(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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Memo No.AGC01-AGRI/246/2020-AGRI.IV dated 11-03-2022 wherein rejected the proposals of the 3rd respondent to consider the request of the Agriculture Extension Officers for appointment to Special Promotion Post of Scale I and II who were appointed as Agriculture Extension Officers after 29-09-1993 and in not considering the case of petitioners for appointment to Special Promotion Post of Scales (SPP I/ll) in the cadre of Agriculture Extension Officers on par with others who completed 12/18/24/30 years of service is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to extend the benefit in favour of the petitioners for appointment to Special Promotion Post of Scale (SPP I/ll) in the cadre of Agricultural Extension Officers on par with others and also in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 195 A and C (Horti.) Department dated 29-07-2011 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 1st respondent to take an action on the letter no. A5(1)1087047/2020 dated 18-04-2024 addressed by the 3rd respondent for appointment in favour of the petitioners as Special Promotion Post of Scales (SPP I/ll) without reference to the Government Memo No. AGC01-AGRI/246/2020-AGRI.IV dated 11-03-2022 of the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

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 May be pleased to grant leave and permit the petitioners to file reply affidavit in WP No.10247 of 2025 and pass)

1. It is submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Sub-Assistants during the years 2009 to 2011 after undergoing the regular selection process. It is further submitted that there are two verticals of sub-Assistants created in the Agriculture and Co-operation Department. Sub-Assistants working in Agriculture Department and Sub-Assistants working in Horticulture Department. The post of Sub-Assistants was re-designated as Agricultural Extension Officers for the employees working in Agriculture Department, whereas the Sub-Assistants working in the Horticulture Department were re-designated as Horticulture Extension Officers. It is submitted that the Assistant Extension Officers who possess B.Sc. (Agriculture) qualification are entitled for the subsequent promotion to the post of Agriculture Officer. It is also submitted that the petitioners possess Diploma in Agriculture and were extended the six-year special grade increment after completion of six years of service with the respondents. It is further submitted that the petitioners are now entitled for the 12 years and 18 years special grade increment after completion of the requisite period of service.

2. It is submitted that the Career Advancement Scheme was introduced for the employees for whom there is no scope for further promotions, and such employees are compensated monetarily by way of special grade increments upon completion of 12 years, 18 years, 24 years, and 30 years of service. It is submitted that certain Agricultural Extension Officers who joined prior to 1993 were extended special grade increments after completion of 12 years, 18 years, 24 years, and 30 years of service. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the Agricultural Extension Officers appointed prior to 1993 did not even possess the basic qualifications, and the attention of this Court is drawn to the list of certain officers whose qualifications are VIII Class, SSC, Matriculation, Intermediate, etc. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners was not considered by the respondents for grant of the special grade increments after completion of 12 years and 18 years of service.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents issued the impugned proceedings dated 11.03.2022, whereby the Government rejected the proposal of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, seeking consideration of the request of the Agricultural Extension Officers for appointment to Special Promotion Post Scale-I and Scale-II. It is submitted that the reasons assigned in the impugned proceedings, namely that those who were appointed as AEOs after 29.09.1993 as G.O.Ms.No.195 dated 29.07.2011 could not be treated as a precedent after lapse of 10 years, is unsustainable in law.

4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and that G.O.Ms.No.195 dated 29.07.2011 was issued as a one-time measure exempting the qualification of B.Sc. (Horticulture) and passing of departmental tests, on par with Sub-Assistants/Field Assistants, who were exempted from possessing B.Sc. (Horticulture) qualification and passing departmental tests under G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 06.04.1998. It is submitted that the said exemption was extended to the Sub-Assistants/Field Assistants appointed after 29.09.1993 for the purpose of extending the benefits of the Automatic Advancement Scheme as a special case.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Perused the record.

6. The Automatic Advancement Scheme itself indicates that it is an automatic scheme, and the eligible employees are required to be extended the benefit of Special Promotion Post Scale-I and Scale-II as and when the relevant milestone period of service is completed by the employee(s). The respondents have already extended the said benefit to several employees working in the Horticulture Department, and those employees have been granted the benefit of the Automatic Advancement Scheme. In such a scenario, the reasons assigned in the impugned proceedings with regard to the petitioners approaching the authorities after lapse of 10 years does not withstand the scrutiny of law, as the scheme itself contemplates automatic extension of such benefits to the eligible employees.

7. The counter affidavit is also silent as to how the respondents could adopt a different yardstick for employees working in the Agriculture Department, while extending the said benefits to employees working in the Horticulture Department. It is pertinent to note that the recruitment of employees presently working in the Agriculture Department and the Horticulture Department was made pursuant to the very same notification, and the service rules governing both streams of employees are also identical.

8. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings dated 11.03.2022 deserved to be set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to extend the benefit of Special Promotion Post Scale-I and Scale-II to the petitioners for the relevant period of time of service completed by them with the respondents.

9. With the above observations, the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside and the present writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.