Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1389 (TS)

Kaki Rama Krishna v. State of Telangana

2025-11-04

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri P. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The Petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under : “To issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the just claims of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Tahsildar on par with persons who were re-allotted during 2017 and 2018 to the same post without any justification or reasonable cause on the untenable ground that his selection to the post of Deputy Tahsildar was revised and re-allotted to State of A.P., in the Revised Selection List dated 10.05.2018 but continuing in the department as Deputy Tahsildar based on the orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.13605 of 2022, dated 16.03.2022 is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Fundamental Right for consideration of promotion at rightful time and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Tahsildar along with 2017 and 2018 Naib Tahsildars and to pass such other order…” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was originally selected and appointed as Cooperative Sub Registrar during March, 2005 pursuant to Advt.No.10/99. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Later, in the revised selection list published by the APPSC during the year 2017, the petitioner was selected to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, and joined in the said post in April, 2018. The services of the petitioner were regularized and probation was also declared in the said cadre. Later, in the revised selection list published by the APPSC during the year 2017, the petitioner was selected to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, and joined in the said post in April, 2018. The services of the petitioner were regularized and probation was also declared in the said cadre. It is further case of the petitioner that the Petitioner was not promoted to the post of Tahsildar on par with persons who were re-allotted during 2017 and 2018 to the same post without any justification on the ground that the petitioner’s selection to the post of Deputy Tahsildar was revised and re-allotted to the State of A.P., in the Revised Selection List dated 10.05.2018 but continuing in the department as Deputy Tahsildar based on the interim orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.13605 of 2022, dated 16.03.2022 and the said Writ Petition is pending disposal. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the promotion to the post of Tahsildar as per the petitioner’s seniority and eligibility. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD : (A) This Court passed interim orders dated 23.04.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in the present W.P.No.18433 of 2023 in favour of the petitioner observing as under: “Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the Notification No.10/99, the petitioner was appointed as Cooperative Sub Registrar during March, 2005. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Basing on the revised selection list published by the A.P. Public Service Commission during the year 2017, he was selected as Deputy Tahsildar and accordingly, he joined in the said post during April, 2018 and since then he has been working as such. Thereafter, his services were regularized in the said cadre and probation was also declared. Therefore, he is entitled for further promotion to the post of Tahsildar based on his seniority and eligibility. While so, the Public Service Commission has again revised the selection list, published the same on 10.05.2018 and in the said list, though the petitioner was selected to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, allotted to Zone II. Therefore, he is entitled for further promotion to the post of Tahsildar based on his seniority and eligibility. While so, the Public Service Commission has again revised the selection list, published the same on 10.05.2018 and in the said list, though the petitioner was selected to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, allotted to Zone II. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No.13605 of 2022 and this Court passed interim order on 16.03.2022, directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioner from the post he actually holding and continue him in such post, until further orders and the said writ petition is still pending. It is further stated that as per seniority, petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Tahsildar along with others, however, the respondents are not considering his case on the ground that he was re-allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh in 2018. It is further stated that in other departments viz., Commercial Tax and Cooperation Departments, except Revenue Department, the cases of similarly situated persons to that of petitioner viz., Mr.K.Satish, Mr. B. Narsi Reddy, Mr.B.Naga Raju and Mr. V.Buggappa were considered and were promoted to higher posts vide proceedings TS CCT's Ref.No.D2/285/2018, dated 26.03.2021. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Tahsildar on par with the above persons. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the interim order dated 06.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.15195 of 2023, wherein, this Court has considered the request of a similarly situated person and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector. Though the petitioner has specifically raised a plea that the cases of similarly situated persons were considered in other departments, no specific reply has been made in the counter affidavit. In view of the above, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Tahsildar, in accordance with law, as was done in the cases of similarly situated persons in other departments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSI ON 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order passed in favour of the petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in the present W.P.No.18433 of 2023 dated 23.04.2024 had not been implemented as on date. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSI ON 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order passed in favour of the petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in the present W.P.No.18433 of 2023 dated 23.04.2024 had not been implemented as on date. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under the similar circumstances, the respondents had considered the case of few employees and they had been promoted and therefore, the promotion of the petitioner cannot be withheld. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment dated 28.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.5325 of 2024 and also the Judgment dated 11.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.29945 of 2023 and contends that equality of treatment among the similarly situated employees is a fundamental mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and several employees who were selected pursuant to the same notification 10/99 had been promoted to the post of Tahsildar pending disposal of the writ petition filed by the respective parties. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further placed reliance on para 8 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition and contends that the Government as a model employer cannot take differential yardstick from department to department and therefore the request of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Tahsildar on par with persons who were re-allotted during 2017 and 2018 to the same post cannot be delayed any further and the claim of the petitioner needs to be considered. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in para ‘5’ of the counter affidavit contends that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in the present writ petition in view of the interim order of this Court dated 16.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.13605 of 2022 which is in force as on date. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that in pursuance to the interim orders granted in favour of the petitioner on 23.04.2024, in the present writ petition no orders have been passed as on date. This Court opines that the plea of the respondents that it is not feasible to promote the petitioner unless the orders dated 16.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.13605 of 2022 are vacated is baseless and not tenable. This Court opines that the plea of the respondents that it is not feasible to promote the petitioner unless the orders dated 16.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.13605 of 2022 are vacated is baseless and not tenable. This Court opines that the plea of the respondents that the petitioner is discharging the duties in Telangana State based on the stay orders dated 16.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.13605 of 2022 and on the said ground alone the case of the petitioner for consideration of promotion to the cadre of the Tahsildar cannot be rejected or delayed, and the same is very unreasonable and illogical. 9. TAKING INTO CONSI DERATI ON: A) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, B) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, C) The interim orders dated 23.04.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in the present W.P.No.18433 of 2023 (referred to and extracted above), D) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at paras 5 to 8 of the present Judgment, The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim orders and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Tahsildar, on par with the cases of similarly situated persons in other departments, in accordance to law, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.