IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 27257 of 2007 Between: S.A.S.Prakasa Rao, S/o late Suryanarayana, R/o Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, PR & RD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, PR & RD Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Executive officer, Zilla Parishad, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari after calling for the records pertaining to the order in OA No.9119 of 2002 dated 27-07-2007 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Services-II. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR W.P. No. 27257 of 2007 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 27.7.2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 9119 of 2002. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The petitioner herein filed O.A. 9119 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking the action of the respondents in issuing Memo Rc.No. 587/02/A1 dated 22.7.2002 rejecting his request for ad hoc promotion as Superintendent as illegal and arbitrary, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be promoted as Superintendent as he possesses all the requisite qualifications and though ACB case was pending, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No. 74 dated 24.2.1994 he is entitled for promotion but the same is not considered by the respondents and the Tribunal without considering the same has erred in dismissing the O.A. However, the material available on record discloses that G.O.Ms.No. 74 dated 24.2.1994 does not prescribe for automatic promotion if the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the concerned is not concluded after expiry of two years from the date of meeting of the first Departmental Promotion Committee and it is subject to the guidelines prescribed in para 7 thereof. Therefore, even if there is delay in concluding the criminal prosecution, it is for the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider whether promotion can be given to a particular individual or not having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view the guidelines prescribed in para 7 of G.O.Ms.No. 74 dated 24.2.1994. The Tribunal has further noted that the respondents have stated that action has been initiated for sanction of periodical increments. It is further to be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the ACB case ended in conviction against the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has considered the matter in proper perspective and has given cogent reasons for dismissing the O.A. We do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. S. ASHOK KUMAR, J. Date: 28-03-2008. MVB.