Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 674 (TS)

Ch. Ramulu v. State of Telangana

2025-05-14

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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the orders of the third respondent Rc.No. 1184/2020/M2-A, (S.O.No. 26/2021/M2-A) dated 12.07.2021 abruptly cancelling the promotions given to the petitioners on 17.11.2020 as Deputy Range Officers and reverting them as Forest Section Officers without following the procedure and rules, by declaring the said orders as arbitrary, vindictive, illegal, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Rules 23 and 24 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; to direct the respondentsto continue the petitioners as Deputy Range Officers and pass…” 2. Heard Sri S. Krishna Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 was initially appointed in respondent No.1 Department as a Forest Beat Officer on 18.12.1992 and was later promoted as Forest Section Officer on 02.06.2016, and petitioner No.2 was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 26.02.2013, but the said post was later converted as Forest Section Officer on 28.09.2016. As such, both the petitioners were shown at Sl.Nos.24 and 26 respectively in the seniority list of Forest Section Officers. It was further submitted that since some of the seniors of the petitioners, including those placed at Sl.Nos.8 and 9 in the seniority list, were facing disciplinary charges/ACB cases, respondent No.3 had taken up the case of the petitioners herein for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer during the panel year 2020-21, and called for their ACRs vide letter dated 16.10.2020. Consequently, after considering the credentials of the petitioners, respondent No.3 issued proceedings No.1184/2020/M2-A dated 17.11.2020, promoting the petitioners as Deputy Range Officers. Thereafter, the petitioners joined in the promoted post and their pay was fixed under FR 22 (B), and they were also shown at Sl.Nos.65 and 66 respectively in the seniority list of Deputy Range Officers. 4. It was further submitted that while the things stood thus, respondent No.3 issued the impugned orders vide proceedings Rc.No.1184/2020/M2-4 dated 12.07.2021 (served on the petitioners on 06.08.2021), abruptly cancelling the promotions given to them, without assigning any reasons for such cancellation. 4. It was further submitted that while the things stood thus, respondent No.3 issued the impugned orders vide proceedings Rc.No.1184/2020/M2-4 dated 12.07.2021 (served on the petitioners on 06.08.2021), abruptly cancelling the promotions given to them, without assigning any reasons for such cancellation. However, learned counsel contended that prior to the issuance of the impugned order, no notice was also issued to the petitioners. It was further contended that respondent No.3, who issued the promotion orders dated 17.11.2020, himself cannot review his order and cancel the promotions given to the petitioners. As per Rule 33 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the power to review and revise a promotion order lies with an appellate authority, that too, within a period of six months from the date of such promotion order. Therefore, respondent No.3 lacks jurisdiction and authority to issue the impugned orders. Further, since the statutory period/limitation period of six months has elapsed, even the appellate authority may not issue the reversion orders. It was further submitted that Rules 24 and 25 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, empowers the State Government to waive the period of six months mentioned in Rule 23 and review the promotions but it is mandated in the Rules that a notice should be given to the affected parties before exercising such a power. However, in the present case, no such notice was issued and no order, waiving the period of six months, was passed by the Government, before the issuance of the impugned orders of reversion. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned orders of reversion are untenable and are liable to be set aside. 5. It was further submitted that the two Forest Section Officers who are shown at Sl.Nos.8 and 9 in the Seniority List of Forest Section Officers were facing disciplinary proceedings/ACB cases, and thus, the case of the petitioners was considered for promotion as Deputy Range Officers during the panel year 2020-21. It is a well- settled proposition of law that if the disciplinary proceedings/ACB cases are pending against a person whose claims are deferred for promotion have to considered during the next panel year but not by reverting the persons who were already promoted in their places. It is a well- settled proposition of law that if the disciplinary proceedings/ACB cases are pending against a person whose claims are deferred for promotion have to considered during the next panel year but not by reverting the persons who were already promoted in their places. Therefore, the action of the respondents in reverting the petitioners and promoting the two Forest Section Officers, whose claims were earlier deferred on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, is unjustifiable and contrary to the legal propositions. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned reversion orders dated 12.07.2021. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.K. Durga Devi v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad and others , (1997) 11 SCC 91 . 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that due to a shortage of staff in the cadre of Deputy Range Officers during the panel year 2020-21, six Forest Section Officers, including the petitioners, were promoted under administrative exigencies, purely on ad hoc basis, after taking into account a clear vacancy and the five anticipated vacancies on account of retirement of staff upon attaining the age of superannuation as on 30.08.2021. Further, the main reason that necessitated the issuance of impugned reversion orders of the petitioners is that out of the five anticipated vacancies, due to retirement, only two vacancies actually arose before the orders of the Government, enhancing the age of retirement on superannuation from 58 years to 61 years. Therefore, there were no possibilities of retirements in the cadre of Deputy Range Officers in the panel year 2020-21. Hence, it is not possible to continue/regularize the services of the petitioners in the cadre of Deputy Range Officers, who were promoted purely on temporary and ad hoc basis. The three individuals who are seniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Forest Section Officer, standing at Sl.Nos.7, 9 and 17 in the approved panel year 2020-21, and who were overlooked for promotion during the panel years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, due to pendency of disciplinary cases in the V&E Department were exonerated from the charges. The three individuals who are seniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Forest Section Officer, standing at Sl.Nos.7, 9 and 17 in the approved panel year 2020-21, and who were overlooked for promotion during the panel years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, due to pendency of disciplinary cases in the V&E Department were exonerated from the charges. Therefore, the Government has finalized the V&E cases, and issued orders vide G.O.Rt.No.23 dated 19.02.2021, G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 22.12.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 09.12.2020, duly dropping the further action in disciplinary cases and all the three seniors to the petitioners are exonerated from the charges. Further, in the approved panel list of 2020-21, three senior individuals stood at Sl.Nos.7, 9 and 17 respectively, whereas, the petitioners herein stood at Sl.Nos.24 and 26 only. Hence, the said three individuals were considered for promotion with retrospective effect for the panel years, as per the Government orders communicated by respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 06.02.2021. Therefore, there is no other objective to the respondents in issuing the impugned reversion orders. It was further submitted that the case of the petitioners will be fairly considered for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Range Officer as and when the vacancies arise, as per their eligibility. 7. It was further submitted that Rules 23, 24 and 25 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, are related to the promotions issued on regular basis in regular vacancies. However, in the case of the petitioners, their promotions have been effected purely on ad hoc basis in view of the administrative exigencies, and in anticipation of retirement vacancies only, as and when the said retirement vacancies arise, the services of the petitioners on ad hoc basis will be regularized. However, due to non- availability of the retirement vacancies, the respondents are justified in issuing the present impugned reversion orders. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 8. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 9. Admittedly, while working as Forest Section Officers, the petitioners, who were at Sl.Nos.24 and 26, respectively, along with four other individuals, were promoted to the post of Deputy Range Officer vide proceedings of respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.1184/2020 dated 17.11.2020, with certain conditions, and condition Nos.1 to 5 read as under: “1. 9. Admittedly, while working as Forest Section Officers, the petitioners, who were at Sl.Nos.24 and 26, respectively, along with four other individuals, were promoted to the post of Deputy Range Officer vide proceedings of respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.1184/2020 dated 17.11.2020, with certain conditions, and condition Nos.1 to 5 read as under: “1. The above individuals are informed that their appointment by promotion to the cadre of Dy. Range Officers is on interim and ad hoc basis, subject to the conditions that they will not be entitled to any right to be placed on promotion etc., and they are liable to be reverted to the category of Forest Section Officers as and when the Dy. Range Officers those who are promoted as Forest Range Officers on ad hoc basis reports for duty on reversion as Dy. R.Os. etc. Further they have to abide to be reversion orders, in case of their reversion to the lower cadre i.e., Forest Section Officer and will not make any legal claims. They are directed to submit an undertaking in the format enclosed to this order on non-judicial stamped paper worth Rs.100/- (Rupees One hundred only) to the concerned District Forest Officer/Forest Divisional Officer, before they are relived from the present post, before they join at their place of posting without fail. 2. The promotion order is liable to be cancelled and they are liable for reversion as FSOs at any time without assigning any reasons and without any prior notice. 3. They shall not be regarded as probationers in the category of Dy. Range Officers or entitled by any reasons for any preferential claim for promotion. 4. They are informed that, the promotion now ordered is liable for review, revision or cancellation at any time without any notice and without assigning any reasons thereof. 5. They are informed that, they shall abide by any reversion to the lower cadre of Forest Section Officers and will not make any legal complications/claims.” 10. From the above, it is quite evident that the petitioners were promoted as Deputy Range Officers, not on a regular or permanent basis, but on an ad hoc and temporary basis, owing to the administrative exigencies. It is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that promotions affected on ad hoc or temporary basis do not confer a vested right for a regular promotion. It is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that promotions affected on ad hoc or temporary basis do not confer a vested right for a regular promotion. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were never placed under probation after their promotion to the cadre of Deputy Range Officers. Thus, it is clear that the Department never intended to grant regular promotions to the said cadre. 11. Further, the petitioners, having voluntarily accepted the above conditions, now cannot take a plea that the impugned reversion orders were issued without affording them any prior notice or opportunity of hearing. As such, the decision relied on by the petitioners is of no avail to them. 12. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioners were granted promotions in view of anticipation of vacancies likely to arise due to retirements scheduled during the panel year 2020–21. However, due to the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 to 61 years, the expected retirements did not occur. As such, it can be construed that the basis for the temporary promotions is no longer in existence. 13. Admittedly, the case of the petitioners was considered for promotion in view of their seniors facing disciplinary proceedings. In this regard, it is relevant to note that subsequent to the promotion of the petitioners, the charges against four employees of erstwhile Mahabubnagar District, including Mr. R. Jaidev, who stood at Sl.No.6 in the seniority list of Forest Section Officers, were dropped by the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 24.02.2020. Insofar as the employee at Sl.No.9, Mr. J. Bhaskarachary, is concerned, the Government has issued order vide G.O.Rt.No.23 dated 19.02.2021, dropping further action against the said individual and others. Thereafter, the Government has considered their cases for promotion as per respondent No.2 proceedings No.440-2021/EE.2/2021 dated 06.02.2021, and issued proceedings dated 10.08.2021, promoting them as Deputy Range Officers. 14. In view of the above made discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.