Telangana High Court

N.Tirupathi Prakash Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 11 April, 2025

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                  WRIT PETITION No.29945 of 2023
                                         and
                  CONTEMPT CASE No.1243 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in these cases is inter-connected, there

were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.29945 of 2023 is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Government Memo.No.13888/Ser.I/2023, dated 28-8-2023 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, non-application of mind and contrary to the law on the subject besides being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted to the said post during February, 2017 with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits and pass..."

3. Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel,

representing Sri P. Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and

the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of

the respondents.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Deputy Tahsildar

through the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

pursuance of Notification No.10/1999, and he joined duty as such on

09.03.2005. While so, as the Public Service Commission conducted the

departmental tests belatedly, the petitioner could not pass the

prescribed departmental tests within the prescribed time for declaration

of his probation in the category of Deputy Tahsildar, and he had passed

the said Departmental Tests belatedly on 30.11.2008 only due to a delay

by the Public Service Commission in the conduct of said tests.

Thereafter, in terms of Rule 16(h) of State and Subordinate Rules, 1996,

his probation in the category of Deputy Tahsildar was declared w.e.f.,

30.11.2008. Subsequently, after due consideration of his representation

dated 22.02.2012, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.412 dated

21.03.2013, and ordered to relax the provisions of Rule 16(h) of the

State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in favour of the petitioner,

and to declare that he shall be deemed to have completed his probation

within the normal period of probation in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar

from date of his joining, i.e., 09.03.2005.

5. It was further submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the

cadre of Tahsildar on 04.11.2013, and the Government issued

G.O.Ms.No.39, Revenue Department, dated 20.01.2018, assigning

notional seniority to the petitioner in the category of Tahsildar by

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

relaxing Rule 33-A of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, duly

directing to place the petitioner's name above Mr. S. Ramesh Babu

(Sl.No.11) and below Mr. K. Rajendra Kumar (Sl.No.10). Accordingly,

the petitioner was assigned notional seniority in the cadre of Tahsildar,

w.e.f., 01.09.2008 in the revised panel year 2008-09. Further, the

petitioner is the senior-most employee in the category of Tahsildar, and

therefore, he is entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector, as

his junior, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, was already promoted to the said post

vide G.O.Ms.No.106 dated 15.02.2017. Therefore, since the Government

has already assigned notional seniority to the petitioner in the category

of Tahsildar w.e.f., 01.09.2008, he is entitled for promotion to the post of

Deputy Collector on par with his junior, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, w.e.f.,

15.02.2017. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to

respondent No.2 on 31.01.2018, requesting to consider his case

promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on par with his junior, Mr. S.

Ramesh Babu, w.e.f., 15.02.2017, and as the respondents have not

taken any decision on the representation, he filed W.P.No.12844 of

2023. The said writ petition was disposed of on 28.04.2023, directing

respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated

31.01.2018 within eight weeks. In pursuance of the same, respondent

No.1 passed the present impugned order vide Memo dated 28.08.2023,

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

rejecting the claim of the petitioner, and the same is illegal, arbitrary,

contrary to law and without proper application of mind.

6. It was further submitted that either as on the date of promotion of

his junior i.e., 15.02.2017, or even as on the date of his representation

for promotion i.e., 31.01.2018, neither any criminal case nor any

disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner. Therefore,

the petitioner is legally eligible for promotion to the post Deputy

Collector on par with his junior, w.e.f., 15.02.2017. However, while the

petitioner was working as Tahsildar, a criminal case was registered by

the ACB authorities vide FIR No.15/RCO/ACB-KMM/19 dated

30.10.2019, but even as of date, despite a lapse of more than five and a

half years, no charge sheet has been filed so far. The said ACB case was

registered, alleging that the officials of the office of Tahsil, Vemsoor

Mandal, Khammam District, were indulging in corrupt activities and

issued passbooks pertaining to the ceiling land by taking bribe from the

applicants and committing irregularities in their routine duties.

However, as on the date of registration of the ACB case, the petitioner

was not working in the said place, i.e., Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam

District, as he was already transferred to Bhadradri Kothagudem

District vide proceedings dated 18.10.2018 itself.

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

7. It was further submitted that the petitioner has been continuing

in the Revenue Department for the last 18 years in various categories

and is presently holding the post of Tahsildar w.e.f., 04.11.2013, and

the orders of his re-allotment to another Department i.e., Selection List

dated 10.05.2018, was already stayed by a Division Bench of this Court

vide order dated 23.09.2021 in W.P.No.22894 of 2021. Hence, the

petitioner is entitled for promotion/notional promotion to the post of

Deputy Collector as long as he is continuing in the present Department,

subject to the outcome of the writ petition relating to the pendency of

his re-allotment to another Department. As such, rejecting the claim of

the petitioner for a rightful promotion, is illegal, arbitrary,

discriminatory and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the

Constitution of India. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioner prayed this Court to pass necessary orders in the

present writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated

28.08.2023.

8. It was further submitted that a similar benefit of promotion to the

higher cadre was extended in other Departments after publication of the

Selection List dated 10.05.2018. The Commissioner of State Tax,

Telangana, issued proceedings dated 26.03.2021, duly promoting

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

certain Deputy Commercial Tax Officers of Zones-V and VI to the post of

Commercial Tax Officer on temporary/adhoc basis. Pursuant to the

same, Mr. K. Satish, Mr. B. Narsi Reddy, Mr. B. Naga Raju and

Mr. V. Buggappa, who were also selected in pursuance of Notification

No.10/1999, but re-allotted to other Departments by virtue of the

Selection List dated 10.05.2018, were retained in the same Department.

Pursuant to the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, they were

also considered for promotion, pending disposal of the writ petition.

Further, in the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, the

Commissioner for Panchayat Raj issued proceedings No.2569/CPR&RE/

E1/2018-1 dated 31.05.2018, promoting Mr. N. Veeresham and

Mr. Ramulu Naik, from the cadre of Extension Officer to Mandal

Parishad Development Officer. Similarly, the Government also issued

G.O.Ms.No.18, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, dated

30.03.2021, promoting Mr. K. Simhachalam from the cadre of Deputy

Registrar of Cooperative Societies to Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of

Cooperative Societies, although he was allotted to some other

Department by virtue of the Selection List dated 10.05.2018. Likewise,

Mr. Titus Paul Kordala and Mr. Praveen Kumar Pallavi, who were

working as Assistant Registrars in the same Department were also not

disturbed irrespective of their allotment to some other department by

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

virtue of the Selection List dated 10.05.2018, and they were retained as

Assistant Registrars in the same Department, i.e., Revenue Department,

as per the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 31.08.2021

in W.P.Nos.20191 and 20343 of 2021 respectively. They were also

promoted to the cadre of Deputy Registrars after the publication of the

Selection List dated 10.05.2018. As such, the petitioner, who also

stands on the same footing as the above individuals, cannot be denied

promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on the ground of his re-

allotment to the Commercial Tax Department, which was already stayed

by this Court. Therefore, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for

promotion to the post of Deputy Collector vide impugned order dated

28.08.2023 is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of

Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it was

once again prayed to allow the present writ petition.

9. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I

appearing on behalf of the respondents, while admitting the fact that the

petitioner commenced his probation in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar

w.e.f., 09.03.2005, submitted that the Government has issued

G.O.Rt.No.412 dated 21.03.2013, relaxing the condition of Rule 16(h) of

the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in favour of

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

the petitioner, and also issued G.O.Rt.No.39 dated 20.01.2018, relaxing

the general Rule 33-A in favour of the petitioner, duly placing him above

the name of Mr. S. Ramesh Babu (Sl.No.11) and below the name of Mr.

K. Rajendra Kumar (Sl.No.10), and also fixed his seniority in the cadre of

Tahsildar notionally vide CCLA's Proceedings No.SER.II(2)/1119/2016

dated 17.02.2018, but the said Mr. S. Ramesh Babu was promoted to

the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2017. It was further

submitted that by the time of promoting Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, the

petitioner's name was not included on par with his juniors in the cadre

of Tahsildar, as the order of relaxing the general Rule 33-A in respect of

the petitioner was issued on 20.01.2018 only.

10. It was further submitted that a criminal case was registered

against the petitioner on 30.10.2019 by the ACB authorities for the

offences punishable under Sections 7 (a) and (c) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, on the allegation of corruption and other

irregularities in assigning the Government land, and the said case is still

pending. As such, the petitioner was placed under suspension on

18.02.2020, and subsequently, he was reinstated into service on

06.04.2023, and was allotted to Suryapet District. It was further

submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Deputy

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

Tahsildar in pursuance of the recruitment for Group-II services vide

Notification No.10/1999. Subsequently, after the orders of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, the Selection List dated 10.05.2018 was published by the

Public Service Commission, whereby, the petitioner has been allotted to

Commercial Tax Department in the cadre of Assistant Commercial Tax

Officer, but the petitioner is continuing in the Revenue Department only

because of the interim order of this Court dated 23.09.2021 in I.A.No.1

of 2021 in W.P.No.22894 of 2021. Therefore, since an ACB case is

pending against the petitioner and also in view of the fact that he was

allotted to the Commercial Tax Department by virtue of the Selection

List dated 10.05.2018, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of

the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector.

11. It was further submitted that the other Tahsildars who are on

similar footing as that of the petitioner herein, who were allotted to other

Departments due to revision of the seniority as per the Hon'ble Apex

Court orders in C.A.No.5099/2006 and continuing in the Revenue

Department on the stay orders of this Court, have also not been

considered for promotion to the category of Deputy Collector. Further,

no promotions to the category Deputy Collector have been effected from

2017 to June 2023 and while effecting promotions to the category of

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

Deputy Collector, the Government has taken the petitioner's case into

consideration and rightly deferred his claim vide impugned order dated

28.08.2023. Thus, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

12. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the

learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records.

13. As can be seen from the record, the petitioner's probation in the

cadre of Deputy Tahsildar was duly declared with retrospective effect

from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 09.03.2005, pursuant to

the orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.412 dated 21.03.2013, relaxing Rule

16(h) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in

favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the Government, vide

G.O.Rt.No.39 dated 20.01.2018, had relaxed Rule 33-A of the Telangana

State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, thereby, assigning notional

seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Tahsildar, duly placing his

name above Mr. S. Ramesh Babu (Sl.No.11) and below Mr. K. Rajendra

Kumar (Sl.No.10) in the seniority list. As a result, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu

became junior to the petitioner.

14. Admittedly, the petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Tahsildar was

fixed in the panel year 2008-09, and his name was placed at Sl.No.10/1

in the seniority list, i.e., above Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, who was promoted

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

to the post of Deputy Collector on 15.02.2017. Further, a perusal of the

proceedings of respondent No.2 dated 13.04.2018 reveals that 82

Tahsildars/City List Superintendents/Section Officers, were given adhoc

promotions to the cadre of Deputy Collector vide G.O.s dated

15.02.2017, by which date, the case of the petitioner for promotion was

also under consideration. In the said circumstances, the respondents

are duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner and promoted him

on par with his batchmates. However, his case was unreasonably

deferred, and subsequently, an ACB case was registered against the

petitioner vide FIR No.15/RCO/ACB-KMM/19 dated 30.10.2019.

15. As can be seen from the impugned rejection order dated

28.08.2023, the case of the petitioner for promotion was rejected

primarily on two following grounds:

"I) ACB case is still pending,

II) He was selected as ACTO and allotted to Zone-VI. He is continuing as Tahsildar on stay orders. As and when the stay is vacated, he needs to join as ACTO in Commercial Taxes Department."

16. As regards the first ground, it is pertinent to note that the ACB

case was registered on 30.10.2019, which was subsequent to the date of

promotion of the 82 candidates, including the junior of the petitioner,

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, i.e., 15.02.2017. Therefore, the respondents

ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion

citing the said ground. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Degala

Suryanaraya v. Bank of India 1, categorically held that the promotions

cannot be withheld on the basis of the departmental or criminal

proceedings initiated subsequent to the date on which the candidate

was considered for promotion. The relevant excerpt of the said decision

is extracted hereunder:

"14. However, the matter as to promotion stands on a different footing and the judgments of the High Court have to be sustained. The sealed cover procedure is now a well- established concept in service jurisprudence. The procedure is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him and hence the findings as to his entitlement to the service benefit of promotion, increment etc. are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over (see Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman SCC at pp. 114-115 : AIR at p. 2013). As on 1-1-1986 the only proceedings pending against the respondent were the criminal proceedings which ended in acquittal of the respondent wiping out with retrospective effect the adverse consequences, if any, flowing from the pendency thereof. The departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated with the delivery of the charge-sheet on 3-12-1991. In the year 1986-87 when the respondent became due for promotion and when the Promotion Committee held its proceedings, there were no departmental enquiry proceedings pending against the respondent. The sealed cover procedure could not have been resorted to nor could the promotion in the year 1986-87 be withheld for the DE proceedings initiated at the fag end of the year 1991. The High Court was therefore right in directing the promotion to be given effect to to which the respondent was found entitled as on 1-1- 1986. In the facts and circumstances, the order of punishment

1 (1999) 5 SCC 762

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

made in the year 1995 cannot deprive the respondent of the benefit of the promotion earned on 1-1-1986."

17. Similarly, in Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh 2, the Hon'ble

Apex Court held as follows:

"5. The right to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, provided a person is eligible and is in the zone of consideration. The sealed cover procedure permits the question of his promotion to be kept in abeyance till the result of any pending disciplinary inquiry. But the findings of the disciplinary inquiry exonerating the officer would have to be given effect to as they obviously relate back to the date on which the charges are framed. If the disciplinary inquiry ended in his favour, it is as if the officer had not been subjected to any disciplinary inquiry. The sealed cover procedure was envisaged under the rules to give benefit of any assessment made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in favour of such an officer, if he had been found fit for promotion and if he was later exonerated in the disciplinary inquiry which was pending at the time when DPC met. The mere fact that by the time the disciplinary proceedings in the first inquiry ended in his favour and by the time the sealed cover was opened to give effect to it, another departmental enquiry was started by the Department, would not, in our view, come in the way of giving him the benefit of the assessment by the first Departmental Promotion Committee in his favour in the anterior selection. There is, therefore, no question of referring the matter to a larger Bench."

18. Admittedly, despite a lapse of six years of registration of the FIR in

the ACB case, till date, no charge sheet has been filed against the

petitioner, which indicates an unwarranted delay the part of the

2 (2000) 7 SCC 210

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

authorities, and thus, the petitioner cannot be penalized for such

administrative lapses. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the

action of the respondents in denying him promotion on the ground of

pendency of the criminal case, which was registered subsequent to the

date of promotion of his juniors, i.e., 15.02.2017, is unsustainable in

the eye of law.

19. Insofar as the second ground for rejection is concerned, it is

evident from the record that the petitioner was allotted to the

Commercial Tax Department in the cadre of Assistant Commercial Tax

Officer by virtue of the Selection List dated 10.05.2018. However, as

can be seen from the record, this Court, vide order dated 23.07.2021 in

I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.22894 of 2021, directed the respondents not

to disturb the petitioners from the post they are actually holding and

also directed to continue them in the said post until further orders. The

said writ petition is pending adjudication. In pursuance of the said

order, the petitioner has been continued to work as Tahsildar in the

Revenue Department only. As long as the petitioner is continuing in the

Revenue Department, the respondents cannot deprive him of a

promotion to next higher cadre.

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

20. Here it is to be noted that the petitioner averred in his reply

affidavit that in identical circumstances, the respondents themselves

have accorded promotions to the similarly situated employees. The

officers who were re-allotted to various other departments by virtue of

the Selection List dated 10.05.2018 were continued in their respective

parent departments and were also given promotions in the same

departments. In the Commercial Taxes Department, some of the officers,

viz., Mr. K. Satish, Mr. B. Narsi Reddy, Mr. B. Naga Raju, and Mr. V.

Buggappa, despite being allotted to different zones, were promoted to

the next higher cadre. Similarly, in the Panchayat Raj and Rural

Development and Agriculture Departments, Mr. N. Veeresham, Mr.

Ramulu Naik, Mr. K. Simhachalam, Mr. Titus Paul Kordala, and Mr.

Praveen Kumar Pallavi, were all promoted to the next higher cadres in

their existing departments, pending final decision on their re-allotment.

21. In view of the above, it is quite clear that the case of the petitioner

also stands on identical footing, and therefore, the action of the

respondents in denying to extend a similar benefit to the petitioner

amounts to discrimination and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India.

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Union of India v. Munshi Ram 3,

reiterated that equality of treatment among the similarly situated

employees is a fundamental mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India, and the relevant portion of the said decision is

extracted hereunder:

"56. It cannot be disputed that employees working in different divisions/zones in the Railways are under the very same employer - Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways. There are 16 Zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees working under the same employer - Railway Board working in different Zones/Divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment. As rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, there cannot be any discrimination inter se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of parity, the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to all the similarly situated Commission Vendors/Bearers working under different Zones/Divisions. There cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees - Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer."

23. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered

view that the petitioner is fully eligible and entitled for promotion to the

post of Deputy Collector w.e.f., 15.02.2017, i.e., the date of promotion of

his juniors, and the respondents ought not to have rejected his claim for

promotion. Therefore, the impugned rejection order is unsustainable in

the eye of law, and thus, it is liable to be set aside.

3 2022 SCC OnLine 1493

PK, J W.P.No.29945 of 2023 &

24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the

impugned rejection order vide Memo.No.13888/Ser.I/2023 dated

28.08.2023 issued by respondent No.1, and the respondents are

directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post