K.V.V.Prasad And 29 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 8 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3325 Tel

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

               WRIT PETITION No.1318 of 2021
ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of

respondents in not implementing the 60:40 ratio among the Junior

Assistants/Typists etc. and the VROs., as provided in G.O.Ms.No.

341, dated 14.05.2013, for promotion to the post of Senior

Assistant, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners have also

questioned the seniority list dated 27.04.2017, by which, the

VROs. were shown from Serial Nos.704 to 766 and the petitioners

were shown from Serial Nos.768 to 822.

2. Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for petitioners, the

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri R.Rajasekhara Rao for respondent Nos.4

to 9 and Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.10

to 39. Perused the record.

3. Case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Junior

Assistants/Typists in the Revenue Department in Khammam

JS, J W.P.No.1318 of 2021

District Unit and were promoted as Senior Assistants on various

dates during the years 2011, 2013 and 2014 and that their services

were governed under the Telangana Ministerial Service Rules,

1998 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.195, dated 28.05.2016. The

Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.369, dated 12.12.2001 creating

the post of Panchayat Secretary for doing the combine work of

Revenue and Panchayat Raj Departments, and later,

G.O.Ms.No.105, dated 31.01.2007 was issued re-designating them

as Village Revenue Officers (VROs). Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.105,

dated 31.01.2007 was issued bringing them under the

administrative control of Tahsildars to handle the work relating to

the Revenue Department at village level. A further G.O. being

G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 19.01.2011 was issued amending the A.P.

Ministerial Service Rules inserting a proviso to Rule 3 to the effect

that every 10th vacancy of Senior Assistant shall be filled up by

promotion from the cadre of VROs drawing the pay scale of Junior

Assistants in the Revenue Department.

4. It is further stated in the writ petition that on 21.02.2011, 64

VROs were promoted as Senior Assistants and only thereafter i.e.

JS, J W.P.No.1318 of 2021

on 18.04.2011, the employees of Revenue Department were

promoted as Senior Assistants, and thus, 20 promotions were

affected. It is stated that G.O.Ms.No.541, dated 13.08.2012 was

issued fixing the ratio of 60:40 between Junior Assistants/Typists

working in Revenue Department and VROs drawing the Junior

Assistants' scale of pay. Accordingly, in every 10 vacancies of

Senior Assistants, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 9th vacancy were to be

filled up with the Junior Assistants/Typists of Revenue Department

and the remaining vacancies were to be filled up by VROs drawing

the scale of pay of Junior Assistants. Such promotion channel shall

cease to exist after all the VROs are exhausted. Accordingly,

G.O.Ms.No.341, dated 14.05.2013 was issued amending the

Ministerial Service Rules. The grievance of the petitioners is that

the seniority list was finalised without following the aforesaid ratio

and the VROs were shown one after another in the seniority list

without reference to their 40% quota, as a result, the petitioners

were shown only after exhausting all the VROs. It is stated that

since they were working at various places and as they do not know

the different G.Os. issued in favour of VROs., they could not

JS, J W.P.No.1318 of 2021

immediately respond, and that, only after obtaining all the G.Os.

under the RTI Act, they came to know about the injustice caused to

the Junior Assistants/Typists of the Revenue Department. Hence,

the writ petition.

5. Separate counter affidavits are filed by respondent No.3,

respondent Nos.4 to 9 and respondent Nos.10 to 39. The gist of

these three counter affidavits is that on 03.04.2011, 67 VROs were

promoted as Senior Assistants in terms of G.O.Ms.No.186, dated

04.03.2010. It is stated that the ratio of 60:40 was fixed for

promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in the year 2012 vide

G.O.Ms.No.514, dated 13.08.2012, whereas, the 67 VROs were

promoted much prior to that i.e. on 03.04.2011. It is stated that the

seniority amongst the Senior Assistants was fixed basing on the

entries made in the Service Registers of the individuals and such

seniority list was published on 09.08.2016 in all the designated

offices of the erstwhile Khammam District duly calling for

objections, if any. As certain objections were received from some

individuals, the same were examined and disposed of and the same

seniority list was again published on 22.02.2017 in all the Revenue

JS, J W.P.No.1318 of 2021

Offices indicating the reasons thereof. Subsequently, the final

seniority list of Senior Assistants for Khammam District was

prepared vide proceedings dated 27.04.2017 based on the dates of

joining as Senior Assistants on promotion. As no objections were

received from anyone against such list, basing on the same, the

Senior Assistants who were promoted from the feeder category of

Village Revenue Officer, were promoted as Naib Tahsildars and

were regularized as per Rules. It is stated that an appeal against the

Seniority List has been provided under Rule 26 of the State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, however, no such appeal has

been preferred against the Seniority List of Senior Assistants

prepared on 27.04.2017. It is further stated by the respondents that

when the writ petitioners herein and others have submitted a

representation dated 22.12.2020 to respondent No.3 stating that

60:40 ratio was not followed while fixing seniority of 68 VROs

promoted as Senior Assistants in the year 2011, the 3rd respondent

has intimated them on 17.08.2021 stating that the seniority was

fixed and communicated in the year 2017 and as no appeal has

been filed before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

JS, J W.P.No.1318 of 2021

within the stipulated time, their request cannot be considered.

With the said pleadings, the respondents have prayed for dismissal

of the writ petition.

6. The core grievance of the petitioners is that the official

respondents have violated the 60:40 ratio fixed vide

G.O.Ms.No.541, dated 13.08.2012 while promoting the Junior

Assistants of the Revenue Department and the Village Revenue

Officers, as Senior Assistants. It is to be seen that on 21.02.2011,

64 VROs were promoted as Senior Assistants and only thereafter

i.e. from 18.04.2011 onwards, the Junior Assistants of Revenue

Department were promoted as Senior Assistants, and hence, they

became juniors to the VROs. It is also to be seen that

G.O.Ms.No.341, dated 14.05.2013 was issued amending Rule 3 of

the Ministerial Service Rules by making the 60:40 ratio as

Statutory requirement. Thus, the above ratio was fixed after

promoting the 64 VROs. Further, the seniority list of Senior

Assistants was finalised on 27.04.2017 after considering all the

objections raised. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners

were aware of promoting 64 VROs as Senior Assistants in the year

JS, J W.P.No.1318 of 2021

2011 by placing the said VROs above them and the petitioners

were further aware of the final seniority list prepared and

communicated in the year 2017. Inspite of such awareness, the

petitioners kept quiet and did not object for the same and filed this

writ petition only in the year 2021.

7. As per Rule 23 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules,

an Appeal/Revision/Review against the order of appointment to a

higher post shall be filed within a period of three months from the

date of such order. Similarly, according to Rule 26 of the said

Rules, if an employee is aggrieved of seniority and other conditions

relating to seniority, he shall file an appeal within a period of 90

days from the date on which his junior was promoted.

8. The above two provisions prescribe the time limit of three

months/90 days to appeal against the seniority fixed. But, in the

present case, the petitioners did not challenge the seniority fixed

when the 64 VROs were absorbed into the Revenue Department in

the year 2011 and they did not challenge even when the seniority in

the cadre of Senior Assistants was fixed in the year 2017.

JS, J W.P.No.1318 of 2021

However, they came up with this writ petition only in the year

2021, by which time, some of the unofficial respondents were

promoted as Deputy Tahsildars and are working as such. The only

reason pleaded by the petitioners for this delay in challenging the

seniority is that they were not aware of various orders passed by

the Government, as they were working at different places. Since

the petitioners were aware of their seniority right from the year

2011 and they did not file any appeal questioning such seniority,

such a ground cannot be accepted so as to re-fix the seniority after

these long years, as it goes against the State and Subordinate

Service Rules.

9. The learned counsel for petitioners has relied on the

judgment of the then High Court of Judicature, A.P., at Hyderabad

in Telangana NGO's Co-operative House Building Society Ltd.,

Hyderabad v. State of A.P. and others 1, wherein, it is held that

the writ petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the ground

of availability of remedy of appeal. This judgment is not

applicable to the facts of the present case, as the present writ

2012 (3) ALD 586

JS, J W.P.No.1318 of 2021

petition is not being considered on the ground of availability of

remedy of appeal, but it is dealt with on the ground of latches on

the part of petitioners in approaching the Court after a lapse of

many years of the seniority being fixed.

10. He has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in R.M.Ramual v. State of H.P. and others 2, wherein, it is

held that the employee can challenge the seniority list immediately

after its communication. This judgment is also not applicable to

the present case, as in the case on hand, the petitioners have not

questioned the seniority list immediately after its communication.

11. The learned counsel for petitioners has also relied on another

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and

another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others 3, wherein, it is

held that the right of an eligible employee to be considered for

promotion is virtually a part of his fundamental right under Article

16 of the Constitution and such right cannot be denied due to

inaction on the part of State Government in conducting cadre

AIR 1989 SC 357

(2010) 4 SCC 290

JS, J W.P.No.1318 of 2021

review in time. This judgment is also not applicable to the case on

hand, as in this case, there is no delay on the part of Government in

fixing the seniority, and contrary to it, the delay is on the part of

petitioners in challenging the seniority fixed.

12. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 9 has relied on

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Mahak Singh v.

Chancellor, Ch.Charan Singh University, Meerut and others 4,

wherein, it is held that the delay of seven long years in seeking

remedy against the seniority, is fatal. This judgment squarely

applies to the facts of the present case, as in this case also, there is

long years of delay on the part of petitioners in challenging the

seniority fixed by the official respondents.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners are not entitled for

the relief sought for in the writ petition and the writ petition is

accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 19.10.2023 ajr

(1996) 11 SCC 760