Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 632 (TS)

P. Srinivas Babu Bobbili v. State of Telangana

2025-05-02

PULLA KARTHIK

body2025
ORDER : PULLA KARTHIK, J. Since the lis in these writ petitions is inter-connected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2.1. W.P.No.27060 of 2017 is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an order or direction Or Writ, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring impugned orders issued by the 2 nd respondent vide Proc.Rc.No.262/A2/DAE/TS/2014 dated 26-08-2015 fixing the seniority of the unofficial respondent over and above me as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the provisions of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Courts and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same so far as the unofficial respondent and the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner over and above the unofficial respondent with all consequential benefits and pass…” 2.2. W.P.No.39287 of 2018 is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in promoting the unofficial third respondent as Assistant Project Officer vide Procs. Rc.No.771/A2/DAE/TS/2014-1 dated 30.08.2018 of the Director of Adult Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad ignoring the seniority of the applicant as illegal, improper and violative of Rule 33(b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules and consequently hold that the petitioner is senior to the unofficial third respondent according to the order of arrangement indicated in the Government Memo No.2990/P&E-Prog.I/2010-2 dated 01.03.2012 as well as the proceedings issued by the Commissioner and Director of School Education in Rc. No. 684/D1-2/2012 dated 24.04.2012 and entitled for promotion as Asst. Project Officer from the date when the unofficial third respondent was promoted with all consequential benefits such as seniority, pay-fixation etc. and pass…” 2.3. No. 684/D1-2/2012 dated 24.04.2012 and entitled for promotion as Asst. Project Officer from the date when the unofficial third respondent was promoted with all consequential benefits such as seniority, pay-fixation etc. and pass…” 2.3. W.P.No.327 of 2022 is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the further action of the official respondents in contemplating further promotions of Project Officer and Dy Director in Adult education by ignoring the order of seniority of the supervisors appointed under the proceedings Commissioner of School Education in Rc.No.684/A1-2/2012 dated 24.04.2012 is arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to follow the same only while ignoring the seniority as finalized by the Director in contravention of the orders of the Commissioner and thereby consider the case of the Petitioner for further promotions by regulating his promotion as Asst Project officer wef the date on which his junior was promoted with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass…” 3. Heard Sri J. Nagaraja Rao, learned counsel, representing Smt. A.V.S. Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the official respondents, and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent (respondent No.3 in both W.P.Nos.27060 of 2017 and 39287 of 2018 & respondent No.4 in W.P.No.327 of 2022). 4. For the purpose of convenience, firstly, W.P.No.27060 of 2017 is adjudicated hereunder. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 22.06.1989, whereas, the unofficial respondents were appointed as such on 16.07.2002, thereby, making the petitioner senior to the unofficial W.P.No.327 of 2022 respondent in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher. While so, the petitioner and other Secondary Grade Teachers had requested the Government to appoint them as Supervisors in the Adult Education Department. The method of appointment for the post of Supervisor is prescribed under Rule 3 (ii) of the ad hoc Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.697 dated 18.07.1999. On considering the request of the petitioners and others, the Government, vide Memo dated 01.03.2012, permitted respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner, the unofficial respondents and two others, viz., Mr. M. Murali Mohan, SGT, P.S. Amsapalli Tanda, Kulcharama Mandal, Medak District and Mr. On considering the request of the petitioners and others, the Government, vide Memo dated 01.03.2012, permitted respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner, the unofficial respondents and two others, viz., Mr. M. Murali Mohan, SGT, P.S. Amsapalli Tanda, Kulcharama Mandal, Medak District and Mr. V. Narasimha Reddy, SGT, P.S. Munigadapa, Jagadevpur Mandal, Medak District, to the post of Supervisor in respondent No.2 Department by transfer, in relaxation of Rule 6 of the ad hoc Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 18.07.1999, as they have crossed the prescribed age limit of 45 years. Consequently, the Director of School Education, vide proceedings dated 24.04.2012, instructed the District Education Officer, Medak, to relieve the petitioner and the other aforesaid individuals. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 09.05.2012, appointing the above individuals by transfer in respondent No.2 Department as Supervisors. Subsequently, the W.P.No.327 of 2022 petitioner made a representation to the District Education Officer, Medak, on 10.05.2012, requesting to relieve him from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher so as to enable him to report before the Deputy Director of respondent No.2 Department, Ranga Reddy District. In pursuance of the same, the District Education Officer, Medak, permitted the Mandal Education Officer, Ramachandrapuram, to relieve the petitioner immediately, vide proceedings dated 11.05.2012. Consequently, the Mandal Education Officer, Ramachandrapuram, issued proceedings dated 14.05.2012, relieving the petitioner on the afternoon of 14.05.2012. Accordingly, the petitioner reported before the Deputy Director of respondent No.2 Department on the afternoon of 14.05.2012. However, the unofficial respondents, including the two other Teachers, reported to duty on 11.05.2012 itself. 6. It was further submitted that as per Rule 11 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, a person on appointment/ temporary appointment on ad hoc basis under Rule 10, including appointment by transfer or by promotion, otherwise than by direct recruitment shall be allowed joining time of fifteen days from the date of receipt of order of appointment. In the case of the petitioner, the appointment order was issued to him by respondent No.2 on W.P.No.327 of 2022 09.05.2012, and he joined duty on 14.05.2012, i.e., the date on which he was relieved by the competent authority. 7. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 issued a tentative seniority list of Supervisors in Zone-VI vide proceedings Rc.No.262/A2/DAE/TS/2014 dated 10.07.2015, wherein, the unofficial respondent and the two other individuals were shown as seniors to the petitioner. 7. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 issued a tentative seniority list of Supervisors in Zone-VI vide proceedings Rc.No.262/A2/DAE/TS/2014 dated 10.07.2015, wherein, the unofficial respondent and the two other individuals were shown as seniors to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 on 27.07.2015, stating that he was senior to the unofficial respondent and the other two individualsin the feeder category of Secondary Grade Teacher, and requested to fix his seniority over and above the unofficial respondents and the two other teachers. However, rejecting the request of the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued the final seniority list vide proceedings Rc.No.262/A2/DAE/TS/2014 dated 26.08.2015. Further, as per the Government Memo dated 01.03.2012, the four teachers, including the petitioner herein, were promoted to the post of Supervisors in the Adult Education Department, wherein, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1, whereas, unofficial respondent is shown at Sl.No.3. Therefore, it is submitted that when two or more persons are appointed simultaneously to a service, seniority shall be determined in accordance with the order of preference given in the W.P.No.327 of 2022 appointment order. Therefore, the impugned order vide proceedings Rc.No.262/A2/DAE/TS/2014 dated 26.08.2015, fixing the seniority to the unofficial respondent and two others, over and above the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the provisions of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it was prayed to allow the present writ petition. 8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services submits that no notification was issued by the Government calling for applications from the Secondary Grade Teachers for appointment by transfer as Supervisor in the Adult Education Department. It was only after consideration of the representation submitted by some of the Secondary Grade Teachers, requesting to appoint them by transfer as Supervisors in the Adult Education Department as per the provisions contained in the ad hoc Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.679, Education Department, dated 18.07.1979, the Government permitted respondent No.2 to affect such appointments. The applications received from different corners/ districts of the State have been considered by the Government in consultation with the Director of School Education and orders were issued to various batches of Secondary Grade Teachers in various G.Os. Hence, the order of serial number in the Government orders is not the criteria for fixation of the seniority. The applications received from different corners/ districts of the State have been considered by the Government in consultation with the Director of School Education and orders were issued to various batches of Secondary Grade Teachers in various G.Os. Hence, the order of serial number in the Government orders is not the criteria for fixation of the seniority. It was further submitted that the candidates have to accept their seniority from the dates of their joining as Supervisors in the Adult Education Department as they were appointed in the Department on their own request but not on administrative grounds, and after joining in the Adult Education Department, they cannot claim any seniority of the previous service, except from the date of their joining in respondent No.2 Department. The same was clearly mentioned in the appointment orders issued to them by the Government and the Director of Adult Education also. It was further submitted that the seniority list of Supervisors has been prepared as per Rule 35 (b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, duly taking their respective dates of joining into the Adult Education Department, into consideration, as they have been appointed by transfer at their own request only. Further, the petitioner had kept quiet for more than two years and filed the present writ petition challenging the seniority list dated 26.08.2015, without filing any statutory appeal under Rule 26 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is undisputedly clear that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 22.06.1989, whereas, the unofficial respondent was appointed in the same cadre only on 16.07.2002. Hence, there is no dispute as to the seniority of the individuals in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher. 10. As can be seen from the record, both the petitioner and the unofficial respondent, along with two other Secondary Grade Teachers, have submitted representations, seeking appointment by transfer to the post of Supervisor in the Adult Education Department. Hence, there is no dispute as to the seniority of the individuals in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher. 10. As can be seen from the record, both the petitioner and the unofficial respondent, along with two other Secondary Grade Teachers, have submitted representations, seeking appointment by transfer to the post of Supervisor in the Adult Education Department. Upon due consideration of their requests, the Government issued proceedings dated 01.03.2012, approving the appointments of the four individuals by transfer, in relaxation of Rule 6 of the ad hoc Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.679, Education Department, dated 18.07.1979, with a specific condition that they shall take the last rank in the category of Supervisors in the Adult Education Department. Here, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 3, which deals with Method of recruitment and Rule 6, which deals with the age, and the said Rules are extracted hereunder: “3. Method of recruitment: iii) By transfer from among the Officers holding posts on equal scale of pay in the Departments of School Education / Higher Education; … 6. Age: In respect of recruitment by transfer specified under methods (ii) and (iii) under rule 3 above the maximum age limit shall be 45 years of age as on the date of appointment. In respect of direct recruitment the candidates should have completed or shall complete 18 years of age and should not have completed or shall not complete 32 years of age as on the first day of July of the year in which recruitment is made.” 11. Consequently, the Commissioner of School Education permitted the Director of School Education to appoint by transfer the petitioner, unofficial respondent and two others, as Supervisors in the Adult Education Department, vide proceedings Rc.No.684/D1-2/2012 dated 24.04.2012, and instructed the District Education Officer to relieve them upon receipt of the specific posting orders. It was specifically mentioned therein that their lien in the parent department would stand terminated after three years, in terms of FR-14 (b), and they shall have no claim over the service rights in their parent department after completion of the said three years period. Pursuant to the same, the Director of Adult Education Department, vide proceedings dated 09.05.2012, issued orders appointing the said individuals by transfer in the post of Supervisor in the Adult Education Department. Pursuant to the same, the Director of Adult Education Department, vide proceedings dated 09.05.2012, issued orders appointing the said individuals by transfer in the post of Supervisor in the Adult Education Department. It is not in dispute that while the unofficial respondent joined duty on 11.05.2012, the petitioner reported to duty only on 14.05.2012. 12. Now the only issue arises for determination in the present writ petition is whether the seniority in the cadre of Supervisor in the Adult Education Department is to be fixed with reference to Rule 11 (b) or Rule 35 (b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. 13. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to Rules 11 and 35 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, which are extracted hereunder: “11. THE LIMIT FOR JOINING EITHER ON FIRST SELECTION OR ON PROMOTION OR ON APPOINTMENT BY TRANSFER:- (a) Direct recruitment:- A candidate selected for appointment by direct recruitment either through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or through any other agency, shall be required by the appointing authority to join in the post for which he has been selected within a period of 45 days taking the date of despatch (by registered post with acknowledgement due) of the appointment order as crucial date for reckoning the time limit. If he does not join the post within the stipulated period of 45 days, the offer of appointment shall be treated as automatically cancelled and the name of the candidate shall be deemed to have been omitted from the list of approved candidates. (b) Time to join a post an appointment, shall be allowed a joining time of 30 days, other wise than by direct recruitment, shall be allowed a joining time of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of appointment sent to the candidate by Registered Post with acknowledgement due or by any other means. Where a person fails to join the new post to which he is appointed within the said time limit or evades to join the post by proceeding on leave, he shall forfeit his right of appointment both for the present and in future for the post. 35. Where a person fails to join the new post to which he is appointed within the said time limit or evades to join the post by proceeding on leave, he shall forfeit his right of appointment both for the present and in future for the post. 35. FIXATION OF SENIORITY IN THE CASE OF TRANSFERS ON REQUEST OR ON ADMINISTRATIVE GROUNDS:- (a) The seniority of a member of a service, class or category transferred from one unit of appointment to another unit of appointment, on administrative grounds, shall be, determined with reference to the date of seniority of such member in the former unit. (b) The seniority of a member of a service, class or category, who is transferred on his own request from one unit of appointment to another unit of appointment shall be fixed with reference to the date of his joining duty in the latter unit of appointment.” (emphasis supplied) 14. From a bare reading of the above, it is evident that under Rule 35 (b), the date of joining duty is the determining criteria for fixing the inter se seniority among the employees appointed by way of transfer at their own request. Therefore, the said Rule 35 (b) squarely applies to the present case, since the transfer of the petitioner and the other individuals to the Adult Education Department was affected not on administrative exigencies, but at their own request. Further, the reliance placed by the petitioner on Rule 11 is unfounded, as the said Rule 11 (b) provides for thirty days of joining time for the appointments made under Rule 10, which pertains only to the compliance of the said appointment orders, but not the fixation of seniority. As such, Rule 11 (b) cannot override the specific provision of Rule 35 (b), which directly addresses the aspect of seniority of the individuals who are transferred at their own requests. 15. Further, the fact that the petitioner was senior in the category of Secondary Grade Teacher is irrelevant by virtue of Rule 35 (b), which governs the seniority in case of a transfer at the individual’s own request. Thus, it can be construed that the unofficial respondent, having joined duty three days prior to the petitioner, was rightly placed higher in the final seniority list dated 26.08.2015. 16. Thus, it can be construed that the unofficial respondent, having joined duty three days prior to the petitioner, was rightly placed higher in the final seniority list dated 26.08.2015. 16. The petitioner also contended that his name was placed at Sl.No.1 in the Government Memo dated 24.04.2012, and hence, claims seniority over and above the unofficial respondent and the other two individuals. However, this claim of the petitioner that the seniority must be determined in the order of placement of names in the Government Memo is untenable in law. It is a well-settled principle that mere placement by way of serial number in a Government order or Memo does not create a vested right of seniority, unless the order expressly states that the arrangement of the individuals is done on the basis of merit or seniority, which does not reflect in the present case. 17. Further, it is to be noted that the final seniority list was issued on 26.08.2015. However, instead of promptly challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2017, i.e., with a delay almost two years, for which, no reasons are assigned. Moreover, the present writ petition is filed without first availing the statutory remedy of appeal as available under Rule 26 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Therefore, this Court finds no justifiable reason to entertain the writ petition. 18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present case, and thus, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. Insofar as W.P.No.39287 of 2018 is concerned, it has been filed by the petitioner challenging the promotion of the unofficial respondent as Assistant Project Officer vide proceedings dated 30.08.2018 as illegal, improper and violative of Rule 33 (b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. 20. Here, it is relevant to refer to Rule 33 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, which is extracted hereunder: “33. Seniority: (b) The appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any other reason the order of preference among them, and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it.” 21. The above Rule applies to the cases where two or more individuals are appointed simultaneously to a service through a common process of direct recruitment or promotion, and where the order of placement in the appointment order determines seniority. As adjudicated by this Court in the earlier writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.27060 of 2017, the appointments were made not through a selection process, but were affected by transfer on the request of the individuals. Neither in the Government Memo dated 01.03.2012 nor in the appointment order dated 24.04.2012, it was mentioned that the order of placement of the individuals therein forms the basis for seniority. Moreover, it was categorically mentioned in the said orders that the appointees shall take the last rank in the category of Supervisors in the Adult Education Department. As such, Rule 33 (b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, has no application to the case on hand. 22. Therefore, the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 23. In W.P.No.327 of 2022, the petitioner, after his promotion as Assistant Project Officer, is challenging the action of the official respondents in considering the promotions to the posts of Project Officer and Deputy Director, claiming that his alleged seniority as per the order of placement in the proceedings dated 24.04.2012, is being ignored. 24. Since the issue of seniority has already been adjudicated and decided in the earlier writ petitions, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 25. For the aforementioned reasons, all the Writ Petitions are hereby dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No costs.