Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1257 (TS)

M. Shobha Rani v. Director of Industries

2025-10-17

PULLA KARTHIK

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring para 3 of the proceedings No.24/2020/62212/ 2926887/FD-16 dated 18.01.2025 is concerned i.e. posting the petitioner as Assistant Director of 3 rd respondent and consequential proceedings No.22-2025-Relieving Order/FD dated 26.03.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, mala-fide, unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential direction directing the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents to forthwith post the petitioner in the office of the 1 st respondent, if necessary replacing anyone of the party respondents i.e. Respondent No.4, 5 and 6 or alternatively direct the 1 st and 2 nd respondent to forthwith consider and post the petitioner in the office of the 1 st rest respondent as Assistant Director of Industries in the vacancy which will be available from 01.05.2025 due to retirement of Sri. Kondoju Chandrasekhar who is going to retire on 30.04.2025 and pass…” 2. Heard Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-III, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Superintendent in the office of respondent No.1, as per the seniority and by following the rule of reservation under Rule 22 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, respondent No.1 prepared a roster point cycle, wherein, the petitioner’s name was placed at Sl.No.16, while the names of the unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 6, were placed at Sl.Nos.19, 27 and 30, respectively. It is further submitted that in anticipation of promotion to the post of Assistant Director, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.1 on 15.01.2025, requesting to accommodate her in the office in the event of her promotion, as her husband is working as Principal in Government Degree College, Ibrahimpatnam. Further, the Departmental Promotion Committee, in its meeting held on 16.01.2025, recommended the petitioner’s name for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Industries, along with respondent Nos.4 to 6. Further, the Departmental Promotion Committee, in its meeting held on 16.01.2025, recommended the petitioner’s name for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Industries, along with respondent Nos.4 to 6. However, while effecting promotions, vide proceedings dated 18.01.2025, without considering the request of the petitioner, respondent No.1 posted the petitioner at the office of respondent No.3, while accommodating the unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the Head Office, even though they are juniors to the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 herein is a male officer working at Yadadri, who had no spouse grounds, whereas, the petitioner herein, being a woman employee, whose spouse is working at Hyderabad, was entitled for preferential treatment. As such, respondent No.1 ought to have accommodated her in the Head Office, duly considering representation dated 15.01.2025, instead, posted her in the office of respondent No.3, vide impugned proceedings dated 18.01.2025, which is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to submit her representations to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also the Chief Secretary to Government, on 24.01.2025, requesting to consider her case for posting in the office of respondent No.1 by modifying her transfer and posting order. However, since no action was taken thereon, the petitioner was left with no other option but to join the office of respondent No.3 on 27.03.2025, in pursuance of the relieving order issued by respondent No.1 on 26.03.2025. It is further submitted that one post of Assistant Director of Industries is vacant in the Head Office, due to the retirement of one Mr. Kondoju Chandrasekhar, on 30.04.2025. Despite the same, the petitioner’s request for posting at the Head Office has not been considered. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that in pursuance of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 16.01.2025, respondent No.1 issued orders to fill up the vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Director, in accordance with the administrative discretion. Accordingly, the petitioner herein was promoted and posted as Assistant Director in the office of respondent No.3, in an existing vacancy, vide proceedings dated 18.01.2025, and she was directed to report to duty within (15) days from the receipt of the said order. Accordingly, the petitioner herein was promoted and posted as Assistant Director in the office of respondent No.3, in an existing vacancy, vide proceedings dated 18.01.2025, and she was directed to report to duty within (15) days from the receipt of the said order. However, vide letter dated 03.02.2025, the petitioner herself relinquished the promotion posting, out of her own volition, and subsequently, vide letter dated 24.03.2025, conveyed that she regretted her earlier decision and thus, requested to be relieved to join duties as per the posting orders. In spite of relinquishing her promotion, respondent No.1 considered her request on humanitarian grounds, and relieved her from the duties of Superintendent on 26.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner joined duty as Assistant Director in the office of respondent No.3 on 27.03.2025. However, it is vehemently contended that the petitioner suppressed these material facts and filed the present writ petition 6. It is contended that the transfer and postings on promotion are a matter of administrative discretion of the employer/appointing authority, and the same are undertaken based on administrative requirements of each post, keeping the public interest in mind. It is further contended that the mere fact of the petitioner not getting a posting at her desired place does not amount to discrimination or arbitrariness, as no Government employee has any vested right to be posted at the posting of their choice. It is further submitted that consequent upon the retirement of Mr. Kondoju Chandrasekhar, on 30.04.2025, a vacancy arose, which was duly filled by an approved PHC (Woman) candidate vide posting orders dated 03.05.2025, and thus, there are no vacancies existing as on date. Further, there is a subsisting ban on general transfer of employees by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 31.07.2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner had served in the Head Office for more than twenty one years, and she cannot seek promotion on her own terms, and is bound by the administrative discretion exercised by the employer. Therefore, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned posting order dated 18.01.2025. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 7. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions/contentions urged by the learned counsel for respective parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Therefore, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned posting order dated 18.01.2025. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 7. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions/contentions urged by the learned counsel for respective parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Admittedly, while the petitioner was working as a Superintendent in the office of respondent No.1, she was promoted as Assistant Director of Industries vide proceedings dated 18.01.2025, and posted to the office of respondent No.3. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition by suppressing the material fact that she had herself voluntarily requested for relinquishment of promotion, vide letter dated 03.02.2025, and subsequently, expressed her regret over the earlier decision and requested to relieve her from the duties of Superintendent so as to enable her to join the promoted post. Thereafter, respondent No.1 considered her request and relieved her of her duties vide proceedings dated 26.03.2025, and accordingly, the petitioner reported for duty at the office of respondent No.3 on 27.03.2025. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, having accepted the benefit of her promotion, is estopped from selectively challenging the consequential posting order, and she cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate her promotion and posting order, at her own whims and fancies. 9. It is trite law in service jurisprudence that transfers and postings of Government employees are an incidence of service, based upon the administrative discretion of the employer, and no employee has a vested right to be continued or posted at a particular place of their choice. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments as well as by the various High Courts, Courts shall refrain to interfere with an administrative transfer/posting of an employee, unless mala fides are attributed to such transfer/posting or if such a transfer/posting is effected in lieu of a punishment. Admittedly, the petitioner herein had rendered her services at the office of respondent No.1 for over two decades, and according to the respondents, the petitioner has been promoted and posted in the office of respondent No.3, owing to the administrative requirements and public interest. Admittedly, the petitioner herein had rendered her services at the office of respondent No.1 for over two decades, and according to the respondents, the petitioner has been promoted and posted in the office of respondent No.3, owing to the administrative requirements and public interest. As such, the mere fact that the petitioner could not be accommodated at the Head Office does not constitute the impugned posting order as arbitrary or discriminatory, and no mala fides can be attributed to the respondents. 10. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned posting order dated 18.01.2025. As such, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.