K.Srinivas v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.10965 of 2019 ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning from the post of Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning without reference to the Charge vide G.O.Rt.No.135, MA & UD (Vig.II) (1) Department, dated 04.03.2017, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently sought a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning.

Heard Sri M.V.S. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner is working as Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning and fully eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, the respondents are not considering his case for promotion to the said post on the ground of pendency of Charge vide G.O.Rt.No.135, MA & UD (Vig.II) (1) Department, dated 04.03.2017 against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, wherein the State Government formulated certain guidelines in respect of the employees against whom disciplinary proceedings or

criminal proceedings are pending and their suitability for the next promotional avenues and as per the said G.O., the competent authority must consider the cases of the employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending and pass orders as to whether the charges levelled against the said employees are involving moral turpitude or misappropriation of funds and whether they are fit for next promotion, in spite of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the instant case, the appointing authority has not examined the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines formulated in G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 and mechanically not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines formulated in G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 and pass appropriate orders.

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contends that the case of the petitioner will be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in terms of the guidelines formulated in G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy

Director of Town and Country Planning strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI 07.06.2019 Prv