Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Pindi Veera Venkata Gopala Krishna vs Md on 21 May, 2026
1
GTK, J
W.P.No.14500 of 2026
APHC010281212026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3548]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION NO: 14500/2026
Between:
1. PINDI VEERA VENKATA GOPALA KRISHNA, S/O. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHSILDAR,
PITAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, FORMERLY EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, REVENUE (VIG.III) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238.
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, APIIC BUILDINGS,
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased topleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in
the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent
authorities in not considering the case of petitioner for promotion to the
category of Deputy Collector for the panel year of 2025-2026 as per the
seniority cum eligibility on the alleged ground that pending disciplinary
proceedings vide CCLAs Procg.No.REV02-28022/22/2018, (C.No.457329)
dated 06.05.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violation of Article 14,
2
GTK, J
W.P.No.14500 of 2026
16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent
authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the category
of Deputy Collector by considering the case of the petitioner without
reference to Charge Memo vide CCLAs Procg.No.REV02- 28022/22/2018,
(C.No.457329) dated 06.05.2026, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
leased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the
petitioner for promotion to the category of Deputy Collector by considering the
case of the petitioner without reference to Charge Memo vide CCLA's
Procg.No.REV02-28022/22/2018, (C.No.457329) dated 06.05.2026, pending
against the petitioner and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
3
GTK, J
W.P.No.14500 of 2026
ORDER:
The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“….may be pleased to issue a order writ or direction more particularly
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not considering the
case of petitioner for promotion to the category of Deputy Collector for the
panel year of 2025-2026 as per the seniority cum eligibility on the alleged
ground that pending disciplinary proceedings vide CCLA‟s Procg.No.
REV02-28022/22/2018, (C.No.457329) dated 06.05.2026, is illegal arbitrary,
discriminatory and violation of Article 14 16 19 and 21 of Constitution of India
and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of
the petitioner for promotion to the category of Deputy Collector by
considering the case of the petitioner without reference to Charge Memo
vide CCLA‟s Procg. No. REV02-28022/22/2018, (C.No.457329) dated
06.05.2026 and pass….”
2. Heard Sri K Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing
for the respondents.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was
appointed as Deputy Tahsildar under Group-II category in the year 2008 and
subsequently he was promoted as Tahsildar in the year 2013 and accordingly
he is discharging his duties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, at the time of
consideration of promotions to the post of Deputy Collector for the adhoc
panel year 2025-2026, for filling up 29 vacancies from the feeder category of
4
GTK, J
W.P.No.14500 of 2026
Tahsildar, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on
account of certain alleged irregularities in the discharge of his duties and the
matter was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
Subsequently, the disciplinary authorities conducted an enquiry and submitted
their report.
5. He further submits that, inasmuch as the sanction granted against
the petitioner has already been stayed by this Court in W.P.No.22149 of 2025,
there exists no impediment for consideration of the petitioner’s case, and
therefore, he is entitled to inclusion of his name in the panel for the year
2025-2026 for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on written
instructions dated 21.05.2026, submitted that, in view of the disciplinary case
initiated against the petitioner vide CCLA’s Procgs.No.REV02-28022/22/2018
(C.No.457329), dated 06.05.2026, based on the report of Vigilance &
Enforcement, the candidature of the petitioner was considered by the
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened on 15.05.2026 for
preparation of the adhoc panel of Deputy Collectors for the panel year 2025-
2026. The same was examined in terms of G.O.Ms.No.424, G.A. (Ser.C)
Department, dated 25.05.1976, G.O.Ms.No.257, G.A. (Ser.C) Department,
dated 10.06.1999, and G.O.Ms.No.66, G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dated
30.01.1991, and thereafter, the minutes of the Departmental Promotion
Committee were furnished to the Government. Therefore, the grievance of the
5
GTK, J
W.P.No.14500 of 2026
petitioner that his candidature was not considered for promotion to the
category of Deputy Collector for the panel year 2025-2026 is not correct.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the charge memo dated
06.05.2026 (received on 13.05.2026) was issued with an intention to cause
wrongful service loss. The Departmental Promotion Committee was convened
on 04.05.2026, which amplifies the volatile intention of the respondents.
Further, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the incident
is of the year 2016 and now the charges are initiated against the petitioner,
belatedly, to deny the promotion. Several juniors to the petitioner were
promoted, and piercingly, the action is contrary to the law of the land, as held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing
Board1.
8. Considering the facts of the case on hand, the law is precise and
well established that the initiation of the enquiry with abnormal and
unexplained delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan‘s case
(supra 1), while considering the observations made in A.P. vs.
N.Radhakishan [1998 (4) SCC 154], held at paragraph 5 as follows:
“5.In the second case [1998] 4 SCC 154, the respondent was appointed
as Assistant Director of Town Planning in the year 1976. A report dated
7,11.1987 was sent by the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad to the Secretary to the Government, Housing,
Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad, about the irregularities in deviations and unauthorized
constructions in multi storied complexes in the twin cities of Hyderabad and
Secunderabad in collusion with municipal authorities. On the basis of the
report, the State issued two memos both dated 12.12.1987 in respect of
three officials including the respodnent-Radhakishan, the then Assistant City1
(2005) 6 SCC 636
6
GTK, J
W.P.No.14500 of 2026Planner. In this case, till 31.07.1995 the article of charges had not been
served on the respondent. The Tribunal, however, held that the memo dated
31.7.1995 related to incidents that happened ten years of more prior to the
date of the memo and that there was absolutely no explanation by the
Government for this inordinate delay in framing the charges and conducting
the enquiry against the respondent and that there was no justification on the
part of the State now conducting the enquiry against the respondent in
respect of the incidents at this late stage. This Court, in para 19, has
observed as follows:
“It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles
applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in
concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the
disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be
examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of
the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the
relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in
the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary
proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly
when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay.
The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings
against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to
undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are
unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the
proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the
disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge,
its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay
is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the
face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary
authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is
the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted
with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and
in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to
suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should
be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay
defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it
can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper
explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings.
Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.”
9. Uniendo, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment in
Government of West Bengal and others vs. Dr.Amal Satpathi and
others2, observed at paragraph 19 as follows:
“19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes
effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a
vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have
recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only
a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no
fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may
gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of
Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das,
wherein it was observed as follows:
2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512
7
GTK, J
W.P.No.14500 of 2026“18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the
date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the
subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be
considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a
statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is
no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may
profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai
where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation
Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, a
three-Judge Bench observed thus:
41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be
considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held
by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v.
Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is
reproduced below:
„4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an
employee has only right to be considered for promotion,
when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From
this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High
Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is
in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to
equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of
the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was
unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.‟
42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying
emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of
India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the
criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion,
then there will be clear violation of his/her‟s fundamental right.
Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J.,
Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as
follows in paras 22 and 27: 9 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768 10
(2022) 12 SCC 579 11 (1991) 2 SCC 295 12 (1999) 7 SCC 209
„Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a
fundamental right
22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected.
They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14
demands that the „State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws‟. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that:
„there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in
matters relating to employment or appointment to any
office under the State‟.
It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of
Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from
Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article
14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of
opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any
office under the State. The word “employment” being wider,
8
GTK, J
W.P.No.14500 of 2026there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of
promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of
recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise
eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of
consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for
promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be
“considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility
and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there
will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be
“considered” for promotion, which is his personal right.
“Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached
to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article
16(1).
***
27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar
Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13, and followed in
Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana14, and other
cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right 13 (1997) 5
SCC 201 14 (1997) 6 SCC 538 guaranteed to employees for
being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of
recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority
or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we
cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier
that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in
the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has
never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar
Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.‟“20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, it was held that
retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date
when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given
with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The
same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of
India16, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the
seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the
vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of
promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was
restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers‟ Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State
of U.P, in the following words:
„37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or
seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not
even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the
direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by
this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that
when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be
reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota
rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous
promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy
within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date
and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent
9
GTK, J
W.P.No.14500 of 2026confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not
be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits……
38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective
promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on
retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even
been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely
affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the
meantime.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. Having regard to the facts and established legal conspectus, this
Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to consider
the case of the petitioner, for promotion for the panel year 2025-2026, in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, duly taking into consideration his
seniority and fulfillment of the other requirements. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J
Date : 21.05.2026
RPD/LSP.
10
GTK, J
W.P.No.14500 of 2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
(DISPOSED OF )
WRIT PETITION NO: 14500 of 2026
Date : 21.05.2026
RPD/LSP.
