Telangana High Court
P.Arun Kumar vs The State Of Telangana, Rep By Its ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 34767 OF 2017
O R D E R:
Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the proceedings
dated 18.02.2015 of the 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner
of Prohibition & Excise. Subsequently, prayer was amended to
declare the proceedings dated 18.09.2017, 27.07.2015 of the 3rd
respondent and proceedings dated 14.07.2021 as arbitrary and
illegal.
2. Petitioner who belongs to SC-C Mala category was
selected and appointed as driver by proceedings dated
26-08-2002 of the District Collector, Hyderabad and was
allotted to Prohibition & Excise Department. In the seniority list,
his name was shown at Sl.No.3, the 4th respondent at Sl.No.5.
Subsequently, petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on
03-11-2006, Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector by proceedings
on 07-12-2010.
2.1 The 4th respondent filed O.A.No.6368 of 2012
questioning the seniority list of Drivers dated 21-2-2006 and
sought a further declaration that he is entitled to be promoted
as Prohibition & Excise Head Constable against the vacancy
earmarked for Drivers. He sought further direction for
preparation of a final seniority list in the cadre of drivers. The
Tribunal disposed the O.A directing respondents to consider the
claim of the applicant for appointment by transfer to the post of
Prohibition & Excise Head Constable against the vacancy
reserved for Drivers i.e. 30th point, taking into account his
eligibility and qualification, as per rules. Petitioner was not
impleaded as Respondent in the said O.A.
2.2 Consequently, the Prohibition & Excise
Superintendent, by Proceedings dated 13-09-2010 issued final
seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Constables for the period
from 01-01-2003 to 01-01-2010 wherein the name of petitioner
was shown at Sl.No.10, Sri Devi Singh at Sl.No.18 and the name
of the 4th respondent does not figure. By the Proceedings of the
Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad
Division dated 24-12-2011 a final integrated seniority list of
Prohibition & Excise Constables of Zone-VI was prepared,
wherein petitioner's name figures at Sl.No.36, but, he was given
seniority No.89. Name of Respondent No.4 does'nt figure in the
said seniority list. Surprisingly, the 3rd respondent issued final
seniority list of Drivers on 09-10-2012 in which, the 4th
respondent was shown at Sl. No.1, whereas Petitioner at Sl.
No.3. To the Provisional Seniority List dated 10-09-2012,
petitioner raised an objection which was rejected referring to a
rule relating to eligibility and qualification for the post of
Prohibition & Excise Head Constable, the Appeal filed
thereagainst was also rejected. Petitioner preferred a Revision
before the Commissioner which was disposed of on 27-12-2013.
The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.252, dated 21-02-2014
promoting the 4th respondent with effect from 03-11-2006. A
consequential order was issued by Deputy Commissioner on 29-
10-2014 promoting the 4th respondent as Prohibition & Excise
Sub-Inspector. Based on the said promotion the seniority of the
petitioner is revised in the category of Prohibition & Excise Head
Constable by Proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner dated
18-02-2015.
2.3 The grievance of petitioner is that the unofficial
respondent did not raise objection when petitioner was
promoted as Head Constable, Excise Sub-Inspector in 2010. As
stated above, unofficial respondent was promoted as Excise
Head Constable only in 2011. Petitioner states that after nine
years of his promotion as Excise Head Constable, date of his
promotion cannot be altered, so also five years later to his
promotion as Sub-Inspector, the same cannot be altered. In
terms of Rules 23 to 26 of the A.P. State & Subordinate Service
Rules, the claim of the unofficial respondent was barred by
time.
3. The case of the 4th respondent is that he belongs to
SC community and possesses Intermediate qualification and
Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV), Heavy Passenger Vehicle (HPC) and
Light Motor Vehicle licences, hence, he is eligible for
appointment to any post of Driver either Light Vehicle or Heavy
Vehicle. He was appointed as Driver in the Excise Department
against the Backlog vacancies and the District Collector allotted
him to the Excise Department by proceedings dated 17.09.2002.
As per TS Prohibition & Excise Subordinate Service Rules i.e.
Rule 5 Note 2A, the post of Excise Constables has to be filled up
by Drivers working in the department in a particular District
and as per Note 2B, the authorities prepared the list of Drivers
both for Heavy Vehicle and Light Vehicle placing the Heavy
Vehicle Drivers on the top of the list. Therefore, irrespective of
the date of appointment of the drivers at the time of preparation
of list or at the time of effecting promotion, the authorities ought
to have placed the Heavy Vehicle Drivers on the top of the list
and consequently they are entitled for promotion first.
3.1 In the provisional seniority list dated 21.02.2006,
one Mr. Anwar who is only having Light Vehicle Driver License
and failed SSC examination was shown at Sl.No.2, whereas the
4th respondent who possessed Heavy Vehicle Driving License
with intermediate qualification was shown at Sl.No.5, therefore,
the authorities concerned ought to have placed his name on the
top of the list. After issuing provisional seniority list, he
submitted representation to promote him in preference to Mr.
Anwar, taking into account the aforesaid facts and also taking
into account that when the 30th vacancy arisen i.e. 03.06.2011
because of retirement of (1) Saleemuddin. Head Constable, (2)
Azgar Ansari, Head Constable respectively but the said
representation was not considered. According to him, in view of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.V.
Rangaiah V State of A.P. the authorities concerned ought to
have considered the qualified and eligible candidates as on the
date of availability of vacancy and therefore, he is also eligible
and qualified for getting promotion to the post of Prohibition &
Excise Head Constable earmarked for Drivers i.e. 30th Point.
Therefore, he filed OA No.6368 of 2012 wherein the Tribunal
vide order dated 22.08.2022 directed respondents to consider
the claim of the applicant for appointment by transfer to the
post of Prohibition & Excise Head constable against the vacancy
reserved for Driver i.e.. 30th Point by taking into account his
qualification and eligibility as per rules. Pursuant thereto, the
Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad by proceedings
dated 09.10.2012 issued final integrated seniority list of drivers
of Hyderabad District after inviting objections and disposing of
the said objections, wherein his name was placed at Rank No.1,
the name of Md. Anwar was placed at Rank No.2 and Writ
Petitioner at Rank No.3, taking into account the licence
possessed by the Drivers. Inasmuch as the Appeal and Revision
filed by Petitioner against the Seniority List was rejected, the 3rd
respondent by proceedings dated 29.10.2014 promoted him as
Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector. Subsequently, the
impugned proceedings dated 18.02.2015 was issued to
Petitioner calling upon him to file objections, if any, within
seven days against the proposed revision of his seniority
placement due to assignment of notional date of promotion to
the 4th respondent in the cadre of Prohibition & Excise Head
Constable and revision of seniority in the cadre of Prohibition &
Excise Head Constable, wherein, his name was included at
Sl.No.88 above Petitioner and consequently, proposing revision
of the final integrated seniority list communicated vide
proceedings dated 24.12.2011 changing his seniority position
from rank No.89 to 134. Petitioner did not file any objections
and came with this Writ Petition after lapse of more than two
years. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs.
4. The 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner of
Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad Division filed counter stating
that due to revision of seniority in the feeder category of Drivers,
the 4th respondent became senior to Petitioner, accordingly, he
claimed notional date of promotion in the category of Head
Constable on par with Petitioner. The Government vide
G.O.Rt.No.252, Rev. (Ex.I) Dept., dt.21-2-2014 assigned
notional date of promotion to the 4th Respondent in the cadre of
Head Constable w.e.f. 03-11-2006 on par with his junior i.e.
Petitioner, in relaxation of Rule 33(a) of A.P. State &
Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Consequent on assignment of
notional date of promotion, notices were issued to all the
affected persons including petitioner calling for objections, if any
on the proposal to include the name of the 4th Respondent at
Sl.No.88(a) ie. above Petitioner in the Integrated final seniority
list of Head Constables of Zone-VI communicated vide
Cr.No.A2/132/2010, dated 24-12-2011. Petitioner did not file
any objection on the said proposal. Accordingly, the proposed
inclusion of the name of the 4th Respondent at Sl.No.88(a) in the
final integrated seniority list, dt. 24-12-2011 was confirmed vide
proceedings dated 27-10-2014. After inclusion of the name of
the 4th Respondent, notices were issued to Petitioner on
18-02-2015 proposing to revise his placement at Sl. No. 134 in
the integrated final seniority list of P&EHCS, dated 24-12-2011
to maintain cycle/rotation for drivers. Against the above
proposal also, petitioner did not file any objection and hence the
proposed revision was finalized vide proceedings dated
27-07-2015.
5. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel
on behalf of Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for
petitioner as well as Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel on
behalf of the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader for
Services-I.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner relied on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Kaul
v. UOI 1, P. Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govinda Rao 2, Bhupendra
Nath Hazarika v. State Of Assam 3, State Of U.P. v. Ashok
Kumar Srivastava 4, Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State Of
Orissa 5.
7. From a perusal of the material available on record,
it is clear that Petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on
the basis of provisional seniority list of Drivers, dated
21-02-2006, on which, the 4th respondent had been agitating to
rectify the said list in accordance with Note 2(b) of Rule 3 of the
Special Rules and to place him on top of the Petitioner for being
a Heavy Motor Vehicle Driver. He also initiated O.A.No.6368 of
2012 seeking the said relief. In the said OA, respondents were
directed to finalize the seniority list of Drivers expeditiously and
to consider the case of the applicant therein for promotion as
(2012)7 SCC 610
2013 (8) SCC 693
3 2013 (2) SCC 516
2014 (14) SCC 720
(2010) 12 SCC 471
Excise Head Constable. The claim of the 4th respondent was
considered by placing him above the Petitioner in final seniority
list of Drivers communicated on 09-10-2012. Thus, the
contention of Petitioner that the 4th respondent did not raise any
objection on his promotion in 2006 cannot be appreciated.
8. The claim of the 4th Respondent for seniority above
petitioner was allowed on 09-10-2012 and he was assigned
notional date of promotion on par with Petitioner on
21-02-2014. Pursuant to this, the seniority position of Petitioner
was altered on 27-07-2015. Therefore, the contention of the
Petitioner that his seniority vis-à-vis 4th respondent cannot be
altered at this point of time does not merit consideration. The
seniority position of the 4th respondent and petitioner was
altered only to make the same in consonance with the
provisions laid down in Note 2(b) of Rule 3 of the Special Rules.
The 4th respondent is placed above Petitioner as the former is a
Heavy Motor Vehicle Driver while petitioner is Light Motor
Vehicle Driver.
9. Further, the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated
29.10.2014 promoted the 4th respondent as Prohibition & Excise
Sub-Inspector. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 18.02.2015,
the 3rd respondent issued notice to petitioner calling upon him
to file objection / representation, if any within seven days from
the date of communication of this notice, against the proposed
revision of seniority placement. If no objection / representation
is received within the stipulated time, the provisional decision
would be finalised on the basis of the material available on
record. The said notice was served on petitioner on 04.03.2015,
however, admittedly, he had not filed any objections to the said
notice. Petitioner having kept quiet for two years, approached
this Court questioning the notice dated 18.02.2015. Since
there are no objections, the proposed decision to revise the
seniority placement was confirmed, by proceedings dated
27.07.2015 of the 3rd respondent. Consequently, by
proceedings dated 14.07.2021, the 3rd respondent appointed the
4th respondent as Prohibition & Excise Inspector by promotion.
10. As rightly contended by the 3rd respondent,
petitioner without challenging the final seniority list and without
submitting the objections, challenged the notice dated
18.02.2015 and thereafter, the orders dated 18.09.2017,
27.07.2015 and 14.07.2021. This Court does not find fault with
the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, therefore, of the opinion
that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
12. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand
closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
19th August 2025
ksld
