S. Ravinder Reddy, v. The Commissioner,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26613 of 2017 ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 30.03.1994 as Grade-2 Village Development Officer and subsequently he was promoted as Grade-1 Village Development Officer and discharging his duties at various places of his employment. As the things stood thus, the 1st respondent prepared Zonal inter-se Seniority list of Village Development Officer (Men/Women) Grade-1, Zone-VI, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.200. While so, the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 26.08.2016 accorded promotions to seven persons to the post of Extension Officer (PR&RD) on temporary and adhoc basis from the feeder category in Zone-VI. Out of the said seven persons petitioner's juniors who were placed at Sl.Nos.204 and 208 in the aforesaid Zonal inter-se seniority list, were given adhoc promotions.

After seeing the promotees' list, the petitioner made oral enquiries with the 1st respondent's office and also submitted representations dated 21.09.2016, 12.05.2017 and 25.07.2017 requesting to promote him on par with his juniors who stood at Sl.No.204 and 208 in the seniority list. But the 1st respondent orally informed the petitioner that there are charges pending against him. Immediately, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent to know about the charges and the 2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 11.08.2016 to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, clearly stating that no charges are pending against the petitioner.

respondent refers to some report submitted by the Zonal Commissioner, HMDA, Shamshabad. The petitioner states that he was not aware of any charges pending against him and that he was not served with any charge memo till today. He further submits that mere pendency of charges shall not be a ground to refuse promotion. Aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in not granting promotion to the petitioner, present writ petition is filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services.

Since the grievance of the petitioner is already before the 1st respondent by way of representations, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the representations of the petitioner dated 21.09.2016, 12.05.2017 and 25.01.2017, in accordance with law and take action accordingly. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 10.08.2017 tk