The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a writ order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not giving promotion to the petitioner as District Project Manager in lndira Kranthi Padham, District Rural Development Agency, Warangal on par with Ch.Venugopal Reddy, K.Ramesh Babu, M.Chandra Sekhar, D-Vasudev and others who are appointed on par with the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner on par with afore said officers with effect frcm 22.8.2006 on which date the afore said officers were promoted as District Project Managers, with all attendanl benefits including back wages. !:.r=qi::ai l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NOl32lE2 !E28lA Petition unCer Section 151 CPC praying that rr the circumstances stated in the affic avit f iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents to consider the case ,f the petitioner for promotion to the post of District Project Manager in ln ii'a Kranthi Padham, District Rural De'velopment Agency, Warangal on par ,,rith Ch. Venugopal Reddy, K. Ramesr Babu, M.Chnadra Sekhar, D.Vasude r and others who are appointed on par with the petitioner, pending the disposirl of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 3: GP FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI RUPENDRA MAHEI'll)ERA The Court made the following: ORDER --- ,ry THE HO N'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVA PU RAJESH WAR RAO WR PETITI ON No.2 6650 0F o13 i ORDER This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue a writ, order or direction particularty one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring the action of the respondents in not giving promotion to the petitioner as District Project Manager in Indira Kranthi padham, District Rural Development Agency, on par with Ch.Venugopal Reddy, K.Ramesh Babu, M.Chandra Sekhar, D.Vasudev and others who are appointed on par with the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and consequenily direct the respondents to promote the petitioner on par with aforesaid officers with effect from 22.8.2006 on which date the aforesaid officers were promoted as District Project Managers with all attendant benefits including back wages and pass... "

2. Heard sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, rearned counser for the petitioner and learned Government pleader for Services-II, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

3. Learned counser for the petitioner submitted that initiaily the petitioner was appointed as a community coordinator on 10.03.2003 with the 3'd respondent and while so, the 3d respondent issued another notification calling applications for appointment of community coordinator (Agriculture). subsequently, the 3'd respondent conducted written exam and interview ard issued orders v/de proceedings ltlo.A/DPMU/123105, dated 03.02.2005, wherein the petitioner got selected, , nd appointed as a Community Coorclinator (Agriculture) with effect from 1j.02.2005 and got posted at Mahabubabad, and that after completion ,)f three years of service as a Community Coordinator (Agriculture) .1e petitioner got promoted as Assi:;tant Project Manager in the year 20Cil

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further subrnii:ed that pursuant to the notification issued by the 3'd respondent, -t- e petitioner was appointed as a Community Coordinator (Agricultur(r ) and the other selected persons were appointed as Community Coor(lirator (Dairy) and the qualifications prescribed for both the posts is or: and the same. However, the persons, who were selected as Comrnunity Coordinator (Dairy), were promoted to the post of the District )roject Managers without possessing any experience and though the lretitioner possess three years exper-ience in the cadre of Assistant Prcj()ct Manager, the respondents have ignored the case of the petitioner 5, Learned coLrnsel for the petitioner further strL mitted that the petitioner is eligit)le and entitled for promotion as tr() District Project Manager on par with other employees, who were prom)led from the post of Community C.oordinator (Dairy), with effect lirrm 22.08.2006. Therefore, on 04.Ctg.2025, the petitioner made repres€ntation before the respondent authorities requesting to change the Net dt:signation from LA CC to LA Intermediary with effect from the date rrf promotion of w Colleagues. But so far, the respondent authorities have not considered the i- representation or the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated

04.0g.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-Il does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (B) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR & SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Chief Executive Officer/Secretary, The Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty, Hermitage Building, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad The Project Director, lndira Kranthi Padham, District Rural Development Agency, Pragathi Bhavan Collectorate Complex, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. I 4 6 7 pne QC to []Rl NAYAKAWADT RAMESH, Advocate f()F UCI Two CCs ro Gp FoR Court-for ther State of Telangana. [OUT] 'ANCHA'AT 9n" 99 to S;Rr RUpENOnA Vnner.tOERA, Advocate IopUCl Two CD Copies BN nnL ii nunni o'i i,ri6prveNr, Hisn HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:04111t2025 / n I ORDER t 1 ., 1.-) .) !i () t \J \ .ii WP.No.26650 of 2013 '..1'.--", DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS