Telangana High Court
G K Sree Vani vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 June, 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.13117 OF 2025
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr.A.Phani Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Santhapur Satyanarayana, learned Government Pleader for
Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.2, 4, 6 and Mr. B. Rajeshwar
Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the State Andhra Pradesh,
appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5. Perused the material available
on record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking for the following
relief:
"to issue Writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not
assigning the notional seniority to the petitioners on par with the
first phase candidates w.e.f June, 2013, thereby depriving the
petitioners for the benefits of revised pay scales of 2015 and 2020
at par with first phase candidates pursuant to Notification No.01/
RMSA/Model Schools/2012, dated.06-02-2012 as arbitrary, illegal,
unjust, contrary to the provisions of Rule 33(b) of the Telangana
State and Subordinate Service Rules,1996 and violation of Article
14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India besides being
contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in in Civil
Appeal No. 9103 and 9104 of 2013, dated 16-03-2018 and
Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.Nos.36093 and 35011 of
2022 dated 17-11-2022 and consequently hold that the petitioners
are entitled to assign the notional seniority on par with the first
phase candidates w.e.f. June, 2013 in accordance with Rule 33(b)
and 36 (i) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service
Rules,1996 as observed and directed by this Hon'ble Court in
W.P.Nos.36093 and 35011 of 2022 dated 17-11-2022 and
W.P.No.4873 of 2025 dated 02-04-2025in the light of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in in Civil Appeal No. 9103 and 9104 of
2013, dated 16-03-2018 pursuant to the Notification
No.01/RMSA/Model Schools/2012, dated.06-02-2012 and to
extend the benefits of Revised Pay Scales 2015 and 2020 at par
with first phase candidates with all consequential benefits including
the arrears of salary and increments thereof and to pass such other
order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper".
3. The grievance of the petitioners in a nutshell is that pursuant to
an order passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in
W.P.Nos.36093 & 35011 of 2022, decided on 17.11.2022, the
respondents were specifically directed to draw a combine merit list of
direct recruits of 2012 by interspersing Telugu Medium and English
Medium Post Graduate teachers and then determine inter se seniority
of direct recruits based on the merit secured by each of the candidates
without regards to the date of joining and the roster point of
reservation.
4. Admittedly, the aforesaid judgment of this High Court dated
17.11.2022 by efflux of time has attained finality. The Government of
Telangana also has principally accepted the said judgment to be
binding upon the department so far as the implementation of the
instructions/directions given in the said judgment is concerned.
5. In the process, as a consequence of the disposal of those two
writ petitions, the respondents were required to publish a fresh
seniority list consisting of candidates belonging to the two mediums
and inter se seniority was required to be provided in terms of the merit
secured by each of the candidates in the selection process.
6. Down the line, the grievance of the petitioners as on date is that
the seniority list that the respondent/State of Telangana has now
prepared would provide the seniority to the petitioners in accordance
with the orders passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions.
7. However, for the reason that the persons who had given joining
on earlier period i.e., the first batch having joined on 14.06.2013 were
drawing more salary than the petitioners herein, even though the
seniority has been rectified and the petitioners were granted seniority
at par with the first batch of candidates.
8. It is this disparity in the pay between the two set of candidates
who were granted seniority from the same date of joining of the first
batch i.e., 14.06.2013 which has led to the filing of the present writ
petition.
9. The two Governments i.e., the State of Andhra Pradesh as also
the State of Telangana have filed their respective counters. The State
of Andhra Pradesh has washed their hand off in their counter stating
that the granting of seniority and the pay in the instant case is
exclusively within the domain of the State of Telangana as all the
petitioners are working in the State of Telangana and therefore, there
is no liability or responsibility as such casted upon the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
10. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of
Telangana fairly conceded that they are bound by the decision of the
Division Bench of this High Court in W.P.Nos.36093 & 35011 of 2022
which stands decided on 17.11.2022. He further contends that in
terms of the directions in the said judgment of the Division Bench of
this High Court as also in term of Rule 33(B) of the State Sub-Ordinate
Service Rules 1996, the inter se seniority between the two set of
candidates have been rectified and the petitioners have also been
granted seniority at par with the first batch of candidates who were
given joining on 14.06.2013. Thus the order of Division Bench of this
Court stands fully honoured.
11. So far as disparity in the salary among the two set of candidates
are concerned, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the
State of Telangana submits that the disparity that has arisen because
of the fact that the employees/officers who were appointed and given
joining on 14.06.2013 and the fact that they had come in the State
cadre earlier to the petitioners they were getting higher salary as
compared to the petitioners whose date of joining was much
subsequent.
12. Learned Government Pleader further submits that for the reason
so far as the date of joining of the petitioners herein being of a
subsequent period, the salary was bound to be lesser than the people
who were appointed in the earlier period of time. Thus, the
Government has ensured that the inter se seniority is provided strictly
in accordance with the directions given by the Division Bench of this
High Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions decided on 17.11.2022.
13. Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, all that we need to
consider at this juncture is whether in the given factual
circumstances, the petitioners in the present writ petition would be
entitle for parity of pay at par with the candidates who have granted
joining with effect from 14.06.2013 or not.
14. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the operative
part of the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid two
writ petitions which stood disposed of on 17.11.2022:
23. Further, the assertion of the respondent authorities
on scope of General Rule 33 shows their poor
understanding of the Rules. General Rule 33 mandates
determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits
based on merit secured in the recruitment examination
and not based on date of joining. Further, proviso to
General Rule 33 (b) requires assigning notional dates of
commencement of probation to candidates joined later
based on order of merit. Rule 36 (i) is more emphatic
on this aspect. Thus, on a combined reading of General
Rules 33 (b) and 36 (i), it is very clear that seniority of
direct recruits has to be determined based on merit
secured in the recruitment examination irrespective of
date of joining and wherever necessary to assign
notional dates of commencement of probation.
24. Before determining seniority of Post Graduate
teachers the elementary requirement is to draw a
combined merit list of candidates belonging to Telugu
Medium and English Medium streams selected in
pursuant to recruitment notification dated 06.02.2012.
This exercise is yet to be undertaken, even though long
ago Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to determine
common merit of all candidates irrespective of their
medium of study. There cannot be a seniority list of
direct recruits without a merit list.
25. One other aspect need to be noticed is that the
selections were made before division of combined State
of A.P. Therefore, the authorities ought to have drawn
combined merit list of all candidates appointed in both
States pursuant to 2012 selections. No such combined
list is drawn so far. Alternatively, the employer in
Telangana State ought to have drawn the names of
candidates appointed in Telangana State by
interspersing Telugu Medium and English Medium
candidates according to their merit and then proceed to
determine inter se seniority of Post Graduate Teachers
recruited in pursuant to 2012 recruitment.
26. Thus, the provisional seniority list impugned herein
is vitiated on several counts, ex-facie illegal, contrary to
statutory mandate, principles of law and directions of
Hon'ble Supreme Court. It amounts to arbitrary
exercise of power. It deserves to be set aside and is
accordingly set aside. The respondent-employer is
directed to draw combined merit list of direct recruits
of 2012 by interspersing Telugu medium and English
medium Post Graduate Teachers and then to determine
inter se seniority of direct recruits based on the merit
secured by them, without regard to date of joining and
roster points for reservation.
27. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
dismissed.
15. The plain perusal and observing the directions given by the
Division Bench in the aforesaid paragraphs makes it amply clear that
the Division Bench of this High Court had struck down the provisional
seniority list that was earlier prepared by the department and had
directed the State Government to prepare a combine merit list and
thereafter to provide seniority to each of the candidates in accordance
with their respective merits position.
16. Further, what is also reflected from the order of the Division
Bench is that apart from directing the State Government for
preparation of new combined merit list and seniority list, it was also
directed that the seniority has to be prepared ignoring the date of
joining of the candidates which in other words means that all the
candidates would have to be granted seniority strictly in accordance
with their merit position irrespective of the date of joining.
17. Thus, the candidates who were given joining on 14.06.2013 and
the candidates who have given their joining on subsequent period all
would have to be granted seniority with effect from 14.06.2013 and
their seniority list inter se has to be prepared in accordance with their
merit position in the list.
18. In the course of fixing the seniority for the petitioners as well
from 14.06.2013 which has been accepted by the State of Telangana,
we do not find any good reason as to why even thereafter any disparity
of pay between the two set of candidates who have been granted
appointment/seniority from the same date should remain. This in
other words also lead to a situation where though the order of the
Division Bench in the two writ petitions decided on 17.11.2022 would
stand complied with but the beneficiary i.e., the candidates who had
given joining on subsequent period would not be able to reap the fruits
from the said seniority list so prepared by the respondents. Their
grievance in other way still remains though their writ petition earlier
stood allowed.
19. In the given factual circumstances we are inclined to allow the
writ petition so far as protecting the petitioners to the extent of
granting pay parity with notional seniority to them at par with their
counter parts who have been granted joining with effect from
14.06.2013 onwards. However, we make it clear that the benefits that
shall be given to the petitioners herein would only be notional fixation
from 14.06.2013 till 01.07.2025 and henceforth from 01.07.2025
onwards the petitioners would be entitle for the benefits of the salary
at par with the candidates who were given appointment and joined
with effect from 14.06.2013 onwards.
20. With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition stands
allowed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
Date: 25.06.2025
Pvt
