Operation Of Model Code Of Conduct For Local Body Elections Can't Impede Implementation Of Promotion: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that orders of constitutional courts bind the executive even during the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for elections.

It observed that the Model Code of Conduct cannot prevent the implementation of a promotion granted pursuant to a direction issued by the High Court.

The case arose from a petition challenging an Executive Engineer's refusal to implement an employee's promotion to the post of Technical Assistant, citing the Model Code of Conduct for local body elections.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alapati Giridhar observed:

“As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, the Writ Petitioner is neither doing any election work nor in a key position to attract the G.Os, which the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for Respondents Nos.1 to 4, is also fairly conceded. Thus, the 4th Respondent cannot rely on the Model Code of Conduct and issue the Letter dated 16.10.2026. Even if the Writ Petitioner falls in either of these categories, that he is doing any election work or he is in a key position, still the Model Code of Conduct does not come in the way since this promotion proceeding is issued in terms of the order of the WP No.7566 of 2026 dated 21.09.2026, and equally the question of clearance of the State Election Commission will not arise for effecting this promotion and posting, which is in terms of the order of this Court. The Orders of the Constitutional Courts bind the Executive even during the Model Code of Conduct.”

The dispute originated when the employee challenged his reversion to the post of Office Subordinate before the High Court. By an order dated September 21, 2026, the Court set aside the reversion and directed the authorities to consider his case for promotion to the post of Tracer (Technical Assistant) in accordance with the applicable rules.

Acting on this direction, the competent authority issued promotion proceedings on October 14, 2026, promoting the employee as Technical Assistant and posting him to the Roads and Buildings (R&B) Division at Ongole.

However, the Model Code of Conduct for local body elections also came into force on October 14, 2026.

Citing the restrictions on transfers and postings during the election process, the Executive Engineer, through a communication dated October 16, 2026, stated that the promotion proceedings could not be implemented until the Model Code of Conduct ended.

The employee subsequently approached the High Court, challenging the communication and seeking a direction to accept his joining report, submitted on October 16, 2026, and allow him to discharge duties as Technical Assistant.

He contended that the government orders and instructions relied upon by the Executive Engineer did not apply to him, as he was neither performing election duties nor occupying a key position covered by the restrictions.

The Government Pleader, appearing for the State authorities, conceded that the employee was neither holding a key position nor attending to election duties. However, the Government Pleader submitted that the Executive Engineer appeared to believe that transfers and postings required clearance from the State Election Commission, and left the issue to the Court.

After considering the submissions, the High Court noted that the promotion proceedings had been issued pursuant to its earlier direction. It held that the Executive Engineer could not rely on the Model Code of Conduct to refuse implementation of the promotion when the employee was neither performing election duties nor occupying a key position covered by the restrictions.

The Court further clarified that even if the employee had been performing election duties or holding a key position, the Model Code of Conduct would not prevent implementation of the promotion because it had been granted pursuant to the High Court's earlier order. Accordingly, clearance from the State Election Commission was not required.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Executive Engineer's communication refusing to implement the promotion, and directed him to allow the employee to join the promoted post in accordance with the promotion proceedings.