ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

ro issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly a wtit in the narure of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3'd respondenr in not consideritg the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent or Mandal Parishad Ofi]cer is illegal, arbitrary and violative of 300-A of the Constitution of India and not in coneonance with the stipuletione/ guidelines iesued in G.O. Ms.No.257, c-{ (Ser-C) Department, dated, 10/06/7999 in spite of th€ petitioner's representation d.^ted, 20/08/2020, withour referring to the pendency of ACB Case No. 3512021 on the fite of rhe SpE and ACB cases cum V Addl ChiefJudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and conscquently direct the respondents to consider thc case of the petitioner for promotion to the posr of Superintcndent or Mandal Parishad Officer in consonance of G.O.Ms.No.25?, G.A (Scr-C) Deparrmcnt, d&tcd 70/06/1999 and pass such orhcr order or rrdcrs mav dccnr fit and proper in rhe circumstances of rhe Heard Sri G.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the pedtioner, learned Government pleader for Panchavat Rui and Rural Development appearing for respondent Nos.l. and 2, and Sri G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as Senior Assistant, and that though he is eligible for promotion to the post of Supedntendent/Mandal parishad Officer, the respondents are not considering his case on the premise of pendency of ACB case against him.

Learned counsel appearing for the pedtioner contends that the State Government has taken a policy decision in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66, General Administration (Services.C)

Departmenr, dated 30-01-1991, wherein it was directed that in respect of the employees who are facing disciplinary proceedings and whose cases fall under the group referred in para 2 (iii) of the said GO, the promotion/appointment by transfer to the next higher post shall be defered only when a charge of misconduct was framed by the competent authority and served on the delinquent officer concemed or a charge sheet has been filed against him in a criminal Court as the case may be. Leamed counsel further contends that the State Government has taken a policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, wherein it was directed to considet the case of the employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending in accordance with the guidelines framed thereunder.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents contends that case of the petitioner would be considered in and terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 that appropriate orders would be passed.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the for of the petitioner the case to consider ondents resp Parishad to the post of Superintendent/Mandal promotlon Offrcer.

of' directing the Writ Petition is disposed Accordingly, of the petitioner for to consider the case the respondellts Parishad to the post of Superintendent/Mandal i promotion officerstrictlvintermsofG.o.Ms'No.257,dated10.06.1999

1 andalsoG.o.Ms'No.66,dated30.01.1991andpassappropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' No costs'

petitions, pending' if an'v shall stand Miscellaneous closed. A DEVI SDi.T.TIRUMAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT ff :,:;l e'f ilr."li?"%' jt#il i::ffi ll,:

fl \ ,tX which hrh a si s a o lr erd a e dr Y ? bh e' e| n.' Y oP ts^;tjixf; "I"Ji'i:if t ^.,'J,i'+iilHLt\3"f^"J //TRUE COPY//

OFFICER SECTION ;lfiIl iliff#l*i1r#::i::.

''

Hvoeiauao (Nodal Agency)'

' Hanumakonda a officer, zillaPralaParishad'

the Chief Executive "

District at Hu"n#xonau''ttttttoo'""'' Mahabubabad

4 Zilla PralaParishad'

The Chief Executive t3',:'31 -^

i X o 3 n :

" CCtoSri " G Ni '5;{:;fi ii f:fl[iH:*';, JR EI S]

", * "

Z . t*o CCs tc GP for ;i;i" of Telansa