V. Ramalihgeswara Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - GP FOR SERVICES IV — WP/15334/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 11th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010291162026

Filing Number

WP/23255/2026

Filing Date

09-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/15334/2026

Registration Date

09-Jun-2026

Judge

Subba Reddy Satti

Coram

Subba Reddy Satti

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

PUBLIC HEALTH ( 35 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

11-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.V. Ramalihgeswara Reddy

    Adv. S SRINIVASA RAO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - GP FOR SERVICES IV

  2. 2.The Directorate of Town and Country Planning

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    Subba Reddy SattiView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/15334/2026 The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed respondents to consider V. Ramalihgeswara Reddy's promotion to Deputy Director/Deputy City Planner strictly under G.O.Ms.No.257 (1999) without reference to G.O.Rt.No.356 (2025), which initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. The court held that promotion can only be deferred after formal charges are framed and served; since no charge memo was issued, the petitioner—being in the zone of consideration—must be considered for ad-hoc promotion under the 1999 guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Jun-2026

    Admission (Service Matters)

    Subba Reddy Satti

  4. 09-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/15334/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/15334/2026 The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed respondents to consider V. Ramalihgeswara Reddy's promotion to Deputy Director/Deputy City Planner strictly under G.O.Ms.No.257 (1999) without reference to G.O.Rt.No.356 (2025), which initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. The court held that promotion can only be deferred after formal charges are framed and served; since no charge memo was issued, the petitioner—being in the zone of consideration—must be considered for ad-hoc promotion under the 1999 guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case