Telangana High Court
Dr. I. Raja Kiran Kumar Goud vs The Director Of Medical Education on 31 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.813 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the
appellant, who appeared through video conferencing. Also
heard Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned
Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the
respondents.
2. The challenge to the penalty proceedings dated
13.11.2015 which has been upheld in the departmental
appeal was made subject matter of W.P.No.17735 of 2024
in which hearing has been concluded and the judgment
has been reserved on 24.06.2025. The present appeal
arises out of W.P.No.19121 of 2025, which was preferred
after the judgment was reserved in the other writ petition
of the same petitioner, who is the appellant herein, with a
prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the
proceedings Rc.No.6215/D-2/2024 dated 30.06.2025
issued by respondent No.1 by not including the name of
the appellant for obtaining service particulars of the post of
Associate Professors (Plastic Surgery), for the purposes of
effecting promotion to the post of Associate Professor
(Plastic Surgery) for the panel year 2024-2025, as arbitrary
and discriminatory. The learned writ court has issued
notice upon the respondents by the impugned order dated
04.07.2025. The appellant, being aggrieved by the
impugned order, has preferred this appeal on a plea that if
no interim protection is granted for including the name of
the appellant in the zone of consideration for promotion to
the post of Associate Professor (Plastic Surgery), he would
suffer adversely in the meantime.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that even if the appellant succeeds in the first
writ petition and in meanwhile, the promotion exercise is
concluded, his chances for being considered for promotion
in the present promotional exercise would be excluded and
there may be further delay of one more year in view of the
administrative delays caused in the department.
Therefore, he has rushed to the appellate Court for an
interim relief.
4. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents has
strongly opposed the prayer.
5. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties.
6. We are of the opinion that the outcome of the
challenge to the penalty proceedings is awaited. The
appellant has anticipated that the proceedings may end up
in his favour thereby creating a legitimate expectation for
being considered for promotion to the post of Associate
Professor in the proceedings underway. The writ petition
for inclusion of the name of the appellant in the
promotional exercise is still pending. In such
circumstances, the learned writ court rightly refused to
issue any specific direction in favour of the appellant for
inclusion of his name in the zone of promotion. In such
circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere in
the instant appeal.
7. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
31.07.2025
vs
