

522503

3. T HE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, RAJAHMUNDRY CIRCLE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-

533101

4. T HE 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 Coor