ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue Writ or Direction preferably Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Memo issued by the 4th Respondent vide C.No:E1/157/Zone-I/2023 dated 28.10.2023 rejecting the request made by the Petitioner herein to consider him for Promotion to the post of Head Constable as arbitrary, illegal, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, Violation of The Constititon of India and consequently set-aside the Memo issued by the 4th Respondent vide C.No:E1/157/Zone-I/2023 dated 28.10.2023 rejecting the request made by the Petitioner and direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for Promotion to the post of Head Constable and pass…”

2. Heard Sri Kowturu Pawan Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Pancherpula Ajith Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable (Civil) on 01.02.1992 and he served as such for more than thirty years and basing on the seniority vide proceedings in C.No.E1/98/Zone-I/2023 dated 18.05.2023, he was selected for training to the post of Head Constable, and successfully completed his training. Thereafter, the respondents have released a list of promotees to the post of Head Constable on adhoc basis vide C.No.A1/23/Z-I/2022 (Z.O.O.No.27/22) dated 04.04.2023. Despite the seniority and completion of training for the post of Head Constable, the case of the petitioner for promotion was withheld, whereas, most of his batchmates and even the juniors were given promotions. He further submits that the petitioner was implicated in an ACB case vide F.I.R.No.12/RCO-ACB-ADB/2015 dated 16.11.2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Karimnagar, and he was arrayed as Accused No.10, due to which, he was suspended from service vide proceedings dated 02.05.2016, and he was later reinstated into service on 22.09.2016, pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Head Constable, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.24181 of 2023 and the same was disposed vide order dated 31.08.2023 directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Constable (Civil) under G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, subject to outcome of the ACB case, as and when the cases of the promotions are taken up. Learned counsel further contends that in spite of there being a direction from this Court, the respondents have issued the impugned memo dated 28.10.2023 rejecting the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Constable on the ground that the petitioner was involved in the aforesaid ABC case and that G.O.Ms.No.257 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. He further submits that despite the pendency of the criminal investigation, the petitioner is entitled for promotion under G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, wherein, it is clearly stated that if the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within two years from the date of initiation of such proceedings, the employee may be considered for promotion, and the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner herein were initiated in 2015 and the same are not yet concluded, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for promotion under the said G.O. He further submits as per the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, the post of Head Constable is a non-selection post. Hence, there is not bar for promotion to the said post.

4. Learned counsel further submits that in similar circumstances, one of the accused in the said criminal case, i.e., P. Laxmi Rajaiah - Accused No.5, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7347 of 2021, which was disposed of on 06.0