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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant which is non-selection post in view of the seniority list dated 18-03-2026 prepared by the 5th respondent solely on the ground of pendency of Charge Memo vide Proc.No.X/474-2/2017, dated 04-10-2023 issued by the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner for the post of Senior Assistant from the post of Junior Assistant and pass ….”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant, which is a non-selection post, on the sole ground of pendency of Charge Memo vide Proc.No.X/474-2/2017 dated 04.10.2023 issued by the 4th respondent, despite the seniority list dated 18.03.2026 prepared by the 5th respondent, is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Rule 5(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. It is further submitted that in similar cases this Court has already considered the issue and disposed of the matter in W.P.No.5627 of 2026, and therefore the petitioner seeks similar relief.

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 27.08.2021, 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 petitio