Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 311 (TS)

N. Tirupathi Prakash Rao v. State of Telangana

2025-04-11

PULLA KARTHIK

body2025
ORDER : (PULLA KARTHIK, J.) Since the issue involved in these cases is inter-connected, there were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.No.29945 of 2023 is filed seeking the following relief : “…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Government Memo.No.13888/Ser.I/2023, dated 28-8-2023 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, non-application of mind and contrary to the law on the subject besides being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted to the said post during February, 2017 with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits and pass…” 3. Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri P. Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Deputy Tahsildar through the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in pursuance of Notification No.10/1999, and he joined duty as such on 09.03.2005. While so, as the Public Service Commission conducted the departmental tests belatedly, the petitioner could not pass the prescribed departmental tests within the prescribed time for declaration of his probation in the category of Deputy Tahsildar, and he had passed the said Departmental Tests belatedly on 30.11.2008 only due to a delay by the Public Service Commission in the conduct of said tests. Thereafter, in terms of Rule 16(h) of State and Subordinate Rules, 1996, his probation in the category of Deputy Tahsildar was declared w.e.f., 30.11.2008. Subsequently, after due consideration of his representation dated 22.02.2012, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.412 dated 21.03.2013, and ordered to relax the provisions of Rule 16(h) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in favour of the petitioner, and to declare that he shall be deemed to have completed his probation within the normal period of probation in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar from date of his joining, i.e., 09.03.2005. 5. 5. It was further submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Tahsildar on 04.11.2013, and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.39, Revenue Department, dated 20.01.2018, assigning notional seniority to the petitioner in the category of Tahsildar by relaxing Rule 33-A of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, duly directing to place the petitioner’s name above Mr. S. Ramesh Babu (Sl.No.11) and below Mr. K. Rajendra Kumar (Sl.No.10). Accordingly, the petitioner was assigned notional seniority in the cadre of Tahsildar, w.e.f., 01.09.2008 in the revised panel year 2008-09. Further, the petitioner is the senior-most employee in the category of Tahsildar, and therefore, he is entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector, as his junior, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, was already promoted to the said post vide G.O.Ms.No.106 dated 15.02.2017. Therefore, since the Government has already assigned notional seniority to the petitioner in the category of Tahsildar w.e.f., 01.09.2008, he is entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on par with his junior, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, w.e.f., 15.02.2017. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 on 31.01.2018, requesting to consider his case promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on par with his junior, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, w.e.f., 15.02.2017, and as the respondents have not taken any decision on the representation, he filed W.P.No.12844 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of on 28.04.2023, directing respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 31.01.2018 within eight weeks. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.1 passed the present impugned order vide Memo dated 28.08.2023, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, and the same is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and without proper application of mind. 6. It was further submitted that either as on the date of promotion of his junior i.e., 15.02.2017, or even as on the date of his representation for promotion i.e., 31.01.2018, neither any criminal case nor any disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is legally eligible for promotion to the post Deputy Collector on par with his junior, w.e.f., 15.02.2017. However, while the petitioner was working as Tahsildar, a criminal case was registered by the ACB authorities vide FIR No.15/RCO/ACB-KMM/19 dated 30.10.2019, but even as of date, despite a lapse of more than five and a half years, no charge sheet has been filed so far. However, while the petitioner was working as Tahsildar, a criminal case was registered by the ACB authorities vide FIR No.15/RCO/ACB-KMM/19 dated 30.10.2019, but even as of date, despite a lapse of more than five and a half years, no charge sheet has been filed so far. The said ACB case was registered, alleging that the officials of the office of Tahsil, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District, were indulging in corrupt activities and issued passbooks pertaining to the ceiling land by taking bribe from the applicants and committing irregularities in their routine duties. However, as on the date of registration of the ACB case, the petitioner was not working in the said place, i.e., Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District, as he was already transferred to Bhadradri Kothagudem District vide proceedings dated 18.10.2018 itself. 7. It was further submitted that the petitioner has been continuing in the Revenue Department for the last 18 years in various categories and is presently holding the post of Tahsildar w.e.f., 04.11.2013, and the orders of his re-allotment to another Department i.e., Selection List dated 10.05.2018, was already stayed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2021 in W.P.No.22894 of 2021. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for promotion/notional promotion to the post of Deputy Collector as long as he is continuing in the present Department, subject to the outcome of the writ petition relating to the pendency of his re-allotment to another Department. As such, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for a rightful promotion, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this Court to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2023. 8. It was further submitted that a similar benefit of promotion to the higher cadre was extended in other Departments after publication of the Selection List dated 10.05.2018. The Commissioner of State Tax, Telangana, issued proceedings dated 26.03.2021, duly promoting certain Deputy Commercial Tax Officers of Zones-V and VI to the post of Commercial Tax Officer on temporary/adhoc basis. Pursuant to the same, Mr. K. Satish, Mr. B. Narsi Reddy, Mr. B. Naga Raju and Mr. The Commissioner of State Tax, Telangana, issued proceedings dated 26.03.2021, duly promoting certain Deputy Commercial Tax Officers of Zones-V and VI to the post of Commercial Tax Officer on temporary/adhoc basis. Pursuant to the same, Mr. K. Satish, Mr. B. Narsi Reddy, Mr. B. Naga Raju and Mr. V. Buggappa, who were also selected in pursuance of Notification No.10/1999, but re-allotted to other Departments by virtue of the Selection List dated 10.05.2018, were retained in the same Department. Pursuant to the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, they were also considered for promotion, pending disposal of the writ petition. Further, in the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, the Commissioner for Panchayat Raj issued proceedings No.2569/CPR&RE/ E1/2018-1 dated 31.05.2018, promoting Mr. N. Veeresham and Mr. Ramulu Naik, from the cadre of Extension Officer to Mandal Parishad Development Officer. Similarly, the Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.18, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, dated 30.03.2021, promoting Mr. K. Simhachalam from the cadre of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies to Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, although he was allotted to some other Department by virtue of the Selection List dated 10.05.2018. Likewise, Mr. Titus Paul Kordala and Mr. Praveen Kumar Pallavi, who were working as Assistant Registrars in the same Department were also not disturbed irrespective of their allotment to some other department by virtue of the Selection List dated 10.05.2018, and they were retained as Assistant Registrars in the same Department, i.e., Revenue Department, as per the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 31.08.2021 in W.P.Nos.20191 and 20343 of 2021 respectively. They were also promoted to the cadre of Deputy Registrars after the publication of the Selection List dated 10.05.2018. As such, the petitioner, who also stands on the same footing as the above individuals, cannot be denied promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on the ground of his re- allotment to the Commercial Tax Department, which was already stayed by this Court. Therefore, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector vide impugned order dated 28.08.2023 is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it was once again prayed to allow the present writ petition. 9. Therefore, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector vide impugned order dated 28.08.2023 is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it was once again prayed to allow the present writ petition. 9. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, while admitting the fact that the petitioner commenced his probation in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar w.e.f., 09.03.2005, submitted that the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.412 dated 21.03.2013, relaxing the condition of Rule 16(h) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in favour of the petitioner, and also issued G.O.Rt.No.39 dated 20.01.2018, relaxing the general Rule 33-A in favour of the petitioner, duly placing him above the name of Mr. S. Ramesh Babu (Sl.No.11) and below the name of Mr. K. Rajendra Kumar (Sl.No.10), and also fixed his seniority in the cadre of Tahsildar notionally vide CCLA’s Proceedings No.SER.II(2)/1119/2016 dated 17.02.2018, but the said Mr. S. Ramesh Babu was promoted to the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2017. It was further submitted that by the time of promoting Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, the petitioner’s name was not included on par with his juniors in the cadre of Tahsildar, as the order of relaxing the general Rule 33-A in respect of the petitioner was issued on 20.01.2018 only. 10. It was further submitted that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner on 30.10.2019 by the ACB authorities for the offences punishable under Sections 7 (a) and (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the allegation of corruption and other irregularities in assigning the Government land, and the said case is still pending. As such, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.02.2020, and subsequently, he was reinstated into service on 06.04.2023, and was allotted to Suryapet District. It was further submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Deputy Tahsildar in pursuance of the recruitment for Group-II services vide Notification No.10/1999. As such, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.02.2020, and subsequently, he was reinstated into service on 06.04.2023, and was allotted to Suryapet District. It was further submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Deputy Tahsildar in pursuance of the recruitment for Group-II services vide Notification No.10/1999. Subsequently, after the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Selection List dated 10.05.2018 was published by the Public Service Commission, whereby, the petitioner has been allotted to Commercial Tax Department in the cadre of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, but the petitioner is continuing in the Revenue Department only because of the interim order of this Court dated 23.09.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.22894 of 2021. Therefore, since an ACB case is pending against the petitioner and also in view of the fact that he was allotted to the Commercial Tax Department by virtue of the Selection List dated 10.05.2018, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector. 11. It was further submitted that the other Tahsildars who are on similar footing as that of the petitioner herein, who were allotted to other Departments due to revision of the seniority as per the Hon’ble Apex Court orders in C.A.No.5099/2006 and continuing in the Revenue Department on the stay orders of this Court, have also not been considered for promotion to the category of Deputy Collector. Further, no promotions to the category Deputy Collector have been effected from 2017 to June 2023 and while effecting promotions to the category of 1 0 Deputy Collector, the Government has taken the petitioner’s case into consideration and rightly deferred his claim vide impugned order dated 28.08.2023. Thus, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 12. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. 13. As can be seen from the record, the petitioner’s probation in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar was duly declared with retrospective effect from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 09.03.2005, pursuant to the orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.412 dated 21.03.2013, relaxing Rule 16(h) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in favour of the petitioner. 13. As can be seen from the record, the petitioner’s probation in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar was duly declared with retrospective effect from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 09.03.2005, pursuant to the orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.412 dated 21.03.2013, relaxing Rule 16(h) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.39 dated 20.01.2018, had relaxed Rule 33-A of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, thereby, assigning notional seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Tahsildar, duly placing his name above Mr. S. Ramesh Babu (Sl.No.11) and below Mr. K. Rajendra Kumar (Sl.No.10) in the seniority list. As a result, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu became junior to the petitioner. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner’s seniority in the cadre of Tahsildar was fixed in the panel year 2008-09, and his name was placed at Sl.No.10/1 in the seniority list, i.e., above Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, who was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector on 15.02.2017. Further, a perusal of the proceedings of respondent No.2 dated 13.04.2018 reveals that 82 Tahsildars/City List Superintendents/Section Officers, were given adhoc promotions to the cadre of Deputy Collector vide G.O.s dated 15.02.2017, by which date, the case of the petitioner for promotion was also under consideration. In the said circumstances, the respondents are duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner and promoted him on par with his batchmates. However, his case was unreasonably deferred, and subsequently, an ACB case was registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.15/RCO/ACB-KMM/19 dated 30.10.2019. 15. As can be seen from the impugned rejection order dated 28.08.2023, the case of the petitioner for promotion was rejected primarily on two following grounds: “I) ACB case is still pending, II) He was selected as ACTO and allotted to Zone-VI. He is continuing as Tahsildar on stay orders. As and when the stay is vacated, he needs to join as ACTO in Commercial Taxes Department.” 16. As regards the first ground, it is pertinent to note that the ACB case was registered on 30.10.2019, which was subsequent to the date of promotion of the 82 candidates, including the junior of the petitioner, 1 2 Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, i.e., 15.02.2017. Therefore, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion citing the said ground. S. Ramesh Babu, i.e., 15.02.2017. Therefore, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion citing the said ground. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Degala Suryanaraya v. Bank of India , (1999) 5 SCC 762 categorically held that the promotions cannot be withheld on the basis of the departmental or criminal proceedings initiated subsequent to the date on which the candidate was considered for promotion. The relevant excerpt of the said decision is extracted hereunder: “14. However, the matter as to promotion stands on a different footing and the judgments of the High Court have to be sustained. The sealed cover procedure is now a well- established concept in service jurisprudence. The procedure is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him and hence the findings as to his entitlement to the service benefit of promotion, increment etc. are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over (see Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman SCC at pp. 114-115 : AIR at p. 2013). As on 1-1-1986 the only proceedings pending against the respondent were the criminal proceedings which ended in acquittal of the respondent wiping out with retrospective effect the adverse consequences, if any, flowing from the pendency thereof. The departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated with the delivery of the charge-sheet on 3-12-1991. In the year 1986-87 when the respondent became due for promotion and when the Promotion Committee held its proceedings, there were no departmental enquiry proceedings pending against the respondent. The sealed cover procedure could not have been resorted to nor could the promotion in the year 1986-87 be withheld for the DE proceedings initiated at the fag end of the year 1991. The High Court was therefore right in directing the promotion to be given effect to to which the respondent was found entitled as on 1-1- 1986. In the facts and circumstances, the order of punishment made in the year 1995 cannot deprive the respondent of the benefit of the promotion earned on 1-1-1986.” 17. Similarly, in Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh , (2000) 7 SCC 210 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “5. In the facts and circumstances, the order of punishment made in the year 1995 cannot deprive the respondent of the benefit of the promotion earned on 1-1-1986.” 17. Similarly, in Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh , (2000) 7 SCC 210 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “5. The right to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, provided a person is eligible and is in the zone of consideration. The sealed cover procedure permits the question of his promotion to be kept in abeyance till the result of any pending disciplinary inquiry. But the findings of the disciplinary inquiry exonerating the officer would have to be given effect to as they obviously relate back to the date on which the charges are framed. If the disciplinary inquiry ended in his favour, it is as if the officer had not been subjected to any disciplinary inquiry. The sealed cover procedure was envisaged under the rules to give benefit of any assessment made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in favour of such an officer, if he had been found fit for promotion and if he was later exonerated in the disciplinary inquiry which was pending at the time when DPC met. The mere fact that by the time the disciplinary proceedings in the first inquiry ended in his favour and by the time the sealed cover was opened to give effect to it, another departmental enquiry was started by the Department, would not, in our view, come in the way of giving him the benefit of the assessment by the first Departmental Promotion Committee in his favour in the anterior selection. There is, therefore, no question of referring the matter to a larger Bench.” 18. Admittedly, despite a lapse of six years of registration of the FIR in the ACB case, till date, no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner, which indicates an unwarranted delay the part of the authorities, and thus, the petitioner cannot be penalized for such administrative lapses. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the action of the respondents in denying him promotion on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, which was registered subsequent to the date of promotion of his juniors, i.e., 15.02.2017, is unsustainable in the eye of law. 19. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the action of the respondents in denying him promotion on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, which was registered subsequent to the date of promotion of his juniors, i.e., 15.02.2017, is unsustainable in the eye of law. 19. Insofar as the second ground for rejection is concerned, it is evident from the record that the petitioner was allotted to the Commercial Tax Department in the cadre of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer by virtue of the Selection List dated 10.05.2018. However, as can be seen from the record, this Court, vide order dated 23.07.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.22894 of 2021, directed the respondents not to disturb the petitioners from the post they are actually holding and also directed to continue them in the said post until further orders. The said writ petition is pending adjudication. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner has been continued to work as Tahsildar in the Revenue Department only. As long as the petitioner is continuing in the Revenue Department, the respondents cannot deprive him of a promotion to next higher cadre. 20. Here it is to be noted that the petitioner averred in his reply affidavit that in identical circumstances, the respondents themselves have accorded promotions to the similarly situated employees. The officers who were re-allotted to various other departments by virtue of the Selection List dated 10.05.2018 were continued in their respective parent departments and were also given promotions in the same departments. In the Commercial Taxes Department, some of the officers, viz., Mr. K. Satish, Mr. B. Narsi Reddy, Mr. B. Naga Raju, and Mr. V. Buggappa, despite being allotted to different zones, were promoted to the next higher cadre. Similarly, in the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Agriculture Departments, Mr. N. Veeresham, Mr. Ramulu Naik, Mr. K. Simhachalam, Mr. Titus Paul Kordala, and Mr. Praveen Kumar Pallavi, were all promoted to the next higher cadres in their existing departments, pending final decision on their re-allotment. 21. In view of the above, it is quite clear that the case of the petitioner also stands on identical footing, and therefore, the action of the respondents in denying to extend a similar benefit to the petitioner amounts to discrimination and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. 21. In view of the above, it is quite clear that the case of the petitioner also stands on identical footing, and therefore, the action of the respondents in denying to extend a similar benefit to the petitioner amounts to discrimination and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Union of India v. Munshi Ram , [2022 SCC OnLine 1493] reiterated that equality of treatment among the similarly situated employees is a fundamental mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and the relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder: “56. It cannot be disputed that employees working in different divisions/zones in the Railways are under the very same employer - Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways. There are 16 Zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees working under the same employer - Railway Board working in different Zones/Divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment. As rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, there cannot be any discrimination inter se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of parity, the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to all the similarly situated Commission Vendors/Bearers working under different Zones/Divisions. There cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees - Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer.” 23. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is fully eligible and entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector w.e.f., 15.02.2017, i.e., the date of promotion of his juniors, and the respondents ought not to have rejected his claim for promotion. Therefore, the impugned rejection order is unsustainable in the eye of law, and thus, it is liable to be set aside. 24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned rejection order vide Memo.No.13888/Ser.I/2023 dated 28.08.2023 issued by respondent No.1, and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector, forthwith. 25. 24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned rejection order vide Memo.No.13888/Ser.I/2023 dated 28.08.2023 issued by respondent No.1, and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector, forthwith. 25. Insofar as the Contempt Case, C.C.No.1243 of 2024 is concerned, the same is filed by the petitioner seeking to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings against the respondents for deliberate and intentional violation of the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.29945 of 2023 dated 24.04.2024. 26. In view of passing the final orders in the main writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.29945 of 2023, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the contempt case. 27. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition and contempt case, shall stand closed. No costs.