Court holds that Model Code of Conduct cannot withhold promotion for employee not engaged in election duties or holding key position; Constitutional Court orders bind Executive even during election period.
In a significant judgment dated October 21, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Alapati Giridhar, ruled in favor of V. Polaiah, directing the State authorities to implement his promotion order to the post of Technical Assistant, notwithstanding the ongoing Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for Local Body Elections.
The petitioner, V. Polaiah, had earlier secured a favorable order from the High Court in W.P.No.7566 of 2026 dated September 21, 2026, which directed the authorities to consider his promotion after setting aside his reversion to a lower post. Pursuant to this, the competent authority issued a promotion order on October 14, 2026. However, the implementation was stalled by the 4th Respondent on grounds that the MCC, effective from October 14, 2026, imposed a ban on transfers and postings until the elections concluded.
The petitioner challenged the refusal to allow joining the promoted post, contending that the MCC should not apply to him as he was neither involved in election duties nor occupying a key position that could influence the election process. The Government Pleader conceded these facts but stated that the 4th Respondent acted under the impression that no postings or transfers could be effected without clearance from the State Election Commission.
Upon hearing, the Court emphasized that the earlier writ order directing the promotion did not impose any time constraints. More importantly, the Court observed that the MCC's restrictions on transfers and postings do not override judicial orders, especially when the employee is not engaged in election work or occupying a key post. The Court further held that even if the employee were involved in election-related duties or in key positions, the MCC would not preclude implementing promotion orders issued by constitutional courts. Therefore, seeking clearance from the State Election Commission was unnecessary in this context.
Justice Giridhar set aside the letter dated October 16, 2026, issued by the 4th Respondent refusing to implement the promotion and directed that the petitioner be allowed to join the post of Technical Assistant forthwith.
This judgment reinforces the principle that the Model Code of Conduct, while crucial for maintaining the sanctity of elections, cannot be used as a tool to override or delay judicial orders, especially those protecting the service rights of government employees. It reiterates the binding nature of constitutional court directions on the executive, even amidst election periods.
Bottom Line:
Service Law - Promotion order issued in compliance with High Court directions cannot be withheld on ground of Model Code of Conduct for local body elections, particularly when employee is neither on election duty nor holding a key position - Orders of Constitutional Courts bind the Executive even during Model Code of Conduct.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 14, Article 21, Constitution of India
V. Polaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (AP) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004061
