Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/22199/2026 of Marisetti Lalli Vs The Director of B.C. Welfare, A.P., on 10 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 22199 OF 2026 Between: 1. Marisetti Lalli, , D/o M. Appa Rao, Aged about 59 years, Occ. District B.C. Welfare
APHC010406982026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 22199 OF 2026
Between:
1. Marisetti Lalli, , D/o M. Appa Rao, Aged about 59 years, Occ. District B.C. Welfare Empowerment Officer, (now under orders of suspension)
Kakinada, East Godavari District, R/o Flat No.101, Sairam Residency, K.L. Puram, Vizianagaram.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The Director of B C Welfare A P, 2nd Floor, Vishal Residency, Kanuru, Vijayawada - 520007, Krishna District.
2. The State of A P, rep., by its Principal Secretary, B.C. Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist - 522503, AP.
3. Sri G Satish Kumar, Occ. Superintendent, District BC Welfare Office, Dr.BR Ambedkar Konaseema District, A.P.- 533201.
...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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records
relating and in connection with the impugned notice in Rc.No.G/99/2026, dt. 10.07.2026 issued by the 1st respondent and set aside the same, by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of the Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to drop the impugned action and further continue the Petitioner as District BC Welfare Officer, Kakinada, with all service and monetary benefits 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 permit the Petitioner to file, this WP by dispensing with the filing of original copy of impugned notice in Rc.No.G/99/2026, dt.
10.07.2026 issued by the 1 respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition IA NO: 2 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 suspend / stay the operation of impugned notice in Rc.No.G/99/2026, dt. 10.07.2026 issued by the 1st respondent and direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as District BC Welfare Empowerment Officer, Kakinada, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: POODATTU AMARENDER
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following order:
WRIT PETITION No.22199 of 2026
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 filed questioning the Notice, dated 10.07.2026, issued by Respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary.
2) The Petitioner was initially appointed as “Junior Assistant” on 25.06.1994 and subsequently was promoted as “Senior Assistant” and thereof as “Superintendent” on 01.07.2012.
3) Respondent No.3 was promoted as Superintendent on 23.05.2012. A departmental enquiry was initiated against Respondent No.3 and consequently the promotion of Respondent No.3 was deferred during the panel year 2024-2025. The Petitioner being next to the seniority of Respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of District BC Welfare Empowerment Officer on 14.03.2024 and has been discharging duties in the said post.
4) While in service, a ACB case was registered against the Petitioner and the Petitioner was placed under suspension vide Order, dated 07.01.2026. While so, the Respondent No.3 was exonerated from the departmental enquiry. After exoneration from the departmental enquiry, Respondent No.3 submitted an application for granting notional promotion with effect from the date his junior was promoted i.e., the
Petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Review DPC Committee recommended revision of the approved panel considering the cases of Respondent No.3 and one G.Ramesh for notional promotion. Subsequently, the impugned notice was issued to the Petitioner to submit objections to the decision of the Review DPC. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
5) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned notice is a shallow proceeding, as a decision has already taken by the Review Committee. The Counsel further submits that Respondent No.3 having not joined the duties in the promotion post and, therefore, he cannot seek for notional promotion from the date of Petitioner’s promotion.
6) Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the Petitioner was called upon to submit explanation in respect of the proposed revision and that the impugned notice is merely a show-cause notice proposing the revision and not reversion. In case, reversion is to be effected, the Petitioner would be issued notice. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that Respondent No.3’s promotion to the Executive Director of BC Welfare Department not approved by the Government and, therefore, the Respondent No. 3 could not join.
7) Heard the Counsels.
8) The impugned notice does not state that the Petitioner would be reverted. The notice merely calls upon the Petitioner to submit an explanation to the proposed revision of the approved panel. The proposed revision at the instance of Respondent No.3 is a natural consequence of the exoneration in the departmental proceedings, as expressly contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.104, dated 16.02.1990. It is to be noted that the promotion of the Petitioner was only on account of departmental enquiry against Respondent No.3 at that time. This fortuitous promotion cannot be insisted to be continued despite the exoneration of Respondent No.3 in the departmental enquiry.
9) As the impugned notice is only a show cause notice, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notice, more so, in the light of the submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader.
10) Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The impugned notice is not interfered with. ii) The official Respondents may issue a separate notice to the Petitioner, in the event of her reversion, to enable her to file explanation/objections, if any. iii) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Date: 11.08.2026 SM
WRIT PETITION No.22199 of 2026 Dated: 11.08.2026
SM