High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction by declaring the action of respondents is not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion as Additional Assistant Engineer on the sole ground of pendency of CC No.8/2024 (FlR No.13/RCT-RRN2OZ0, dt.1B-11- 2020), on the file of the court of Hon'ble 1st Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB case at Hyderabad though he is entitled to be consider for such promotion in terms of 3(B)(i)and(ii) of APSEB Service Regulation part-ttt as adopted by TGSPDCL, as illegal arbitrary and u nconstitutional being violative of Article 1 4, 16 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and also contrary to the orders of Honble court and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for ill:g? r ,*q promotion to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer in r)rms of Regulations 3(B)(i)and(ii) of APSEB service Reguration part-ilr as adop:r d by TGSpDCL and also in terms of G.O. {\4s No.257, GA(Services_C) Dept. d 10_06_1999, without reference to cc No 8/2024 (FrR No.'13lRCT-RRRr2o2o, dr rB-11-2020), on the file of the court of the Hon'ble 1st Additional Special Judge f r spE and ACB case at Hyderabad, with all consequential benefits., lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the ci r umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cour may be preased ro direct the respondents to consrder the case of the petitior:r for promotion as Additional Assistant Engineer in terms of the Service Regur;: rons 3(B)(i)and(ii) of APSEB Service Reguration part-ilr as adopted by TGSpDC t and arso as per of G.o. Ms. No257, GA(Services-c) Dept., dt. 10-06-19gg, rh€ orders this Hon'bre court without reference to cc No.8/2024 (FlR No.13/RCT-R tR/2020, dt. 1B-11_ 2o2o), on the file of the court of the Hon'bre lst Additionar Sc -.ciar Judge for SpE and ACB case at Hyderabad and promote him as such, pe! iing disposar of the main writ petition., as this Hon,ble Court may deem fii and proper in the circumstances of the Case Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S AJAY KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI N. SREEDHAR TGSPDCL IEDDY, SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : Gp FOR SERVICES - ll The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITON No.385OS oF 2o25 Dated 16th DECEMBER, 2025 Between : D.Vijayender Reddy . . . Petitioner AND Telangana State Southem Power Distribution Company Limited, Rep. by its Chairman ald Malaging Director, Mint Compound, Hyderab4d ald 2 others. ORDER: ..Respondents With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This Writ Petition is hled, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: "---to tssue a wit in the nature of Mandamus or anA other appropiate u.lnt order or direction by declaring the action of respondents is not con sidering tLre case of the petitioner for promotion as Additional Assislanf Engineer on the sole ground of pendencg of CC No.8/ 2o24 (FIR No.13/ RCT-RRR/ 2020, dt.18-1 1 2020), on tte file of the court of Hon'ble l"t Addittonal Special Judge for SPE & ACB case at Hyderabad though he is entitled to be consider for such o .!+ promotion in tenns of 3@)ft)A@ of APSEB Seruice Rec as adou.t.ei by TGSPDCL, as illegal arbitrary and .L being ulolaiit'e of Atlicle 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution o.' controry to tli.: orders of Hon'ble court and consequ€ respondents to cor-sider the case of petitioner for pr post of Additional As:rsalrit Engineer in terrns ( 3(B)(q&(iL) of APSEB Seruice Regulation part-III t'.: TGSPDCL and also in terms of G.O. Ms. 1Vo.257, GA(S') dt. 10 06 1999, tuithout reference to CC No.8/2024 (' RRR/2020, dt.18 11-2020), on the file of the court ol' Additional SpeciaL Judge for SPE & ACB cose at HAd) consequertttctl benef.ts., and to pass..." ttation part-lII tconstitutional ndia and also ttly direct the motion to the . Regulations adopted bg uices-C) Dept., R No. 13/ RCT- he Hon'ble l$ abad, with all

3. Heard Sri S.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel lt r the petitioner; Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsrr I for Telangara State Porver Distribution Company Limited, for -, spondent Nos. 1 afld 2; and learned Government Pieader for Ser-vices-II for respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submi.r that while the petitioner was u,orking as Sub-Engineer O/o. Di" sional Engineer, Keesara, a case in FIR No.13/RCT-RRRl2O2O ot the h1e of Anti- Corruption Bureau, Ranga Reddy Ralge, I l,derabad, \vas registered against him on 17 .71.2O2O a:rd after fil ng of the charge sheet, the case was numbered as C.C. No.8 of 2( 24 on the file of learned I Additional Special Judge for SPE ti ACB Cases at Hyderabad. It is further submitted that thougf. the petitioner is eligible for further promotion to the post of Ad I tional Assistant I w I I I I I I I i i : i i 3 Engineer, the respondents are not considering his candidature on the ground of pendency of aforesaid criminal case. It is also submitted that the government issued guidelines IN G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated

10.06.1999, to consider the cases of employees for promotion against whom disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings are pending. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Assistant Er-rgineer, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06. i999.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2 submits that since the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, he is not eligible for promotion to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by leamed counsel for the respective parties and as the criminal case registered against the petitioner is pending since 2020, this Court is of the vien, that it r,r,ould be appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of 4 Additional Assistant Engineer in terms of G.O.Ms No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 1O.r) i.1999, as and when promotrons takes place. 7 , With the above d irection, this Writ petition :s disposed of. Miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, slLr ll stand closed, There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SO/. T SRINIVASA REDDY ASSII TANT REGISTRAR ... ,/., e-/' SECTION OFFICER To, d;;;;^y' Ltd, (l int bompouno' Hv:derabad-500004

1. Chairman and t\4anaginq Director, Telangana St te Southern Power Distribution companv itii ird6Fiidil' vini do'pou r l' Hvderabad-500004 2. The chief Engineer Human Resource Developmerr HRD), (Earlier. chief ' c;;";;i M*u".q"i tHnDj'"t"rii'il-r"i-Siate Sbuth: n Power Distribution . A m b e d ka r s e c reta ri at Ilfi . Iil:: yf, ! 3 illl" Li?;,:ffi :s"t ?'f.1T$?t! u 86.? 4. One CC to SRI S AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to SRI N SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FO: TGSPDCL' Advocate j I

6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES - ll, High Court for lre State of Telangana' loPUCl at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD CoPies PVL GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1611212025 ORDER WP.No.38505 of 2025 h1 ',,--,.,i),' Is il-' '.({i:r, ta,\-'-\ .j,..\..,. c\\Y'\ ?lh i,;lr// .^!'./l :'-i.' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS