High Court · 2025

K, SRINIVASULU, S/o. K.Ramaiah, Forest Range Officer, O/o.Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad Diskict, Flo.Nizamabad, Nizamabad District ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDE NT IN O.A.NO.5 53212013

2. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A. No. 5532/2013 dated 19.07 .2013 and quash the same as being perverse, in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 4055 OF 2016) 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 to suspend the orders dated:'19.07.2013 in 0A.No.S53212013 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the WP Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAHUL REDDY SPL. GP Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI C SRINIVASA BABA I Counsel for the Respondent No.2: -- The Court made the following: ORDER f THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition l{o.3191 of 2016 ORDER: (Per the Ho 'ble Sri Justtce Abhina^d Kumor Shauilil Aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2013, passed in O.A.No.5532 of 2013 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the present writ Petition is hled.

2. Heard Sri Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel appearing for respondent I\o. 1.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners had contended that respondent No.1 was vvorking as Forest Range Officer and he was seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests for the panel year 2005-2006. However, disciplinar5r proceedings were pending against respondent No.l alleging that he was indulged in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income and the State Government was pleased to initiate prosecution and a criminal case was registered I 2 AKS,J & ETD,J lrp 3191-2016 against respondent No.I uide C.C.No.1O7 of 20 1O on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad and the sarne was withdrawn by the petitioners uide G.O.N,ls.No.139, dated 27-1O.2OO8. However, the case of responclent No.l wAs not considered, as the disciplinary proceedings \\.ere pending against him. Learned Special Government Pleader has further contended that respondent No.l has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.5532 of 20 13 contending that his case should be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests and the Tribunal was pleased to allow the O.A. at the admission stage uide order, dated lg.O7.2Ol3 fy directing the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No.l for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests by including his name for the panel year 2005-2006 of Forest Range Officers of Zone-V|, if there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against him and no punishment was subsisting against him on that date, within a period of four weeks, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. -1 AKS.J & ETD,J ,r? 319l 20 r6

4. Learned Special Government Pleader had further contended that the Tribunal could not have disposed of the O.A. at the stage of admission and no opportunity was given to the State Government to file a detailed counter- As the disciplinary proceedings afe pending against respondent No. 1, the question of considering his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests would not arise. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dated I9.O7.2O13 passed 1n O.A.No.5532 of 2013 and allow the Writ Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.l had contended that the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No. I and pass appropriate orders. However, no posltlve mandamus was given by the Tribunal, hence, the petitioners I I car. always consider his case and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Therefore, there are no merits in the I I Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal has not given positive mandamus to the petitioners to promote { AKS,J & ETD,J wp 319 r 2016 respondent No.l and has merely directed the petitioners to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistalt Conservator of Forests for the panel year 2005-2006 of Forest Range Officers of Zone-VI, if there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against him and no punishment was subsisting against respondent No. 1 . Therefore, it is always open for the State Government to consider the case of respondent No.1 and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere u,ith the orders passed by the Tribunal.

7. With the above observations, the Writ yPetition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

8. As a seque[, miscellaneous applications pending if aly, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI IS ANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \- J To,

1. Two CCsto SRI RAHUL REDDYSPL. GP, HighCourtforihe Stateof Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRl. C SRINIVASA BABA Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies KKS GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 ORDER WP.No.3191 of 2016 1t.i $I4 1 B I,IAI1 Z0Z5 'a!_ f * l' i\ .t* / DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0 t\ )D -l