Telangana High Court
M.A. Javid vs Sri Somesh Kumar, I.A.S on 13 September, 2023
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
REVIEW I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 IN W.P.NO.16641 OF 2021;
I.A.NO.2 OF 2022 IN W.P.NO.16641 OF 2021;
WRIT PETITION NO.16641 OF 2021
AND
CONTEMPT CASE NO.2150 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petition in W.P.No.16641 of 2021 was disposed of vide
orders dt.19.09.2022 directing the respondents to continue the writ
petitioner as Sub-Registrar Grade-II with all consequential benefits. The
respondents, however, did not comply with the direction and therefore,
C.C.No.2150 of 2022 was filed and when the Contempt Case was taken
up for hearing, it was informed that the respondents filed a review
petition, i.e., Review I.A.No.1 of 2022. Thus, the Review Petition along
with the Writ Petition and the Contempt Case are taken up together and
are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order.
2. In the Review Petition, the revision petitioners/respondents in
the Writ Petition submitted that the promotion as Sub-Registrar Grade-II
Rev I.A.No.1/2022, W.P.No.16641
2 of 2021 and C.C.No.2150 of 2022
was given to the writ petitioner on ad hoc basis and due to initiation of
disciplinary proceedings against him, he is not entitled for promotion. It
is submitted that a Writ Appeal in W.A.No747 of 2022 was filed against
the order of this Court dt.19.09.2022 and on 11.11.2022, Division Bench
of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeal as withdrawn giving liberty to
the writ petitioner to file a review petition in the Writ Petition itself and
therefore, the Review Petition is filed. It is submitted that there is no
revision of panel pertaining to the year 2013 and that the panel for 2013
was operated and promotions were given up to Serial No.9 and there is
no such revision of panel as stated by the writ petitioner. It is submitted
that as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition, by virtue of the
proceedings of the 3rd review petitioner vide proceedings No.E/63/2015
dt.22.02.2021, the order giving posting to the writ petitioner, i.e., Mr.
M.A.Javid, Senior Assistant, who was deputed as SRO, Huzurabad in
Procgs.No.E/63/2018 dt.31.07.2018, was withdrawn and he was directed
to join at his original station, i.e., SRO, Karimnagar Rural as Senior
Assistant and that he has joined duty as Senior Assistant on 21.01.2022
only. It is submitted that the writ petitioner has suppressed this fact in
his affidavit and projected as if he is still continuing as In-charge Sub-
Rev I.A.No.1/2022, W.P.No.16641
3 of 2021 and C.C.No.2150 of 2022
Registrar at Huzurabad and therefore, the interim relief granted to the
writ petitioner was not on basis of material facts. It is submitted that
pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.317, GAD (SPF) Department, dt.06.12.2021 for
reorganisation and allotment of employees to local zones, the writ
petitioner was allotted to Zone-II and the order issued vide E/63/2018
dt.31.07.2018 was withdrawn and the writ petitioner was posted to work
as Senior Assistant at his original station, i.e., SRO, Karimnagar Rural.
Therefore, the writ petitioner has joined duty on 21.01.2022. It is
submitted that the panel pertaining to the year 2014-15 was modified on
26.09.2015. Therefore, it is not the case of revision of panel of 2013
under Rule 24 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules,
1996, but it is the case of preparing the panel for next panel year 2014-
15.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II submitted that there
were two limbs of prayer in the Writ Petition and the first limb is with
regard to the alleged revised seniority list and the second limb is to
continue the petitioner as Sub-Registrar, Grade-II by conferring all
consequential benefits. It is submitted that the order of the Court has
been obtained on misrepresentation of facts. The learned Government
Rev I.A.No.1/2022, W.P.No.16641
4 of 2021 and C.C.No.2150 of 2022
Pleader has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of C.O.Arumugam and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and
others 1 for the proposition that the promotion of persons against whom
charge has been filed in criminal case may be deferred till the
proceedings are concluded. It is submitted that the writ petitioner has not
represented properly and on the premise that the authority has revised
the panel of the eligible candidates of 2013, it has been held that the
review of the panel is not correct. In view of these facts, the revision
petitioners are seeking review of the order of this Court dt.19.09.2022 in
W.P.No.16441 of 2021.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has reiterated that the
order of this Court needs no revision or review as the same was passed
after considering all the facts of the case.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record, this Court finds that the order impugned in the Writ Petition is
dated 26.09.2015 and it is mentioned therein that revised list of
candidates in the cadre of Senior Assistant has been approved under
Rule 2(ii) of A.P. Registration Subordinate Service Rules issued in
1991 Supp (2) SCC 199
Rev I.A.No.1/2022, W.P.No.16641
5 of 2021 and C.C.No.2150 of 2022
G.O.Ms.No.372 dt.24.02.1983 and for the panel year 2014-15, the writ
petitioner is placed at Serial No.8 and Mr. M.Meeraiah, against whom
an allegation is made by the writ petitioner in the Writ Petition, is at
Serial No.2. In the panel for the year 2014-15, the comment against the
writ petitioner is that his name is included, but is deferred due to the
disciplinary proceedings pending against him. As seen from the
seniority list of the panel year 2012-13, Mr. M.A.Javed (the writ
petitioner) was placed at Serial No.20, while Mr. M.Meeraiah was at
Serial No.21 and both their names were included for promotion as Sub-
Registrar Grade-II for the panel year 2012-13. Along with the review
petition, the respondents in the Writ Petition have filed a copy of the
charge memo dt.12.03.2015. In the charge memo, it is mentioned that
the charge memo is issued in respect of the documents registered in the
year 2014. The seniority list challenged by the writ petitioner is for the
panel year 2014-15. Therefore, if there was a charge memo pending
against the petitioner for the relevant panel year, his case could not have
been considered for promotion. Therefore, the order passed by this
Court seems to be on consideration of an erroneous fact that the
Rev I.A.No.1/2022, W.P.No.16641
6 of 2021 and C.C.No.2150 of 2022
promotion is for the panel year 2012-13, whereas it is for the panel year
2014-15.
6. In view of the same, the order dt.19.09.2022 in W.P.No.16641 of
2021 is set aside. Accordingly, Review I.A.No.1 of 2022 is allowed and
this Court does not find any merit in the contentions raised by the writ
petitioner and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the Writ Petition shall
also stand dismissed.
7. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Contempt Case
does not survive and it is accordingly closed.
8. I.A.No.2 of 2022 in Review I.A.No.1 of 2022, in W.P.No.16641
of 2021 is filed seeking suspension of the order dt.19.09.2022 in
W.P.No.16641 of 2021. As W.P.No.16641 of 2021 is dismissed in view
of the orders passed in Review I.A.No.1 of 2022, no orders need be
necessary on I.A.No2 of 2022 in Review I.A.No.1 of 2022 and it is
accordingly closed as infructuous.
Rev I.A.No.1/2022, W.P.No.16641
7 of 2021 and C.C.No.2150 of 2022
9. In the result,
(1) Review I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.16641 of 2021 is
allowed.
(2) W.P.No.16641 of 2021 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition
shall also stand dismissed.
(3) I.A.No.2 of 2022 in Review I.A.No.1 of 2022 in
W.P.No.16641 of 2021 is closed as infructuous.
(4) C.C.No.2150 of 2022 is closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 13.09.2023
Svv
