Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/24998/2024 of MEGAVATH SHANKAR Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 30 August 2026
1 APHC010482192024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 24998 OF 2024 Between: 1. MEGAVATH SHANKAR, s/o. Bikshalu, Aged about 54Years, Occ. Head
P a g e | 1
APHC010482192024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
Between:
1. MEGAVATH SHANKAR, s/o. Bikshalu, Aged about 54Years, Occ. Head Constable (Mechanic), Police Transport Organization, Near 6th Battalion APSP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
2. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Police Transport Organization, A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District,
4. P Boya Konda, S/o and age not Known to the petitioner, Occ. Sub-lnspector, Police Transport Organization, Near 6th Battalion APSP, Mangalagiri Guntur District -522502
5. P Srinivasa Rao, S/o and age not Known to the petitioner Occ.Sub-Inspector, Police Transport Organization, Near 6th Battalion APSP, Mangalagiri Guntur District -522502
...Respondents
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 to issue an appropriate Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Memo Rc.No.698/A1/PTO/2020-24 dated 25-09-2024 wherein rejected the request of the petitioner to consider his case for promotion as Sub-Inspector P a g e | 2
under ST Roster Point in place of 4th respondent w.e.f. 07-09-2016 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion notionally in the cadre of Sub- Inspector on par with unofficial respondents with all consequential benefits including seniority and pass direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion notionally in the cadre of Sub-Inspector in pursuant to proceedings No.
2763/PR/A5/2015-19 dated 24-06-2019 of the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass grant leave and permit the petitioner to file reply affidavit in WP No. 24998 of 2024 and pass grant leave to the petitioner in presenting the Counter Affidavit in the above Writ Petition No. 24998 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I
Counsel for the Respondents: A K KISHORE REDDY
The Court made the following order:
P a g e | 3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…….to issue an appropriate Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Memo Rc.No.698/A1/PTO/2020-24 dated 25.0902024 wherein rejected the request of the petitioner to consider his case for promotion as Sub-Inspector under ST Roster Point in place of 4th respondent w.e.f. 07.09.2016 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion notionally in the cadre of Sub-Inspector on par with unofficial respondents with all consequential benefits including seniority …..”
2. Heard Sri G. Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K. Tarun Ganesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5, and Sri K. Varun Shyam Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I.
3. Upon instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that petitioner was not considered for promotion, as a disciplinary enquiry was pending against him and he had remained under suspension for 412 days. Subsequently, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded and petitioner was imposed with the punishment of postponement of one annual increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect and without affecting his future increments or pension. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that, at the relevant time, since the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were pending, unofficial respondents were permitted to be promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector under the S.T. category in order to meet the required adequacy of representation of the said category in the P a g e | 4
Department. It is further submitted that the required adequacy of representation under the S.T. category has since been achieved and, therefore, petitioner’s case would be considered for promotion against a clear vacancy as and when such vacancy arises, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and his seniority.
4. In view of the above, as the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have already been concluded, the petitioner is entitled to have his case considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector, in accordance with the applicable rules and his seniority.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the official respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion against a clear vacancy, as and when such vacancy arises, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and his seniority. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to his seniority or any other service-related issue, he is at liberty to approach the competent authority for redressal of the same, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
Date: 31.08.2026 SAK
P a g e | 5
23
Date: 31.08.2026
SAK