Katasani Rami Reddy vs. The State Of Ap
Held
The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Deputy Assistant Commissioner. This consideration is to be made in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008. The respondents were instructed to pass appropriate orders within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order. The Writ Petition was disposed of at the admission stage. The ratio decidendi is that in the absence of opposition and in light of relevant government orders, a direction can be issued to consider a promotion case, even with pending disciplinary proceedings, without adjudicating the merits of the proceedings themselves.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' action of not considering them for promotion to the post of Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The reason cited for this denial was the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner since June 7, 2019. The petitioner sought a declaration that this action was illegal and arbitrary, and requested a direction to consider their case for promotion. The petitioner's counsel argued that the consideration for promotion should be made without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings, citing specific Government Orders (G.O.Ms.No.257 and G.O.Ms.No.679). The Government Pleader for the respondents did not refute this submission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Assistant Commissioner on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings is illegal and arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008? The petitioner argued that promotion should be considered irrespective of pending disciplinary proceedings, relying on the aforementioned Government Orders. The respondents, through the Government Pleader, did not contest this argument.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.19523 of 2023
ORDER:- The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Assistant Commissioner, on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner since 07.06.2019, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Assistant Commissioner, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings issued by the respondent authorities in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Services-C)
2 Department, dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.