Telangana High Court
K. Narender vs V. Nageswara Rao on 9 January, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
*****
WRIT PETITION Nos.232 AND 383 OF 2025
Between:
K. Narendar, S/o. Yadagiri, aged 36 years,
Occ: Junior Engineer (P.Way),
O/o. Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-Ordination),
Secunderabad Division, Divisional Railway Manager's Office,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad-500017 and others
... Petitioners
AND
V. Nageswara Rao, S/o. Talababy,
aged 34 years, Occupation Tract Maintainer IV,
O/o SSE/P.Way/KI, Gullepalli Village,
Kolapadu Mandal, Anakapalli, A.P.
(Sl.No.173 in qualifying list) and others
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 09-01-2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:-
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
[
Yes/No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
2 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.232 AND 383 OF 2025
% Date: 09.01.2025
Between
# K. Narendar, S/o. Yadagiri, aged 36 years,
Occ: Junior Engineer (P.Way),
O/o. Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-Ordination),
Secunderabad Division, Divisional Railway Manager's Office,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad-500017 and others
... Appellant
AND
$ V. Nageswara Rao, S/o. Talababy,
aged 34 years, Occupation Tract Maintainer IV,
O/o SSE/P.Way/KI, Gullepalli Village,
Kolapadu Mandal, Anakapalli, A.P.
(Sl.No.173 in qualifying list) and others
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri A. Venkatesh, learned senior counsel representing
Ms. Dornala Sai Mahitha, and K.R.K.V. Prasad
^ Counsel for Respondents : Learned Additional Solicitor General representing
Ms. L. Pranathi Reddy, and Sri Goda Siva, learned
Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Siva Reddy.
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. (2020) 17 SCC 602
C/15
3 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION Nos.232 AND 383 OF 2025
COMMON ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Since the issue involved in both these Writ Petitions is one and
the same, both these Writ Petitions are being heard and disposed of
by way of this common order.
2. Aggrieved by the interlocutory order, dated 24.12.2024, passed
in M.A.No.755 of 2024 in O.A.No.2366 of 2024 by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Telangana) (for short, 'the
Tribunal'), both the Writ Petitions are filed by some of the
respondents in the said O.A.
3. Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing
Ms. Dornala Sai Mahitha, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.383 of 2025; Sri K.R.K.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioners in W.P.No.232 of 2025; learned Additional Solicitor
General of India representing Ms. L. Pranathi Reddy, learned Senior
4 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for the official
respondents; and Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri K. Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
applicants.
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts and the submissions
made in W.P.No.383 of 2025 are hereunder discussed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners had
contended that the respondent-railways have issued a notification on
26.10.2020 for filling up the post of Junior Engineer/Permanent Way
against 20% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination quota.
The selections were to be made based upon the written examination,
consisting of Paper-I and Paper-II, and perusal of Service Record.
However, certain modifications were made to the said notification by
issuing a modified notification on 31.08.2021. In all, 455 candidates
were qualified and of the said 455 candidates, 53 candidates are
required to be selected. Earlier, on 18.04.2023, the respondent-
railways have finalized the selections and that was the subject matter
5 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
of O.A.Nos.295 of 2023 and 367 of 2024 before the Tribunal and the
Tribunal was pleased to set aside the selections by way of common
order, dated 08.05.2024.
6. Aggrieved by the said common order, dated 08.05.2024, the
selected candidates, unsuccessful candidates and several others have
approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13511 of 2024 and batch and
this Court, vide common order, dated 30.09.2024, was pleased to
confirm the common order, dated 08.05.2024, passed by the Tribunal,
however, directed the respondent-railways to finalize the selections
after taking into account the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports
(for short, 'APAR') of three years prior to the issuance of notification,
dated 26.10.2020.
7. In pursuance of the common order, dated 30.09.2024, passed
by this Court, the respondent-railways have finalized the selections
and the petitioners were selected as Junior Engineers/Permanent
Way and they were promoted vide proceedings, dated 14.12.2024.
While so, the respondents-applicants have challenged the selections
6 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
once again before the Tribunal by filing the subject O.A.No.2366 of
2024 and the Tribunal vide impugned order, dated 24.12.2024, was
pleased to suspend the proceedings, dated 14.12.2024.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners had
further contended that the Tribunal has suspended the proceedings,
dated 14.12.2024, without hearing the petitioners and that since the
Tribunal has suspended the proceedings, dated 14.12.2024, the
respondent-railways have reverted the petitioners from the post of
Junior Engineer/Permanent Way to their respective substantive posts
vide reversion order, dated 31.12.2024.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners had
further contended that before passing the impugned order, dated
24.12.2024, the Tribunal ought to have atleast given notice and
opportunity to the petitioners to represent their case. But, without
hearing the petitioners, the Tribunal has suspended the promotion
proceedings, dated 14.12.2024. The Tribunal has passed an ex parte
7 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
interim order, without hearing the petitioners and the rights of the
petitioners were severely affected.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in
support of his submissions, relied upon the judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in AIIMS v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi and
others 1, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that
Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, limits the power
to pass interim order whether by way of injunction, stay or otherwise
by imposing conditions on the exercise of such power. No interim
order is to be made unless copies of the application along with
documents in support of the plea for interim order are furnished to
the party against whom such application is made and an opportunity
to be heard is given to such party. Learned Senior Counsel had
further contended that, admittedly, in the instant case, though the
petitioners were impleaded as party respondents in the subject O.A.,
the copies of the subject O.A. were not furnished to the petitioners
and no opportunity was extended to the petitioners before passing
(2020) 17 SCC 602
8 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
the impugned order, dated 24.12.2024, against the petitioners.
Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by
setting aside the impugned order, dated 24.12.2024, passed by the
Tribunal and further, direct the respondent-railways to continue the
petitioners as Junior Engineers/Permanent Way with all
consequential benefits.
11. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for
the official respondents had contended that since this Court has
directed the respondent-railways to finalize the selections, the
respondent-railways have finalized the selections in accordance with
the Rules governing and that was being found fault by the
respondents-applicants. Therefore, the Tribunal has suspended the
promotion orders of the petitioners. Learned Additional Solicitor
General had further contended that the promotion exercise done by
the respondent-railways was strictly in accordance with the common
order, dated 30.09.2024, passed by this Court in W.P.No.13511 of 2024
and batch. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with
the promotion orders of the petitioners.
9 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
12. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents-applicants had contended that this Court was pleased to
dispose of W.P.No.13511 of 2024 and batch vide order, dated
30.09.2024, wherein it was made clear that Service Records prior to
issuance of notification, dated 26.10.2020, should only be considered.
Once the notification is issued, the Service Records of three years
prior to the issuance of notification alone have to be looked into, but
the respondent-railways have finalized the selections by looking into
the Service Records even after issuance of the notification, dated
26.10.2020, i.e. upto 2021, which is not permissible and is not in
consonance with the order, dated 30.09.2024, passed by this Court
and that necessitated the respondents-applicants to challenge the
selections afresh by filing the subject O.A. The Tribunal has rightly
suspended the proceedings, dated 14.12.2024, which is contrary to the
common order, dated 30.09.2024, passed by this Court. If the
petitioners are aggrieved by the suspension of proceedings, dated
14.12.2024, they are entitled to file vacate petition, but filing the
present Writ Petition is not a right course. Therefore, there are no
10 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
merits in the present Writ Petition and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
13. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the
respondent-railways have finalized the selections contrary to the
common order, dated 30.09.2024, passed by this Court in
W.P.No.13511 of 2024 and batch, whereby, this Court has
categorically held that Service Records of three years prior to the
notification only should be taken into account for the purpose of
finalizing the selections. Admittedly, the respondent-railways have
finalized the selections by taking into account the Service Records of
the period beyond the notification, dated 26.10.2020, which is not
permissible. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in suspending the
proceedings, dated 14.12.2024.
14. So far as the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Sanjiv Chaturvedi's case (supra), relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.383 of 2025, is
11 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
concerned, the said judgment also states that in exceptional
circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Tribunal
can always grant ex parte order. Admittedly, in the instant case, the
Tribunal has given elaborate reasons before passing the ex parte order
suspending the proceedings, dated 14.12.2024. Therefore, the
Tribunal was justified in passing a detailed speaking order for
suspending the proceedings, dated 14.12.2024. Therefore, this Court
is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petitions on this ground
also.
15. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the present
Writ Petitions can be disposed of by directing the respondent-
railways to finalize the selections strictly in accordance with the
observations made by this Court vide common order, dated
30.09.2024, in W.P.No.13511 of 2024 and batch. Further, in order to
put an end to this litigation, this Court is of the view that the
promotion proceedings, dated 14.12.2024, are liable to be set aside
and accordingly, the same are set aside. However, liberty is given to
the respondent-railways to finalize the selections strictly in
12 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
accordance with the observations made by this Court in
W.P.No.13511 of 2024 and batch and also taking into account the
APARs of three years prior to the issuance of notification, dated
26.10.2020, and if APARs are not available, then the respondent-
railways can look into the Performance Report of the candidates and
finalize the selections.
16. Since we have set aside the proceedings, dated 14.12.2024,
with a direction to the respondent-railways to finalize the selections
strictly in accordance with the observations made supra, it is needless
to state that the respondents-applicants shall withdraw the subject
O.A.No.2366 of 2024 pending before the Tribunal, in order to give
quietus to this litigation. It is also needless to state that since the post
of Junior Engineer/Permanent Way deals with the maintenance of
railway tracks and it would come under the works of exigency, the
respondent-railways are directed to finalize the selections as
expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2)
weeks from today.
13 AKS,J & LNA,J
W.P.No.232 of 2025 & batch
17. With the above observations/directions, both the Writ
Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in these Writ
Petitions shall stand closed.
_________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 09.01.2025.
Note: 1. C.C. by tomorrow.
2. L.R. copy to be marked.
B/o.
MD
