Telangana High Court

B.Vijaya Lakshmi vs Sri Navin Mittal, Ias on 9 April, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI


              WRIT PETITION (TR) NO.6273 OF 2017
                                   AND
                 CONTEMPT CASE NO.148 OF 2021

                            COMMON ORDER

W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017

In this Writ Petition (TR), the petitioner has challenged the Memo

No.G/10569/2015 dt.17.08.2016 being the final seniority list of

Lecturers in Chemical Engineering working in the Government

Polytechnics, Telangana for the panel year 2015-16 issued by the 2nd

respondent, in which the petitioner's objection to the provisional

seniority list placing the 3rd respondent above the petitioner herein has

been rejected, as illegal and arbitrary. Subsequent to the filing of

O.A.No.3246 of 2016 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal,

respondents 1 and 2 have issued the proceedings dt.28.12.2020

reiterating their stand of final seniority list dt.17.08.2016. Therefore, the

petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 for amendment of the prayer and

this Court, vide orders dt.14.11.2024, has allowed the said Application.

Therefore, in this Writ Petition, the challenge is to both the final

seniority lists published on 17.08.2016 and also dated 28.12.2020.

W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition (TR)

are that the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent were selected to the

posts of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering against roster point No.2

under SC (W) category and roster point No.4 under BC-A (W) category

respectively and were posted in J.N.Government Polytechnic,

Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.G4/27776/2000

dt.08.01.2001 with a direction to join duty on or before 07.02.2001 as

per Rule 11(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.

The petitioner claims to have joined on 31.01.2001, while the 3rd

respondent has joined on 29.01.2001 and both of their services were

regularised and they were declared as approved probationers within the

time. Vide G.O.Ms.No.38 dt.01.04.2008, non-local persons including

the 3rd respondent were repatriated to their local area duly protecting

their seniority in the cadre, but the 3rd respondent was not only

appointed in J.N.Government Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad,

but her services were also regularised from the date of her initial

appointment and therefore, the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.38

dt.01.04.2008 do not have any effect to the service conditions of the 3rd

respondent. It is stated that vide Memo dt.21.08.2008, provisional W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

seniority list of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering in Government

Polytechnics in Zone-VI was communicated by the 2nd respondent, in

which the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.1 and the 3rd respondent was

shown at Sl.No.2 and vide another Memo dt.24.10.2008, another

provisional seniority list of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering in

Government Polytechnics in Zone -VI was again communicated, in

which the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.1 and the 3rd respondent was

shown at Sl.No.2 and objections were called for. It is submitted that vide

Circular Memo dt.27.04.2009, the 2nd respondent communicated the

final seniority list of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering in Government

Polytechnics in Zone-VI and the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.1 and

the 3rd respondent was shown at Sl.No.2 and it was specifically

mentioned that the 3rd respondent has not submitted any objections to

the said provisional seniority lists and the list of all the Lecturers

working in all the Government Polytechnics was communicated to the

Principals and requested to furnish information regarding qualifications,

etc., for considering promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer. In the

meantime, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.17, Higher

Education (TE) Department, dt.17.06.2016 in which one Ms.N. W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

Suryakumari, Senior Lecturer in Chemical Engineering,

J.N.Government Polytechnic was promoted as Head of the Section with

immediate effect and on promotion she was re-posted to J.N.

Government Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad and therefore, one

vacancy in the cadre of Senior Lecturer in Chemical Engineering arose

in J.N.Government Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

3. It is submitted that vide Memo dt.25.06.2016, another provisional

seniority list of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering in Zone-VI for the

panel year 2015-16 was communicated, wherein the 3rd respondent was

shown above the petitioner without any changed circumstances and

objections were called for and in response to the same, the petitioner

submitted her objections on 06.07.2016 stating that it is highly arbitrary

and unjust to place the 3rd respondent above her and requested for

restoration of her rank above the 3rd respondent. However, on

17.08.2016, final seniority list of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering in

Government Polytechnics for panel year 2015-16 was communicated by

the 2nd respondent confirming the provisional seniority list

dt.25.06.2016. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3246 of 2016

before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. Vide interim order W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

dt.23.08.2016, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal directed the 2nd

respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the

post of Senior Lecturer in the existing vacancy in Chemical Engineering

as per the seniority list communicated vide Circular Memo

dt.27.04.2009 without reference to the impugned Memo dt.17.08.2016.

The petitioner issued legal notices dt.24.08.2016 and 26.08.2016 for

complying with the interim direction, but the 2nd respondent did not

comply with the same. In reply to the legal notice dt.18.07.2020, the 2nd

respondent informed the petitioner that there is no vacancy of Senior

Lecturer in Chemical Engineering and her candidature for promotion to

the post of Senior Lecturer would be considered as and when vacancy

arises as per rules in vogue. It is submitted that by office order

dt.29.09.2020, the 2nd respondent communicated provisional seniority

list of Lecturers in various branches including Chemical Engineering in

Zones-V and VI for panel year 2020-21 in which the name of the

petitioner was shown at Sl.No.2 as against the 3rd respondent who was

shown at Sl.No.1 and objections were called for and the petitioner

submitted detailed explanation dt.09.10.2020. However, without

considering the explanation of the petitioner, vide office order W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

dt.28.12.2020, the 2nd respondent communicated final seniority list of

Lecturers in Chemical Engineering in Zone-VI in Government

Polytechnics for the panel year 2020-21. The petitioner got issued legal

notice dt.15.01.2021, but thereafter, the 2nd respondent did not comply

with the interim order dt.23.08.2016 nor replied to the said legal notice

and therefore, the petitioner filed C.C.No.148 of 2021.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, while reiterating the

submissions made in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the

Writ Petition, has relied upon Rules 26 and 33 of the State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 to submit that the seniority of the

petitioner once fixed shall not be disturbed after a period of three (3)

years. He relied upon the Circular Memo dt.20.05.2004 in respect of the

said issue. He further submitted that under Rule 26(a) of the State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, an appeal shall lie against the order of

fixing the seniority of a person or effecting any conditions of service,

passed by the appointing authority, to the authority to whom an appeal

would lie against the order of dismissal, etc., and therefore, the 3rd

respondent ought to have filed an appeal and instead, the official

respondents have revised the seniority list without there being any W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

objections from the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel for

the writ petitioner submitted that the respondents have violated the rules

in revising the seniority list and have also not complied with the interim

orders of this Court and thus have committed contempt of orders of this

Court. He therefore prayed for appropriate directions to the respondents.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit along with a stay

vacate petition in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 on

10.12.2018 stating that both the writ petitioner and the 3rd respondent

were appointed consequent to the direct recruitment to the vacant posts

of Lecturers in Engineering disciplines in Government Polytechnics vide

proceedings dt.08.01.2001 and the 3rd respondent was at Sl.No.5 while

the writ petitioner was at Sl.No.7 and both the petitioner and the 3rd

respondent have joined on 31.01.2001 and 29.01.2001 respectively. It is

stated that final seniority list of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering in

Government Polytechnics in Zone-VI for promotion to the post of

Senior Lecturer in Chemical Engineering was communicated to the

concerned Lecturers vide Circular Memo dt.27.04.2009 for the panel

year 2008-2009, but no Lecturer was promoted to the post of Senior

Lecturer in Chemical Engineering as there was no vacancy and the 3rd W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

respondent was erroneously placed below the writ petitioner herein due

to zonal transfer without protecting her seniority as per G.O.Ms.No.38,

High Education (TE.I) Department, dt.01.04.2008. However, when

promotions were being taken up in the panel year 2015-16, final

seniority list of Lecturers was published keeping the name of the

petitioner at Sl.No.2 and that of the 3rd respondent at Sl.No.1 as per their

original APPSC merit. It is further submitted that the writ petitioner can

be considered for promotion only when the petitioner's term comes as

per rules in vogue and they prayed for vacation of the interim orders.

6. The 3rd respondent also has filed a counter affidavit reiterating

that she was also appointed in the direct recruitment along with the writ

petitioner and in the list of appointees as published by the APPSC, she

was placed above the writ petitioner herein. In respect of the petitioner's

contention that the 3rd respondent has not raised any objections to the

provisional seniority lists published on 21.08.2008, 24.10.2008 and

27.04.2009, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent denied the same

and has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant representations

which are filed at pages 19 to 25 of stay vacate petition and counter of

the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that at the time of appointment, she W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

was placed above the writ petitioner and therefore, her seniority has to

be determined in accordance therewith and subsequently, she was placed

below the writ petitioner erroneously but the same has been rectified and

therefore, she submitted that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is

liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent also relied upon the

additional documents filed on 18.04.2023 enclosing a copy of the

seniority list dt.09.12.2021, a copy of the final seniority list

dt.28.12.2020 and a copy of the office order dt.12.04.2022 to

demonstrate that the 3rd respondent was senior to the petitioner and she

was also instructed to look after the duties of Head of the Section for

Department of Chemical Engineering on the incumbent officer, i.e.,

Smt. N. Suryakumari proceeding on study leave for six months. The

learned counsel for the 3rd respondent also placed reliance upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay

Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Arvind Rai and others 1 in support of

his contentions that the appointing authority would be bound by the

(2022) 12 SCC 579 W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

statutory rules and the seniority list prepared in accordance with such

statutory rules could not be interfered with.

8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

this Court finds that Rule 33 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service

Rules, 1996 provides for fixation of seniority and Clause (a) thereof

provides that the seniority of a person in a service, class, category or

grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment,

be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class,

category or grade and Clause (b) thereof provides that 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. This Court

finds that both the writ petitioner and the 3rd respondent were recruited

pursuant to the direct recruitment in the year 2001 and both of them

have joined the service on 31.01.2001 and 29.01.2001 respectively. Both

of them were allowed to join on or before 07.02.2001. Therefore, the

date of joining is not a determining factor, but it is the order of seniority/ W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

merit fixed by the appointing authority at the time of issuance of

appointment order that would determine the seniority. In the case before

this Court, it is noticed that the writ petitioner has been placed at

Sl.No.7, while the 3rd respondent has been placed at Sl.No.5 while

issuance of the appointment orders. A mistake or error seems to have

been committed while issuing the provisional seniority list and the 3rd

respondent has raised her objections to the seniority list vide her

representations dt.25.05.2009, 09.11.2011, 31.01.2012, 25.11.2013 and

25.08.2015. Therefore, the submission of the writ petitioner that

respondents 1 and 2 have recorded that there were no objections to the

provisional seniority list in which the writ petitioner was placed at

Sl.No.1 is without any basis. It appears that respondents 1 and 2 have

answered the objections of the writ petitioner at the relevant point of

time and subsequently while preparing panel for the year 2015-16, they

have considered the objections of the 3rd respondent and have revised

the final seniority list. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in

the final seniority list published on 17.08.2016 and reiterated in the final

seniority list dt.28.12.2020. The contention of the petitioner that the

seniority cannot be disturbed after a period of three (3) years is not W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

applicable in this case since the objections of the 3rd respondent were

very much available and respondents 1 and 2 have not considered the

same then. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Ajay Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Arvind Rai and others (1 supra)

at para 30 has observed as under:

"30. Once it is established that the seniority list was prepared in contravention of the statutory provisions laid down in the 1991 Rules, the seniority list could be interfered with. The appointing authority would be bound by the statutory rules and any violation or disregard to the statutory rules would vitiate the seniority list. The same would be arbitrary, dehors the rules and in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The only exception to the above would be where there is unreasonable delay which is unexplained."

Therefore, where there is violation of statutory rules and the seniority

list was prepared in contravention of such statutory provisions, the

seniority list could be interfered with. As it has been observed that the

seniority, which has been prepared in contravention with Rule 33(a) and

(b) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, could be

interfered with and the official respondents have rightly done so.

Therefore, there is no merit in the Writ Petition.

W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 &

9. W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 is accordingly dismissed. No order

as to costs.

10. In view of the dismissal of W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017, this

Contempt Case is also closed.