Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 609 (TS)

A. Sudhir v. State of Telangana

2025-05-02

PULLA KARTHIK

body2025
ORDER : (PULLA KARTHIK, J.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief : “… declaring the action of the Official Respondents more particularly the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in finalizing the Provisional Seniority List of Senior Assistants of Rangareddy District in pursuance of Proceedings in File in Lr.No.A1/2328/2024, dated 06.11.2024, in order to finalize the said Seniority List of Senior Assistants of Ranga Reddy District, without considering the objections as arbitrary, ex-facie illegal, discriminatory, highhanded, by giving colourable of exercise to their statutory powers and against the principles of equity guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently may direct the Official Respondents more particularly the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 to consider the Petitioner’s objections dt.08-11-2024 including finalizing the Provisional Seniority List of Senior Assistants of Rangareddy District by considering the regularization date as promotion date instead of adhoc promotion date as their regular promotion date in the cadre of Senior Assistants for finalizing the Seniority List for considering Promotion to the cadre of Naib Tahsildar, in the Interest of Justice ….” 2) Heard Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6, and Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 21. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner worked as Village Revenue Officer (VRO) and thereafter promoted as Senior Assistant on 15.06.2017 in respondent No.4 office. Though, he is fully qualified for promotion for the post of Senior Assistant, he was not considered either for adhoc promotion or regular promotion before 10.10.2016 and was considered for regular promotion on 15.06.2017 whereas the case of respondent Nos.7 to 21 was considered for adhoc promotion and the same affected the seniority of the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that respondent No.6 has given adhoc promotion to all the Junior Assistants subject to acquiring the qualification of Revenue Examination of Survey Training. But, some of the candidates including the unofficial respondents herein have not cleared the required qualification of Survey Training on the requisite date, besides some of them who have appeared in the said examination were also failed. But, some of the candidates including the unofficial respondents herein have not cleared the required qualification of Survey Training on the requisite date, besides some of them who have appeared in the said examination were also failed. It is further submitted that originally, some of the unofficial respondents herein including other candidates were initially appointed as Junior Assistants after getting selection through Group-IV services and allotted to their respective Districts, which are now included in Zone-6 and 7. Consequently, they were appointed to the said post w.e.f.01.07.2013. Further, some of the unofficial respondents herein were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant as per Rule 10(b) of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, by respondent No.6, vide order dated 10.10.2016, on adhoc basis with specific conditions that services of the promotees in the cadre of senior assistant will not be counted for seniority till acquisition of requisite qualifications i.e. pass of survey training examination. Further, it is a well settled proposition of law that the adhoc promotions are considered where exigencies of public service insists such arrangements and even consideration of seniority do not enter into it. The incumbents continue to hold their substantive lower post and only discharges the duties of the higher post essentially as a stop-gap arrangement, and the unofficial respondents cannot seek any seniority on such service. Therefore, the plea of the respondents to consider date of adhoc promotion instead of regularization date is contrary to law and settled legal proposition. Learned counsel has further contended that the probation of the unofficial respondents was commenced as and when they joined into the post in accordance with Rules otherwise than under Rule 10 by direct recruitment only. Hence, the unofficial respondents who are appointed under Rule 10(b) i.e. on adhoc promotion are nothing to do with Rule 16 (i) (ii) (iii) (e). Therefore, the request of the unofficial respondents to commence their probation from the date of joining is contrary to law. It is further contended that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have prepared the provisional seniority list inviting the objections vide file in Lr. No.A1/2328/2024, dated 06.11.2024, by incorporating the names of some of the unofficial respondents pertaining to Ranga Reddy District by considering them as per the date of their adhoc promotions instead of considering their regularization date. It is further contended that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have prepared the provisional seniority list inviting the objections vide file in Lr. No.A1/2328/2024, dated 06.11.2024, by incorporating the names of some of the unofficial respondents pertaining to Ranga Reddy District by considering them as per the date of their adhoc promotions instead of considering their regularization date. It is further submitted that the unofficial respondents and other similarly situated persons have filed three writ petitions before this Court which are circumventing the right of deserving Senior Assistants including the petitioner herein whose seniority is on par with their seniority. Therefore, on 08.11.2024 petitioner raised objections before respondent No.4 duly opposing the said provisional seniority list stating that since the names of some of the unofficial respondents and others are being considered on adhoc basis rather than on their date of regularization, the same is affecting the seniority of the petitioner. Therefore, the action of respondents 1 to 6, more particularly respondents 3 and 4, in finalizing the provisional seniority list of Senior Assistants in Ranga Reddy District in pursuance to proceedings dated 06.11.2024 without considering the objections of the petitioner, is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, high handed, colourable exercise of statutory powers and against the principles of equity guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on: 4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader, while admitting the fact that the petitioner was appointed as VRO in erstwhile Mahabubnagar District, in the year 2002, has submitted that though the petitioner has passed all the tests, she was not promoted by Mahabubnagar District Administration. It is further contended that the provisional seniority list of Senior Assistants of Ranga Reddy District was published on 06.11.2024 calling objections duly giving three days time. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner has filed objections on 08.11.2024. It is further submitted that as per the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28040 of 2023 & batch, the respondents have considered the adhoc promotions date for fixing the seniority of the writ petitioners therein only. Further, in the promotion order issued under Rule 10(b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, to the unofficial respondents by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, vide proceedings dated 10.10.2016, it was clearly mentioned that their service will be counted from the date of passing of survey training test. Further, in the promotion order issued under Rule 10(b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, to the unofficial respondents by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, vide proceedings dated 10.10.2016, it was clearly mentioned that their service will be counted from the date of passing of survey training test. Further, the persons considered for promotion as per above clause (1), they should not be posted as senior assistants at field level jobs such as Revenue Inspectors and they can be posted to do office work in the Collectorates, Revenue Divisional Offices and Mandal Revenue offices until they complete the survey training. Thereafter, they can be given regular field level posts. Further, in the year order it was clearly mentioned that all temporary appointments are on purely temporary basis and will not be regarded as qualifying service for regularization as senior assistant and will not be counted towards service as senior assistants. Therefore, the services rendered in the cadre of senior assistants will not be counted for seniority till acquisition of requisite passing of survey training examination and the services of unofficial respondents were rightly regularized on 13.062017 by respondent No.6 only after they acquired the requisite qualification of Survey Training. Therefore, it is prayed to pass appropriate orders in the present writ petition. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents has submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed firstly on the ground that the petitioner is challenging the provisional seniority list even before finalization of the same, as per Rules. Further, the petitioner has not passed the requisite departmental tests for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. Therefore, he is not entitled either for seniority or promotion. Further, the petitioner belongs to VRO category and promoted as Senior Assistant under VRO quota only based on his eligibility and availability of vacancies from the feeder category of VRO on 15.06.2017 i.e., long after promotion of unofficial respondents to the post of Senior Assistant. Further, the unofficial respondents were recruited through Group-IV services by way of direct recruitment and passed all the requisite departmental tests and fully eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. Further, the unofficial respondents were recruited through Group-IV services by way of direct recruitment and passed all the requisite departmental tests and fully eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. Further, the petitioner has neither challenged the promotion order of unofficial respondents nor filed any representation/case for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and kept quiet all along and therefore now he cannot contend that his case was not considered prior to 15.06.2017 while considering the case of others. It is further contended that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the quota meant for VROs. Hence, he cannot raise hue about filling up of the posts of Senior Assistants from the feeder category of Junior Assistant and he is nothing to do with the said promotions, which are from the category of Junior Assistant. Earlier, the unofficial respondents have filed W.P.Nos.28040 of 2023 and 28764 and 27064 of 2024 wherein this Court granted interim orders directing the official respondents to count the temporary service rendered by the writ petitioners therein as was done in case of the similarly situated person Amgoth Jyothi @ A.Jyothi. However, the petitioner has not filed any application seeking to vacate the said interim orders in those writ petitions. Further, basing on the well settled principle of law that the last date of examination is the only criteria, the unofficial respondents are fully eligible and qualified as on the date of their promotion. Further, the seniority list in the category of Senior Assistants of Sangareddy District was finalized during the year 2023 itself and the same was forwarded to respondent No.3, who also included the names of unofficial respondents in Multi Zonal seniority list-II (Zone-VI Charminar zone) by rejecting the objections filed against the provisional seniority list. Further, as per the directions of this Court, the respondents have prepared the provisional seniority list dated 06.11.2024 duly inviting objections, to which, the petitioner herein had already filed objections on 08.11.2024 and therefore he ought to have waited till finalization seniority list instead of filing the present writ petition. Further, as per the directions of this Court, the respondents have prepared the provisional seniority list dated 06.11.2024 duly inviting objections, to which, the petitioner herein had already filed objections on 08.11.2024 and therefore he ought to have waited till finalization seniority list instead of filing the present writ petition. It is further contended that the official respondents earlier finalized seniority list during the year 2023 which was acted upon all along and effected promotions to the cadre of Naib Tahsildars including Amgoth Jyothi @ A.Jyothi who is similarly situated like the unofficial respondents herein by counting temporary service rendered by her in the category of senior assistant for the purpose of promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. Therefore, the unofficial respondents herein are also legally entitled for the same benefit. Further, it is the settled ratio by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the temporary service rendered by the employees is also to be counted for the purpose of seniority and promotion on the ground that there is no break in service. Learned counsel has further contended that the official respondents out to have considered seniority while sending the individuals for Survey Training, which the authorities failed to follow for the reasons best known to them. Further, the unofficial respondents were promoted as Senior Assistants with a precondition to pass the survey training within the period of probation of one year and accordingly they have completed the training within the stipulated time. It is further contended that the unofficial respondents were never provided the opportunity to complete the training and therefore they cannot be faulted with. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record. 7) As can be seen from the material on record as well as the arguments advanced by the parties, it is found that the petitioner has filed his objections on 08.11.2024 before respondent No.4 to the provisional seniority list vide Lr.No.A1/2328/2024, dated 06.11.2024. But, without considering the said objections, the respondents are taking steps to finalize the seniority list. 8) In view of the nature of grievance of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it would be suffice if respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner before finalizing the seniority list of senior assistants. 8) In view of the nature of grievance of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it would be suffice if respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner before finalizing the seniority list of senior assistants. 9) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the objections raised by the petitioner on 08.11.2024 before respondent No.4 before finalizing the seniority list of Senior Assistants of Ranga Reddy District. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.