Telangana High Court

Sushma B vs The National Fisheries Development ... on 7 May, 2025

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

         HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
                                 AND
          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO


                WRIT APPEAL No.550 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble Mrs Justice Surepalli Nanda)

Heard Sri Bobbili Srinivas, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner and

Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General

of India appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The present writ appeal is preferred aggrieved by

the order of this Court dated 29.04.2025 passed in W.P.

No.13460 of 2025.

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

3. The impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed in

W.P.No.13460 of 2025 is extracted hereunder:

"Notice before admission.

Post on 01-07-2025.

In the meantime, both shall maintain the status quo until the next date of hearing."

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

4. The letter No.NFDB/Admn./Dep/349/2022-23,

dated 26.10.2023 of the 1st respondent herein

addressed to the appellant/petitioner is extracted

hereunder:-

" I am pleased to offer you the post of Senior Executive (Finance & Admn.) in Group A in the Pay Level-11 of VII CPC pay matrix on deputation basis (Foreign Servie Terms) for a period of 3 years. The appointment will be governed by terms and conditions as stipulated vide DoPT O.M.dated 08.09.2022 (copy enclosed) as amended from time to time.

You are requested to join NFDB, Hyderabad after getting relieved on or before 13.11.2023.

5. The letter No.NFDB/Admn/Dep/349/2022-23,

dated 07.12.2023 issued by the 1st respondent to the

appellant/petitioner is extracted hereunder:

Smt. Sushma B, Administrative Officer, AIIMS, Mangalagiri, is hereby appointed to the post of Senior Executive (F&A) in the Pay Level 11(7 CPC) on deputation basis (Foreign Service terms) in the NFDB with effect from 01.12.2023 (FN)

The deputation period is for 03 years as per the offer of appointment (ref.1), which is further subject to grant of extension of deputation period beyond 28.04.2024 by the Parent Department (ref

2).

The appointment will be governed by the terms and conditions as stipulated vide DoPT's OM dated 08.09.2022 as amended from time to time. Smt. Sushma B, Senior Executive (F&A) is requested to submit option for fixation

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

of the pay within one month from the date of issue of this order.

6. The appellant herein is the petitioner in

W.P.No.13460 of 2025 and the same is filed seeking

prayer as under:-

".....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Proceedings bearing No. A-17.0014.0/4/2024-Budgacc_Part(1) dt 24.4.2025 issued by 1st Respondent rejecting Petitioners representation dt 26/2/2025 wherein Petitioner requested the 1st Respondent to forward her request for extension of deputation to 3rd Respondent as per the orders dt 26.10.2023 and dt 7/12/2023 issued by the 1st Respondent and also declaring the Office Note bearing A-17.0014.0/4/2024-Budg acc_Part(1) dt 25/4/2025 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal unjust arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India vitiated by the colourable exercise of power and also vitiated by mala fide on the part of the 4th Respondent and consequentially set aside the impugned proceedings dt 24/4/2025 and dt 25/04/2025 and direct the 1st Respondent to forward Petitioners request for extension of deputation to 3rd Respondent and also direct the 3rd Respondent to extend the Petitioners deputation by condoning the delay on the part of the 1st Respondent and pass..."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

DISCUSSION:-

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant/petitioner mainly puts-forth the following

submissions:-

i) The impugned order, dated 29.04.2025 passed in

W.P.No.13460 of 2025 directing status-quo to be maintained

without considering the grant of interim prayer as sought for by

the appellant/petitioner virtually defeats, the very purpose of

the appellant/petitioner approaching this Court by filing

W.P.No.13460 of 2025.

ii) In view of the impugned proceedings, dated 24.04.2025 and

25.04.2025 issued by the 1st respondent, i.e., the orders

impugned in W.P.No.13460 of 2025 by the appellant herein, the

appellant/petitioner cannot be retained and continued as Senior

Executive (Financial Administration) in the office of the 1st

respondent.

iii) The impugned proceedings, dated 24.04.2025 of the 1st

respondent is an unreasoned order rejecting

appellant/petitioner's request for extension of deputation period

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

up to 30.11.2026, the said impugned order clearly indicates

that the request of the appellant had not been approved by the

competent Authority without assigning any single reason and

therefore, this Court in its order, dated 29.04.2025 passed in

W.P.No.13460 of 2025 went wrong in granting status-quo

instead of suspending the said impugned order, dated

24.04.2025 of the 1st respondent herein.

iv) The consequential impugned order, dated 25.04.2025 of the

1st respondent is also an order passed without considering

appellant/petitioner's grievance as put-forth vide

representation, dated 21.04.2025, and therefore, this Court in

its order, dated 29.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.13460 of 2025

ought to have granted the interim order as sought for by the

appellant/petitioner in W.P.No.13460 of 2025.

v) Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of

this Court dated 27.11.1998 reported in 1999 1 ALD 147 in "V.

Vinod Rao v. Government of A.P., Revenue Department",

in particular, paragraph No.27 and is contended that the

present writ appeal is maintainable against the interlocutory

order, since grave injustice would be caused to the

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

appellant/petitioner in the event appropriate orders are not

passed in the present Writ Appeal, since the impunged status

quo order, dated 29.04.2025 has the effect of perpetuating the

orders, dated 24.04.2025 which is illegal, unconstitutional and

vitiated by malafides.

vi) This Court while passing the orders dated 29.04.2025 in

W.P.No.13460 of 2025 failed to take into consideration, the

orders dated 26.10.2023 and 07.12.2023 issued by the 1st

respondent and the office note dated 25.04.2025 which was

issued by the 1st respondent malafidely contrary to its earlier

orders, dated 26.10.2023 & 07.12.2023 issued in favour of the

appellant/writ petitioner by the 1st respondent.

Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner

contends that the Writ Appeal has to be allowed as

prayed for.

8. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing

on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 mainly puts-forth the

following submissions:-

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

i) The order impugned in the present Writ Appeal warrants no

interference by this Court, since issue pertains to the request of

the appellant/petitioner for continuing the appellant/petitioner's

services as Senior Executive (Finance & Administration) in the

office of the 1st respondent, which is the Prerogative of the

employer since the employer is the best judge to decide where

the services of an employee ought to be utilized.

ii) The subject issue involved cannot be interfered under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, unless the appellant/petitioner

convinces the Court that the decision of the employer is

contrary to statutory provisions and therefore, there is no

illegality in the order impugned in the present Writ Appeal.

iii) The interim relief as sought for by the appellant in

W.P.No.13460 of 2025 cannot be granted by this Court and this

Court rightly passed the order, dated 29.04.2025 in

W.P.No.13460 of 2025 since the appellant had been relieved on

28.04.2025 itself and the same had been approved on the said

date i.e., 28.04.2025 itself by the competent Authority.

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

iv) Reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment, dated

22.04.2025 passed in W.A.No.455 of 2025 in particular para

No.6 in support of the case of the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned

Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 to 3 contends that the present Writ

Appeal needs to be dismissed.

CONCLUSION:-

9. In so far as the maintainability of the present Writ

Appeal is concerned, this Court opines that the same is

maintainable since it is the specific case of the appellant

that the refusal of the interim order as prayed for by the

appellant in W.P.No.13460 of 2025 had caused serious

injustice or irreparable injury to the appellant/petitioner

herein.

10. In view of the fact that the continuance of the order

of status-quo, dated 29.04.2025 has the effect of

perpetuating the orders, dated 24.04.2025 impugned in

W.P.No.13460 of 2025,and hence, the said order of

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

status-quo dated 29.04.2025 containing the quality of

finality would therefore be a "judgment" within the

meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. This Court

opines that when an interlocutory order has the

semblance of final order or affect the rights of the

parties, it can be treated as an "order" for all practical

purposes.

10. This Court opines that the present Writ Appeal is

maintainable in view of the specific observations of the

Apex Court in its two judgments and judgment of the

Madhya Pradesh High Court referred to and extracted

below._

A. The judgment of the Apex Court in Shyam Sel and

Power Limited and Another reported in 2023 1 SCC 634,

dated 14.03.2022 and in particular para No.19 is

extracted hereunder:-

19. It has been held in Shah Babulal Khimji that most of the interlocutory orders which contain the quality of finality are clearly specified in clauses (a) to (w) of Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC and would be 'judgments' within the meaning of the letters patent and, therefore, appealable.

However, there may be interlocutory orders which are not covered by Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC but which also possess the characteristics and trappings of finality

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

inasmuch as such orders may adversely affect a valuable right of the party or decide an important aspect of the trial in an ancillary proceeding. It has further been held that however, for such an order to be a 'judgment', an adverse effect on the party concerned must be direct and immediate rather than indirect or remote. Various illustrations of interlocutory orders have been given by this Court in para (120), which could be held to be appealable. This Court held that though any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the trial Judge in the course of the suit may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice to one party or the other, they cannot be treated as a 'judgment' unless they contain the traits and trappings of finality. This Court has expressed in para (122) that though it had, by way of sample, laid down various illustrative examples of an order which may amount to a judgment, it would not be possible to give such an exhaustive list as may cover all possible areas. This Court, in the facts of the said case, held that an order of the Single Judge refusing appointment of a receiver and grant of an adinterim injunction was undoubtedly a 'judgment' within the meaning of Letters Patent, both because Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC applies to internal appeals in the High Court and that such an order even on merits contains the quality of finality and would therefore be a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

B. The judgment of the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples'

Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda , reported in

(2006) 5 SCC 399 and in particular para Nos.15 & 16 are

extracted hereunder:-

15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories:

(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case.

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

(ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case.

(iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case.

(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment.

(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

16. The term "judgment" occurring in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in Section 2(9), CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1, CPC, but also other orders which though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, "judgment" for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent.

In the present case(i) and (ii) above are

attracted.

C. The Full Bench judgment of the Madhyapradesh

High Court in Arvind Kumar Jain and Others. Vs. State of

M.P. and others reported in AIR 2007 MP 276 and in

particular para Nos.27 & 31 are extracted hereunder:-

27. In the case of W.A. No. 69/2007 Nav Nirman (Milan) Deria v. State of M.P. and Ors., the Division Bench had taken note of the decision rendered in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), and expressed the opinion that

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

the refusal of the interim order had caused serious injustice to the appellants and hence, the appeal was maintainable.

31. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons we proceed to record our conclusions in seriatim:

(a) The decision rendered in the case of Arvind Kumar Jain (supra), does not lay down the law correctly and is hereby overruled.

(b) Any decision treading on the same path has to be deemed to have been overruled.

(c) The decisions rendered in Nav Nirman (Milan) Deria (supra) and Tejpal Singh (supra), enunciate the law correctly.

(d) The proviso to Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 does not create an absolute bar to prefer an appeal to the Division Bench.

(e) An appeal can be preferred against an order regard being had to the nature, tenor, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

(f) The guidelines given in the cases of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. (supra), Deoraj (supra), Liverpool & London S.P. & I. Association Ltd. (supra), Subal Paul (supra) and Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) are to be kept in view while deciding the maintainability of an appeal.

(g) It should be borne in mind that instances given in the aforesaid decisions are not exhaustive but illustrative in nature, because various kinds/categories of orders may be passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(h) The facts in each case, the nature and the character of the order are to be scrutinised to appreciate the trappings of the same.

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

11. On perusal of record, it is evident that through an e-

mail, the appellant had been intimated that a relieving

letter/order, dated 28.04.2025 had been issued to the

appellant herein which had been approved by the

competent Authority and the appellant/petitioner was

requested to submit No dues certificate at the earliest.

12. A bare perusal of record indicates that on an earlier

occasion, the 1st respondent vide order, dated 26.10.2023

intimated the appellant/writ petitioner that the appellant

is offered the post of Senior Executive (Finance &

Administration) in Group-A in the pay level-11 of VII

CPC, pay matrix on deputation basis(Foreign Service

Terms) for a period of 03 years. A bare perusal of the

record, further indicates that the 1st respondent vide

office order, dated 07.12.2023 addressed to the

appellant/petitioner informed the appellant/writ

petitioner, that the deputation period is for 03 years as

per the offer of appointment, dated 26.10.2023 which is

further subject to grant of extension of deputation period

beyond 28.04.2024 by the parent department. But,

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

however, the impugned order, dated 24.04.2025 had

been issued by the 1st respondent rejecting appellant's

representation, dated 26.02.2025 seeking extension of

deputation period up to 30.11.2026 without assigning

any reasons simply stating that the said request had not

been approved by the competent Authority.

13. Taking into consideration the fact as borne on

record, that the order impugned, dated 24.04.2025

issued by the 1st respondent rejecting

appellant/petitioner's representation, dated 26.02.2025

wherein appellant/writ petitioner requested the 1st

respondent to forward her request for extension of

deputation to the 3rd respondent as per the orders, dated

26.10.2023 and 07.12.2023 issued by the 1st respondent

had been rejected without assigning any single reason

except stating that the request letter of the

appellant/petitioner for extension of deputation period,

dated 26.02.2025 had not been approved by the

competent Authority, this Court opines that the

appellant/Writ Petitioner is entitled for the relief as

prayed for in the present Writ Appeal since it is settled

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

principle of law that any order of judicial, quasi-judicial

and administrative Authority should be supported by the

reasons.

14. The Apex Court emphasized the need of assigning

reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial

proceedings in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v.

Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. The

relevant portion reads as under:

"12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognised a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasijudicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262].

13...

14. The expression "speaking order" was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of the writ of certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order.

15. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the "inscrutable face of a sphinx".

47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-

judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decisionmakers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process.

15. This Court opines that the impugned status-quo

order, dated 29.04.2025 is nothing but a final order as

according to the 1st respondent, the appellant is already

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

relieved on 28.04.2025 and the appellant has no other go

except to report to the 3rd respondent within 12 days

from the date of relieving order.

16. This Court taking into consideration the fact as

borne on record that the 1st respondent vide office order,

dated 26.10.2023 & 07.12.2023 intimated to the

appellant/writ petitioner that the appellants deputation

is for a period of 03 years and the offer of appointment

issued in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner is dated

26.10.2023, opines that the request of the appellant/writ

petitioner made vide representation dated 26.02.2025

seeking extension of deputation period up to 30.11.2026

needs to be reconsidered in accordance to law in the

interest of justice.

17. Taking into consideration:-

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

b) The submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner and

learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

c) The order impugned, date 29.04.2025 passed in

d) The order, dated 24.04.2025 and 25.04.2025 issued

by the 1st respondent.

e)The contents of the letter

No.NFDB/Admn./Dep/349/2022-23, dated 26.10.2023 of

the 1st respondent herein addressed to the

appellant/petitioner (referred to and extracted above)

f) The contents of the letter dated 07.12.2023 issued by

the 1st respondent to the appellant/petitioner (referred

to and extracted above)

g) The observations of the Apex Court and other Courts'

in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and

again enlisted below:

i)2023 1 SCC 634

ii) 2006(5) SC 399

ii) AIR 2007 MP 276

iii)(2010) 9 SCC 496

Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal is allowed.

The order impugned, dated 29.04.2025 passed in

W.P.No.13460 of 2025 is set-aside and the 1st respondent

is directed to reconsider the representation of the

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

appellant/writ petitioner, dated 26.02.2025 seeking

extension of deputation period up to 30.11.2026 and its

impugned's decision dated 24.04.2025 and 25.04.2025

and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the

representation of the petitioner, dated 21.04.2025

seeking forwarding of appellant's extension note for

appellant's tenure at NFDB Hyderabad to appellant's

cadre controlling Authority within a period of one (01)

week from the date of receipt of copy of the order in

accordance to law, duly taking into consideration the

office orders of the 1st respondent, dated 26.10.2023 and

07.12.2023 issued to the appellant/writ petitioner

intimating the appellant/writ petitioner that the post of

Senior Executive (Finance & Administration) in Group-A

in the Pay Level-II of VII CPC pay matrix on deputation

basis (Foreign Service Terms) for a period of three (03)

years had been offered to the appellant herein and duly

communicate the decision on the said representations to

the appellant/writ petitioner.

W.P.No.13460 of 2025 is directed to be listed after

summer vacation on 12.06.2025 for the counter of the

SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.550_2025

respondents. The counsel for the appellant is permitted

to take out personal notice to the unofficial respondent

No.4 herein who is also the 4th respondent in

W.P.No.13460 of 2025 and file proof of service of notice

upon the said 4th respondent in W.P.No.13460 of 2025

into the registry. However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

__________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

_______________________ JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

Date: 07.05.2025 Note:Issue CC by today b/o SAI