logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 488 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Appeal No. 183 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE LISA GILL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Parties : Sunkara Bulli Babu Versus The State Of AP, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary Agriculture, A.P. Amaravati, Guntur & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate. For the Respondents: G. Venkat Sailendra, GP For Services II.
Date of Judgment : 01-04-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Judgment :-

Ninala Jayasurya, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Mr.Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No.3. Mr.G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel representing the proposed respondents 4 to 9 appeared through online.

2. Aggrieved by an order of the Learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2026, writ petitioner in W.P.No.3998 of 2026, preferred the present intra-Court appeal.

3. In the writ petition, the action of respondents 1 and 2 in insisting the production of SADAREM (Software for Assessment of Disabled for Access, Rehabilitation and Empowerment) Certificate for considering the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture against Roster Point No.6 (VH category) in the ensuing promotions for the panel year 2025-26, was questioned and consequential directions were sought.

4. The Learned Single Judge initially vide Interim Orders dated 11.02.2026 directed the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the writ petitioner as well as the unofficial respondent No.3 without insisting upon SADAREM Certificate as per Memo dated 20.01.2026, based on the Seniority and other eligibilities with a rider, that promotions, if any shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent filed a counter along with a petition to vacate the said order.

5. Considering the submissions made with reference to the documents filed along with the said petition, the Learned Judge modified the order dated 11.02.2026 to the effect that if the Writ Petitioner obtains SADAREM Certificate, the same may be considered along with others for promotion.

6. The Learned Counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner inter alia submits that the order under challenge is not sustainable, as the Learned Judge erred in not appreciating the controversy in totality. She submits that the appellant / writ petitioner possessed the Certificate For Person With Disability Dated 16.07.2023 issued by the Competent Authority and he is eligible for promotion under Visually Handicapped (VH) category. She submits that the 3rd respondent herein is junior to the appellant and only with a view to promote him, the respondent-authorities are insisting the appellant to produce the said Certificate though there is no such requirement, more particularly as the disability is permanent in nature. She also submits that the Learned Single Judge erred in overlooking Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 23.08.2023, which deals with the validity of the certificate issued prior to repeal of Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. She also submits that no reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the appellant to produce the assessment certificate afresh and the order of the Learned Single Judge non-granting such liberty, is therefore unsustainable.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

8. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that the issue as to whether the appellant / writ petitioner was required to obtain a SADAREM Certificate, though he possessed the Certificate For the Person with Disability Dated 16.07.2003 is the subject matter of adjudication in the main Writ Petition. Though the learned Single Judge by interim order dated 11.02.2026 directed the respondents to consider the cases of appellant / writ petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent without insisting the said Certificate, after filing of the counter-affidavit by the 3rd respondent while noting that the request for grant of SADAREM Certificate by the appellant / writ petitioner was already rejected, with reference to which there was no averment in the Writ Affidavit, however inclined to direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant / writ petitioner in the light of the Memo dated 20.01.2026.

9. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed before the learned Single Judge, the order under appeal in the considered opinion of this Court does not suffer from any illegality.

                  Therefore, no interference is called for in the order under challenge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Needless to observe that the promotions, if any to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture, shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

10. In view of dismissal of the Writ Appeal, pending miscellaneous applications are closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal