Telangana High Court
R. Ravinder vs Telangana State Civil Supplies ... on 29 January, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
WRIT PETITION No.3873 of 2019
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the promotion order
granted to the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 vide order dated 13.03.2013.
2. According to the petitioner, the said promotion granted to the unofficial
respondent Nos.3 to 7 is per se bad, considering the decision of this High
Court in W.P.No.34592 of 2013 which stood decided on 16.08.2017.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the rota quota policy applied by
the department in promoting the private respondents was erroneous and
which stood established in the judgment of this High Court in
W.P.No.34592 of 2013 and batch petitions decided on 16.08.2017.
4. Having perused the pleadings and the documents attached to the writ
petition, what is apparently evident is that there appears to have certain
relaxation granted by the Management so far as the eligibility conditions to
the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 are concerned for declaring them
eligible for promotion. Thereafter, the regular DPC was convened on
11.03.2013 and since the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 were found
suitable for promotion under the relaxed conditions, they were granted
promotion vide order dated 13.03.2013. This promotion of unofficial
respondent Nos.3 to 7 was not challenged by any person at that point of
time or at a later stage till the instant writ petition has been filed. The
instant writ petition has filed much after the writ petition Nos.34592 of
2013 and batch petitions were allowed on 16.08.2017. The petitioner wants
to apply the principles laid down in the said judgment for upsetting the
promotion orders granted to the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7.
5. Upon perusal of record we find that the challenge in the aforesaid batch
of writ petitions, the lead case being W.P.No.34592 of 2013 was on a
notification issued by the official respondents on 16.03.2013 that too in
respect of remaining vacancies in the department treating it to be backlog
vacancies for the reserved category groups. Even at that point of time, the
promotions of the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 were not questioned
either in any of those batch matters and by efflux of time, the promotion
orders granted to the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 have got confirmed
and finalized without there being any objection.
6. In the given factual backdrop if we permit the petitioner who at the fag
end of his career had has raised up the issue trying to unsettle what has
already stood settled for so long a period from 2013 onwards till the writ
petition filed in the year 2019, does not seem to be proper, legal and
justified. The petitioner himself had not agitated the promotion granted to
the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 at the relevant point of time inspite of
knowing fully well that the unofficial respondents were firstly not eligible
for promotion, then secondly, the unofficial respondents were also juniors
of the petitioner. The petitioner accepted their promotion with wide open
eyes and waived the challenge, if any, that was there for on the said
promotion. Therefore, the petitioner now cannot be permitted at this belated
stage to challenge all those promotions which were given effect to long
back i.e., from 2013 and from which date the unofficial respondents have
been discharging their duties. Moreover, pending the petition, the petitioner
also now has crossed the age of superannuation.
7. In view of the same, we do not find any strong case made out calling
for interference to the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant writ
petition fails and the same deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
___________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
Date:29.01.2025
AQS
