| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1103
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Writ Petition No. 17341 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY |
| Parties : B. Lakshmi Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary Revenue (Excise) Department, Guntur & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate. For the Respondent: Government Pleader for Services I. |
| Date of Judgment : 03-07-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India
- Article 16 of the Constitution of India
- Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Rule No. 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996
2. Catch Words:
- Writ of Mandamus
- Promotion
- Reservation (6 % ST quota)
- Adequacy
- Representation
- Article 14, Article 16
- Section 151 CPC
3. Summary:
The petitioner, a Scheduled Tribe employee, sought promotion to Prohibition Excise Inspector under the 6 % ST reservation, alleging that the authorities’ refusal to consider her representation dated 21‑05‑2026 was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. She filed a writ petition under Article 226 and a petition under Section 151 CPC. The Assistant Government Pleader contended that the representation would be examined per the applicable rules. After hearing both sides, the High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with Rule 22 and the adequacy criteria, without ordering any costs. All ancillary petitions, if any, were ordered to stand closed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate order or directions more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Prohibition Excise Inspector under ST category to meet the adequacy of 6 posts out of 98 posts of cadre strength of Prohibition Excise Inspectors in Zone II is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Prohibition Excise Inspector in the ensuing promotions against the ST category under 6percent quota to meet the adequacy, and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 pleased to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 21-05- 2026 made by the petitioner for promotion to the post of Prohibition & Excise Inspector in Zone II in the ensuing promotions against the ST category under 6% quota to meet the adequacy, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass)
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Prohibition and Excise Inspector under S.T category, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The Petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe (for short, ‘S.T’) category and was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 2009 under S.C/S.T backlog vacancies in Krishna district. Subsequently, the Petitioner was promoted as Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector on 03.08.2013. As the Petitioner belongs to S.T category, she claims for promotion against the 6% reservation earmarked for the S.T. category under Rule No.22 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the rules’) and a representation was given by the Petitioner on 21.05.2026 requesting consideration for promotion under the said reservation. As the representation given by the Petitioner is not being considered, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services submitted that the representation given by the Petitioner would be examined in accordance with the rules and taking note of the adequacy.
4. Heard the counsels.
5. Considering the submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:-
(i) The Respondent-Authorities are directed to consider the representation, dated 21.05.2026 given by the Petitioner in accordance with the rules and adequacy.
(ii). No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
|
| |
