Telangana High Court
M. Nagaraju, vs State Of Telanagana, on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P. No.22926 OF 2019
% 06-01-2023
#M. Nagaraju
....petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home
Department, Secretariat , TS. Hyderabad and others
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : V. Ravichandran
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P for Services-I
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WP. No.22926 OF 2019
Between:
M. Nagaraju
....petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home
Department, Secretariat, T.S. Hyderabad & others
... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 06.01.2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.22926 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction, more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
duly setting aside the impugned Memo
No.18808/Ser.I/A2/2016 dated 24.06.2017 and the
consequential rejection order in Rc.No.513/E3/2018
dt.22.02.2019 issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents
respectively as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to
the provisions of Rule 6 of the T.S. State &
Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in
(2010) 4 SCC 290 and (2007) 9 SCC 743 and in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India, and that the petitioner is entitled to have his
case considered and be promoted as Reserve
Inspector (AR) in the panel year of 2014-15 with
benefits incidental thereto and consequently, direct
the 1st and 2nd respondents to include petitioner's
name over and above that of the 5th respondent in the
final seniority list of Reserve Inspectors (AR) working
in SAR CPL, Amberpet, Hyderabad, communicated
vide Memorandum Rc.No.513/E3/2018
4 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
dt.22.02.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and
pass....."
2. The petitioner contends that he was initially appointed on
15.07.2008 as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police (AR) in Special
Armed Reserve, Central Police Lines (hereinafter referred to as
'SAR CPL') in accordance with Rule. Though he is eligible for
promotion as Reserve Inspector during the panel year 2014-15,
he was promoted as Reserve Inspector on 25.10.2016.
Respondent No.5 was also initially appointed as Reserve-Sub-
Inspector of Police (AR) in SAR CPL in accordance with Rule 2 (a)
of Special Rules for the A.P Special Armed Police with effect from
15.07.2008 and he was promoted as Reserve Inspector on
25.10.2016. During the panel year 2014-15, the 5th respondent
was not eligible for promotion as he was under the currency of
punishment.
2.1 The petitioner further contended that as per the provisions
of Rule 6 of the T.S. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996
year-wise panels have to be prepared and cases of candidates
eligible during the respective panel years have to be considered
as per their eligibility and suitability. The Government of
Telangana, General Administration (Services-D) Department
5 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
dt.03.03.2015 has accorded permission to make promotions /
appointment by transfers involving promotions. Pursuant to the
said permission, the 3rd respondent vide Memo dt.23.03.2015
had called for Recommended Rolls, Nominal Rolls, Review Sheet
along with up-to-date Service Books for preparation of
promotion panel of Reserve Sub Inspector (hereinafter referred
to as "RSI") (AR) fit to act as Reserve Inspector (hereinafter
referred to as "RI") (AR) for the panel year 2014-15 and the 4th
respondent furnished the same to the 3rd respondent vide
proceedings dated 24.04.2015. The petitioner submitted a
representation to the 2nd respondent dated 08.06.2015 with a
request to consider his promotion to the post of Reserve
Inspector for the panel year 2014-15. But, he was promoted as
Reserve Inspector in 2015-16. The petitioner submitted another
representation to the 2nd respondent on 06.12.2016 stating that
to consider his claim for notional promotion in 2014-15. The
Government of Telangana vide impugned rejection memo
No.18808/Ser-I/A2/2016 dated 24.06.2017 decided that the
R.Is who were promoted in the year 2015-16 are not eligible for
notional promotion from the year 2014-15.
6 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
2.2 The petitioner further contended that the 2nd respondent
communicated the provisional seniority list of Reserve
Inspectors (AR) vide memo dated 18.12.2018 and the names of
the petitioner and respondent No.5 are shown at serial no. 5 and
serial no.4 respectively. The petitioner submitted objections
dated 16.02.2019 challenging the above said list and the 2nd
respondent in its Memorandum vide Rc.No.513/E3/2018 dated
22.2.2019 disposed of the objections by placing reliance on the
aforementioned Government Memo dt.24.06.2017. The 2nd
respondent further communicated the final seniority list of
Reserve Inspectors (AR) working in SAR CPL vide memorandum
Rc. No. 513/E3/2018 dated 22.02.2019 once again shows the
name of the petitioner below that of the 5th respondent.
Aggrieved by the impugned memo No.18808/Ser.I/A2/2016
dated 24.06.2017 issued by the 1st respondent and rejection
order in Rc. No.513/E3/2018 dated 22.02.2019 issued by the
2nd respondent; the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
3. Though the 5th respondent was duly served with the notice
of this petition, no appearance has been made by him or on his
behalf.
7 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
4. The 2nd respondent filed a counter stating that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the two impugned orders challenged in
this writ petition. Due to the re-organisation of the erstwhile
state of Andhra Pradesh and the creation of the new State of
Telangana, a general ban on all promotions has been imposed
vide G.O Rt. No. 2147 dated 16.05.2014 till the process of
allocation of employees to the successor States of Telangana and
Andhra Pradesh. The allocation of the state employees in the
applicable departments between the two states was due for final
preparation and communication from the Government of India.
That the promotions in SAR CPL, Hyderabad, relating to RSIs fit
to act as RIs were taken up after the final allocation order vide
No.20(4)(x)/2016 dt.29.08.2016. That the panel promotion for
the panel year 2014-15 was not prepared as the respondents did
not consider it necessary due to the ban on all promotions and
special circumstances of bifurcation of the erstwhile state of AP.
4.1 It is further contended by respondent No.2 that the
grievance of the Petitioner and others seeking notional
promotion for the panel year 2014-15 was communicated to the
Government and the Government rejected the same vide Memo
8 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
No.18808/Ser.I/A2/2016 dated 24.06.2017 with the reason that
no panel shall be prepared for a particular panel year after the
date of expiry of such panel year, for any reasons and such
vacancies which were not filled in the panel year for any reason
shall be considered for promotions during the next panel year as
per Rule 6 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. With
respect to the seniority of the 5th respondent, he was eligible for
promotion as of 01.09.2016 and is senior to the petitioner as per
the feeder category of the RSI (AR) as per the rules. Accordingly,
prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is
neither a case of non-availability of vacancies nor is a decision
taken not to fill up the vacancies and there cannot be an
arbitrary decision not to prepare panels, which would result in
eligible candidates being denied promotion and ineligible
candidates becoming eligible with regard to selection posts, and
that promotions were accorded to certain individuals in the
same department for the panel year 2014-15 whereas the
9 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
actions of the 1st and 2nd respondents run contrary to this fact
and their pleadings.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that
the 5th respondent was under currency of punishment during
the panel year 2014-15 with a punishment of PPI (Postponement
of Increments) for three years vide proceedings dated 13.10.2012
and later modified in appeal to that of PPI for two years, as such,
the 5th respondent was not eligible for promotion for the panel
year 2014-15. He brought to the notice of this Court the Law
laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions reported in (2007)
9 SCC 743 and (2010) 4 SCC 290 stating that it is settled law
that year-wise panels have to be prepared and even if the panels
are drawn subsequently, the eligibility would relate to the
relevant panel year viz. 2014-15 in this case.
8. The learned GP for Home submitted that the grievance of
the Petitioner and others seeking notional promotion for the
panel year 2014-15 was communicated to the Government and
the Government rejected the same vide Memo No.
18808/Ser.I/A2/2016 dated 24.06.2017 with the reason that no
panel shall be prepared for a particular panel year after the date
10 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
of expiry of such panel year, for any reasons and such vacancies
which were not filled in the panel year for any reason shall be
considered for promotions during the next panel year as per
Rule 6 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. He brought
to the notice of this Court sub para 3 of para No. 70 of the
Judgment delivered by the Apex Court in 2022 SCC Online SC
680.
9. It is to be noted that the 3rd respondent himself called for
the preparation of a promotion panel of RSIs (AR) fit to act as
RIs (AR) for the year 2014-15 vide Memo dated 23.03.2015
which discards the plea of the respondents that promotion panel
for the year 2014-15 was not prepared due to the ban on all
promotions imposed by the erstwhile Government of Andhra
Pradesh. The above said memo was issued only pursuant to
the modification of the ban orders vide G.O.Rt. No.695 dated
03.03.2015 issued by the 1st respondent. The 4th respondent
furnished the promotion panel with all relevant documents
called for by the 3rd respondent vide R.c.No.
A1/420/SAR/2015/1024 dated 24.04.2015 which copy was
also submitted to the 2nd respondent herein. As such, the 3rd
11 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
and 2nd respondents, more specifically, the 2nd respondent being
the Appointing Authority, was in knowledge and had every
opportunity and duty bestowed upon the 2nd respondent to act
on the above said communication, but chose to neglect the same
for about 11/2 year despite the petitioner making a
representation dated 08.06.2015 requesting the 2nd respondent
for promotion for the panel year 2014-15.
10. The respondents comfortably with a view to get the writ
petition dismissed have incorporated the incomplete words of
Rule 6(b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules in para
no.21 of the counter affidavit by only mentioning "... and no
panel shall be prepared for a particular panel year after
the date of expiry of such panel year, for any reason."
Whereas the wordings of the rule are clearly "No panel shall be
prepared for a particular panel year, after the date of
expiry of such panel year, for any reasons, except review of
panels already prepared" followed by provisos. It is
unfortunate that the official respondents resorted to deleting the
important wordings of the rule "except review of panels
already prepared" with an apprehension that their stand
12 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
would fall and this cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the panel
for the year 2014-15 was already prepared and received by the
Appointing Authority whereas the respondents neither acted on
the panel promotions within time nor reviewed the already
prepared panel and dragged the matter.
11. The issue on hand is covered under the decision reported
in the case of Vijay Singh Charak v. Union of India 1 relied by
the counsel for the petitioner, wherein it is observed as under:
"12. A select list can only be prepared for a particular
year, and only those who are eligible in that particular
year alone can be considered for selection in the select
list. Even if the select list is not prepared in that very
year, it will relate back to that particular year."
"14. It is obvious, therefore, that clubbing is illegal.
Since clubbing has been done for vacancies arising
between 1991-1995 in IFS, this was clearly illegal in
view of the decision in Union of India v. Vipinchandra
Hiralal Shah [(1996) 6 SCC 721 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 41] ."
12. In the present case, the promotions for vacancies for the
post of RI (AR) for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17
were all taken up in the panel year 2016-17 making the
(2007) 9 SCC 743
13 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
respondent no.5 who is otherwise eligible for promotion in the
panel year 2015-16, ineligible for promotion for the panel year
2014-15. The fact that promotion panel for the year 2015-16
was also prepared and communicated to the Appointing
Authority but due to administrative/protocol defects, the same
was delayed and the petitioner and others were promoted for the
panel year 2016-17 which is arbitrary and unjust as it is the
sole fault and delay of the respondents and the petitioner cannot
be put to suffering. As such, the 5th respondent was eligible for
promotion as of 01.09.2016 and the petitioner was eligible for
promotion as on 14.07.2014, this Court feels that the petitioner
ought to have been notionally promoted for the panel year 2014-
15 and be placed above the 5th respondent in seniority. Hence,
this Writ Petition is liable to be allowed.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside
the impugned Memo No.18808/Ser.I/A2/2016 dated
24.06.2017 and the consequential rejection order in Rc.
No.513/E3/2018 dated 22.02.2019 issued by the 1st and 2nd
respondents and they are further directed to pass necessary
orders in promoting the petitioner as Reserve Inspector (AR) in
14 RRN,J
WP No.22926 of 2019
the panel year of 2014-15 with benefits incidental thereto.
Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to include the petitioner's
name over and above that of the 5th respondent in the final
seniority list of Reserve Inspectors (AR) working in Special
Armed Reserve, Central Police Lines, Amberpet, Hyderabad,
within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of
the copy of this Order. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
6th day of January, 2023
BDR
