ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to pass any other order or orders, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus, a. Declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering and thereby denying promotion to the post of Assistant Estate Officer on the ground of pending disciplinary charges i.e., Memo no.90/B7/VO/2007 dated 15.05.2010, a memo vide no.1879/B7/VO/2017 dated 25.09.2021, memo no.8565/B7/V0/2023 dated 07.01.2025 as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.529 dated 19.08.2008, b. And consequentially declare that the Petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered and be promoted to the post of Assistant Estate Officer without prejudice to any charges pending against him in terms of Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and G.O. Ms.No.529 dated 19.08.2008 with consequential benefits incidental thereto, c. and pass…” 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: (a) The petitioner was appointed as a Work Inspector in the year 1988 and was subsequently promoted to the posts of Typist and Senior Assistant in the years in 2003 and 2010 respectively. In the year 2012, the respondent authorities ignored the petitioner’s candidature for promotion to the post of Superintendent and instead promoted his juniors. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A. No.5846 of 2013 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an interim order dated 01.08.2013, directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s candidature for promotion. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 16.08.2013. (b) Further, in the year 2021, the respondents issued a provisional seniority list in the cadre of Superintendent, wherein the petitioner’s juniors were again placed above him. Despite the objections submitted by the petitioner, a final seniority list was issued on 16.01.2023, reiterating the same position. On the basis of the said seniority list, the juniors of the petitioner were promoted to the post of Assistant Estate Officer. Challenging the said action, the petitioner filed W.P. No.11454 of 2024 before this Court and by an order dated 02.05.2024 this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation. In compliance, a revised seniority list was issued on 07.06.2024, wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.5. Challenging the said action, the petitioner filed W.P. No.11454 of 2024 before this Court and by an order dated 02.05.2024 this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation. In compliance, a revised seniority list was issued on 07.06.2024, wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.5. However, the respondents have not considered the petitioner’s candidature for promotion on the ground of pendency of disciplinary charges. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Heard Sri R.Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent No.1; and Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Housing Board, for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, according to the respondents, three disciplinary cases are pending against the petitioner, namely: (i) Memo No.90/B7/VO/2009 dated 15.05.2010, (ii) Memo No.1879/B7/VO/2017 dated 25.09.2021 and (iii) Memo No.8565/B7/VO/2023 dated 07.01.2025. However, the petitioner was not involved in the alleged charges and has been falsely implicated. The preliminary enquiry reports in respect of the aforementioned cases do not disclose the petitioner’s name or his involvement in the alleged misconduct. Moreover, the authorities are unduly withholding the petitioner’s promotion on the sole ground that disciplinary charges are pending, even though those charges have remained unresolved for over 15 years. (b) It is further submitted that the Government issued guidelines in G.O. Ms. No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, to consider the cases of employees for promotion against whom disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings are pending. As per G.O. Ms. No.529 dated 19.08.2008, disciplinary proceedings that remain pending for more than two years shall not be treated as a bar for considering an employee for promotion. Therefore, the denial of promotion to the petitioner on the ground of pending disciplinary charges is unsustainable. (c) It is further submitted that one R.Bhona (Sl. No.1), who was on par with the petitioner, filed W.P. No.33969 of 2024 before this Court challenging the non-consideration of his candidature for promotion on the ground of pending disciplinary charges. This Court, vide order dated 03.12.2024, directed the respondents to consider his candidature for promotion without reference to the pending charges, in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Pursuant thereto, promotion orders were issued to him vide proceedings dated 28.03.2025. Similarly, the candidature of one M.Padma, who was also on par with the petitioner, was considered for promotion on 13.03.2024 despite pending disciplinary charges. No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Pursuant thereto, promotion orders were issued to him vide proceedings dated 28.03.2025. Similarly, the candidature of one M.Padma, who was also on par with the petitioner, was considered for promotion on 13.03.2024 despite pending disciplinary charges. Further, other similarly situated employees, namely G.Bhagyalaxmi (Sl. No.10), M.Bhaskar (Sl. No.3) and Mohd. Faheem (Sl. No.11), who had not been considered for promotion prior to the panel selection on 13.03.2024 due to pending disciplinary charges, were subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Estate Officer vide proceedings dated 29.05.2025, without reference to such charges, in line with G.O. Ms. No.257 dated 10.06.1999. It is pertinent to note that G.Bhagyalaxmi and Mohd. Faheem were also implicated along with the petitioner in the disciplinary case pertaining to Memo dated 07.01.2025; yet, they were considered and promoted. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for promotion, while considering the cases of similarly situated persons, is illegal and arbitrary. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner, aggrieved by the deferment of his candidature and non-promotion to the post of Assistant Estate Officer, had earlier filed W.P. No.11454 of 2024 before this Court, seeking a direction to the respondent Housing Board to revise his seniority in the final seniority list of Superintendents dated 16.01.2023 and promote him to the post of Assistant Estate Officer. It is further submitted that the petitioner is facing charges of forgery, cheating and fraud relating to the registration of properties during his tenure at Nizamabad Division. The Screening Committee has observed that the charges levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature as he is involved in forgery, cheating and fraud, which led to the deferment of his candidature for promotion to the post of Assistant Estate Officer. Specifically, the Committee noted that disciplinary cases Nos.1 and 2 pertain to serious allegations of forgery, cheating and fraud, while the third disciplinary case relates to carelessness in preparing account calculation sheets. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the petitioner’s candidature be deferred for promotion, as the pending charges are grave in nature and cannot be considered as per G.O. Ms. No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the petitioner’s candidature be deferred for promotion, as the pending charges are grave in nature and cannot be considered as per G.O. Ms. No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Further, it is submitted that one Ch.Sanjeeva Reddy, Superintendent, who is junior to all the promotees, was promoted to the post of Assistant Estate Officer on 29.05.2025 and as of now, there are no vacant posts of Assistant Estate Officer. (b) It is further contended that the petitioner was not appointed by way of direct recruitment, as claimed by him. In fact, he was initially engaged as a Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) workman on a daily-wage basis on 23.01.1988. In the year 2013, the petitioner’s candidature was initially deferred in the panel of promotions issued on 02.07.2013, wherein certain Senior Assistants were promoted to the post of Superintendent. The deferment was on account of the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner, particularly the Articles of Charges relating to forgery, cheating and fraud in the Estate Management Section at Nizamabad Division. Aggrieved by such deferment, the petitioner filed O.A. No.5846 of 2013 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by interim order dated 01.08.2013, directed the respondents therein to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking promotion. Consequently, the petitioner, who was deferred due to the said forgery case, was promoted only on an ad-hoc and temporary basis to the post of Superintendent vide order dated 12.08.2013. Therefore, the petitioner became junior in the cadre of Superintendent as a result of the said ad-hoc promotion. Moreover, the final seniority list was issued only after duly considering all the technical aspects, relevant material and the Rules in vogue. (c) It is further submitted that pursuant to the interim order dated 02.05.2024 passed in W.P. No.11454 of 2024, the representation of the petitioner was examined and objections were invited for considering the revision of seniority as sought by him. As several serious objections were raised by the other unofficial respondents in the said Writ Petition, the revision of the petitioner’s seniority could not be accepted. However, the petitioner’s candidature for promotion was not considered for the reason that the Screening Committee, in its meeting held on 28.03.2025, opined that the charges pending against him are grave in nature involving forgery, cheating and fraud in relation to the registration of Housing Board properties during his tenure in Nizamabad Division. However, the petitioner’s candidature for promotion was not considered for the reason that the Screening Committee, in its meeting held on 28.03.2025, opined that the charges pending against him are grave in nature involving forgery, cheating and fraud in relation to the registration of Housing Board properties during his tenure in Nizamabad Division. (d) With regard to promotion of R.Bhona, it is submitted that in compliance with the order dated 03.12.2024 in W.P. No.33969 of 2024, the Screening Committee examined his case and observed that the other disciplinary cases pending against him were not grave in nature. Accordingly, the Committee recommended his case for promotion and he was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Estate Officer on 28.03.2025. It is also submitted that M.Padma was not issued Articles of Charge but only a show cause notice and after due examination she was promoted as Assistant Estate Officer on 13.03.2024. Similarly, G.Bhagyalaxmi and Mohd. Faheem were not included in the panel during March 2024 as their serial numbers were not yet reached and though M.Bhaskar was initially deferred due to pending charges, was later cleared by the Screening Committee on 28.03.2025 in terms of G.O. Ms. No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and promoted on 29.05.2025. The petitioner, though involved in disciplinary case No.3 along with Bhagyalaxmi and Mohd. Faheem, was deferred due to additional pending charges in disciplinary case Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the material available on record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is currently working as Superintendent and three disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which are as follows: (i) Memo No.90/B7/VO/2009 dated 15.05.2010, (ii) Memo No.1879/B7/VO/2017 dated 25.09.2021 and (iii) Memo No.8565/B7/VO/2023 dated 07.01.2025. Memo dated 15.05.2010 pertains to the allegations of misappropriation of funds of respondent No.2–Board; Memo dated 25.09.2021 relates to allegations of illegalities committed in registration of certain houses and other connected malpractices; whereas Memo dated 07.01.2025 contains charges of negligence, carelessness and irregularities in the preparation and certification of account calculations including misleading the higher authorities. Memo dated 15.05.2010 pertains to the allegations of misappropriation of funds of respondent No.2–Board; Memo dated 25.09.2021 relates to allegations of illegalities committed in registration of certain houses and other connected malpractices; whereas Memo dated 07.01.2025 contains charges of negligence, carelessness and irregularities in the preparation and certification of account calculations including misleading the higher authorities. These proceedings, involving serious allegations such as forgery, cheating, fraud and irregularities in the registration of houses during the petitioner’s tenure in Nizamabad Division, apart from negligence in preparation of account calculation sheets, have remained pending for several years and were duly placed before the Screening Committee, which upon evaluation of the material, categorised them as grave in nature. 8. In view of the pendency of grave charges, the Committee concluded that the petitioner’s case could not come within the ambit of G.O. Ms. No.257 dated 10.06.1999, which expressly excludes consideration of employees, who are facing grave charges involving embezzlement, fraud or other serious misconduct. Consequently, the petitioner’s candidature for promotion to the post of Assistant Estate Officer was deferred on justified administrative grounds. It is well settled that an employee does not acquire a vested right to promotion, but only a right to be considered in accordance with the Rules governing the field; and where the competent authority, on an objective assessment of pending disciplinary proceedings, records a conclusion that the allegations are grave, such assessment ordinarily warrants no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. It is to be noted that the delay in the disciplinary proceedings is not due to any deliberate or unfair action by the respondents. The allegations against the petitioner involve serious matters including misuse of funds and fraudulent registration of properties, which required the authorities to act cautiously. Moreover, the petitioner’s contention to draw parity with other employees such as R.Bhona, M.Padma, G.Bhagyalaxmi, M.Bhaskar and Mohd. Faheem, is wholly misconceived. As contended by the respondents, each of those cases stands on an entirely different footing, either the charges were not grave or only show-cause notices were issued or specific directions had been issued by this Court requiring consideration or the Committee had independently found that the allegations did not involve embezzlement or fraud. Further, the petitioner alone continues to face multiple grave charges, two of which pertain to forgery and fraudulent transactions. Further, the petitioner alone continues to face multiple grave charges, two of which pertain to forgery and fraudulent transactions. Thus, the doctrine of equality cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality or to compel the authorities to extend an erroneous benefit. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the matter appears to have been carefully examined by the competent authorities with due regard to the relevant Rules and the nature of the pending charges. On a holistic assessment of the material placed on record, it is evident that the deferment of the petitioner’s candidature for promotion reflects a reasoned and cautious administrative approach rather than any arbitrariness or unfairness. It was also brought to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing that the petitioner had retired from service and, therefore, no effective relief with regard to promotion can be granted at this stage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.