Telangana High Court
Korra Srinivas Nayak vs State Of Telangana on 21 April, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 2147 OF 2019
O R D E R:
Petitioner, who claims to be belonging to S.T.
(Lambada) Community, assails the action of Respondents 1 and
2 in not promoting him to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer
Grade-I in preference to the 3rd respondent.
2. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed as
Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II vide proceedings dated
27.10.2005. Thereafter, he passed departmental tests and now,
is eligible for promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer
Grade-I. Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare
Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, provides for method of
appointment and the appointing authority. The Hostel Welfare
Officer Grade-II is eligible for promotion to Hostel Welfare Officer
Grade-I. As per Rule 7, no person shall be eligible for
appointment by transfer or promotion unless he/she has put in
not less than 3 years of service in the category from which
promotion or appointment by transfer is made.
It is stated, since petitioner was appointed as Hostel
Welfare Officer Grade-II in 2005 and he possessed requisite
service of three years in the feeder category and had also passed
the tests as contemplated in the Rules, he is eligible for
promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I in 2014.
Further, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 5, dated
14.02.2003 deciding to implement the Rule of Reservation in
promotions to ensure adequate representation of Scheduled
Castes and Schedule Tribes employees, i.e. 15% and 16%,
respectively in all the categories of posts in all the Departments.
In view of the above G.O., petitioner claims, he is eligible to be
considered for Roster Point No.8 reserved for S.T. for promotion
to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer, Grade-I. From the date of
eligibility, he is stated to have been making representations,
latest being the one dated 24.07.2017 to respondents, but the
official respondents have not considered his case and
surprisingly, promoted the 3rd respondent who is junior to him,
vide proceedings dated 03.01.2018.
3. The 2nd respondent - District Collector filed counter
on behalf of respondents stating that in Karimnagar District
there were number of representations filed in AP Administrative
Tribunal about seniority. The Tribunal passed orders in OA No.
7215 of 2011 filed by one Sri K. Bhikshapathi, HWO Gr-II and
Sri V.Bhaskar, HWO Gr-II that orders issued in G.O.Ms No.614,
dated 02-08-2011 revising the date of declaration of probation
of applicants concerned was suspended. As such the orders
issued for implementing Rule 16(h) were not implemented. The
Tribunal in O.A. No.8062 of 2016 with VMA 380 of 2010 issued
final judgment in all those cases, pursuant thereto, the
Government vide Memo dated 02-08-2011 issued information to
the Commissioner of Social Welfare for giving promotion to
HWOS Gr-II and HWOs Gr-I (Male & Female) in the District duly
maintaining common seniority. Accordingly, common seniority
of all HWOs Gr-II and HWOs Gr-I (for Male & Female) has been
maintained in accordance with the government orders. It is also
stated therein that as and when post reserved for women is
thrown open, relevant persons may be promoted based on the
common seniority list, which is maintained. The 8th roster point
reserved for women (S.T.) was kept blank in earlier roster
register and it has been carried forward to 22nd point of roster
due to non-availability of eligible ST Candidate.
It is stated that while petitioner was working as
HWO Gr-II at Government SC Boys Hostel, Ibrahimpatnam, two
boarders viz. Kumar Pendum Aksheeth studying in 8th class and
Kumar Mannempally Vinay 9th Class left the hostel premises
and drowned in SRSP Canal at Ibrahimpatnam due to his
improper supervision and the District Collector, Jagtial placed
petitioner under suspension on 15-04-2017 till 13-07-2017 and
subsequently, imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual
grade increment without cumulative effect vide proceedings
dated 28.02.2018 and the said punishment was in operation up
to 27-02-2019. In the meantime the 3rd respondent who also
belongs to ST community and eligible for promotion to the post
of HWO Gr-I was considered and promoted.
It is stated, Government in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated
10-06-1999 clearly and specifically issued orders that the
appointing authority should consider and decide that it would
not be against the public interest to allow ad hoc promotion to
the officer concerned and this shall be decided with reference to
the charge under enquiry. If the charge is one of moral
turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave
dereliction of duty then the appointing authority should
consider as not in the public interest to consider ad hoc
promotion to such changed officer. Since it is established during
the course of enquiry that petitioner has not been taking care of
boarders and not controlling the boarders in going outside the
hostel premises due to which the incident was occurred,
punishment was imposed. Further it is submitted that, now
there is no vacant post of HWO Gr-I, to consider the promotion
of writ petitioner and his case would be taken up for the next
panel being prepared in respect of HWOs Gr-II who will be
eligible for the post of HWO Gr-I.
4. Petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the averments
of counter. It is stated that it is a fact the roster point at 8 S.T.
(Women) was not filled up since 2007 on the ground of non-
availability of eligible candidate as on that date. As per A.P.
State and Subordinate Service Rules, when candidate is not
available in the respective roster point, the same has to be
carried forward. Though, he is eligible in 2014 itself,
respondents deliberately waited till 2017 and promoted the 3rd
respondent on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against me. In fact, the vacancy which has not been
filed up in 2007 and the same has to be filled up as and when
the eligible candidate is available. Therefore, the procedure
adopted by the Respondent in filling up of the S.T. roster point
is wholly illegal and contrary to the A.P. State and Subordinate
Service Rules and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
It is stated in 2014, he became eligible for promotion by which
time, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner Ms. K. Udaya Sri
submits that as on the date of arising of vacancy, his client was
the only eligible candidate to be considered for promotion
against S.T. reserved post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I.
However, from 2008 till 2018, the said Roster Point was not
filled up for the reasons best known to respondents and only in
January, 2018, the 3rd respondent was promoted though he is
junior to petitioner. According to learned counsel, while
working as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II, petitioner was placed
under suspension vide proceedings dated 15.04.2017 on certain
allegations but thereafter, suspension was revoked and he was
taken back into service on 13.07.2017 duly imposing the
punishment of deferment of one increment without cumulative
effect vide proceedings dated 28.02.2018. The disciplinary
proceedings would not affect or impact his eligibility prior to
initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
6. Heard learned Government Pleader for Social
Welfare and perused the record.
7. As is evident from the material on record, pursuant
to the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.As., the Government
vide Memo dated 02-08-2011 issued information to the
Commissioner of Social Welfare for giving promotion to HWOs.
Gr-II and HWOs. Gr-I (Male & Female) in the District duly
maintaining common seniority. Accordingly, common seniority
of all HWOs Gr-II and HWOs Gr-I (for Male & Female) has been
maintained in accordance with the government orders. It is also
stated therein that as and when post reserved for women is
thrown open, relevant persons may be promoted based on the
common seniority list, which is maintained. The 8th roster point
reserved for women (S.T.) was kept blank in earlier roster
register and it has been carried forward to 22nd point of roster
due to non-availability of eligible ST Candidate. In the
meanwhile, petitioner was placed under suspension on
15-04-2017 till 13-07-2017 for dereliction of duty which
resulted in death of two boarders and subsequently, was
inflicted with punishment of stoppage of one annual grade
increment without cumulative effect vide proceedings dated
28.02.2018 and the said punishment was in operation till
27-02-2019. Therefore, the 3rd respondent, who also belongs to
ST community and eligible for promotion to the post of HWO
Gr-I was considered and promoted. In view of the same, the
contention of learned counsel for petitioner that his client was
the only eligible candidate to be considered for promotion
against S.T. reserved post, however, from 2008 till 2018, the
said Roster Point was not filled up for the reasons best known to
respondents, cannot be accepted.
8. Further, Government vide G.O.Ms.No.257, dated
10-06-1999 directed that appointing authority should consider
and decide that it would not be against the public interest to
allow ad hoc promotion to the officer concerned and this shall
be decided with reference to the charge under enquiry. If the
charge is one of moral turpitude, misappropriation,
embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty then the appointing
authority should consider as not in the public interest to
consider ad hoc promotion to such charged officer.
Undoubtedly, in this case, petitioner suffered punishment for
dereliction of duty, hence, the appointing authority considered it
not in the public interest to promote him. In the light of the
same, the action of the official respondents in promoting the 3rd
respondent, though junior to petitioner, cannot be found fault
with.
9. At this stage, as submitted by Respondents 1 and 2,
there is no vacant post of HWO Gr-I to consider the case of
petitioner for promotion and his case would be taken up for the
next panel being prepared in respect of HWOs Gr-II who will be
eligible for the post of HWO Gr-I. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to grant petitioner the relief sought in the Writ Petition
and the same is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
11. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
21st April 2025
ksld
