Telangana High Court

S. Panchakshari, vs The State Of Telangana, Represented By ... on 14 May, 2025

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                WRIT PETITION No.45837 of 2016
ORDER:

Seeking to set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.495/2010/

P&E/A1-2, dated 29.07.2016 issued by respondent No.3 and its

consequential proceedings in Cr.No.10673/2009/CPE/A2, dated

04.11.2016 passed by respondent No.2 and consequently to direct

the respondents to revise the Seniority List of the Inspectors of

Prohibition & Excise in Zone V and the Integrated Seniority List for

Multi Zone-III duly placing name of the petitioner above the name

of respondent No.4, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Heard Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for

respondents 1 to 3, and Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior

counsel, representing Sri P.Narasimha, learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.4.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

initially the petitioner and respondent No.4 were appointed as

Prohibition and Excise Inspector under direct recruitment through

APPSC and their commencement of probation was fixed at

02.11.1996 and in respect of respondent No.4 the same was re-

fixed as 27.07.1999 as he could not pass the departmental tests as

required under Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules,

-2- PK, J wp_45837_2016

1996. A final seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors of

Zone V was published by orders of respondent No.3 dated

05.10.2007 wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at

Sl.No.100 and name of respondent No.4 at Sl.No.143 and in the

remarks column against name of respondent No.4, it was

specifically mentioned that his date of commencement of probation

was fixed from 27.07.1999 due to his not passing of departmental

tests within the stipulated time. Further, in the final Integrated

Seniority List of Multi Zone-III consisting of Zones V and VI

prepared by respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 29.09.2009,

the name of respondent No.4 was shown at Sl.No.237 and the

name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.71. However, in the

said seniority list dated 29.09.2009, the name of the one K.Vara

Prasad was shown at Sl.No.236 i.e. above the name of respondent

No.4 shown at Sl.No.237. Therefore, questioning the same,

respondent No.4 filed O.A. No.11245 of 2009 wherein vide order

dated 07.07.2010, the Tribunal had allowed the said O.A. duly

setting aside the Integrated Seniority List dated 29.09.2009 and

directed the official respondents to prepare the revised seniority list

as per the merit assigned by APPSC. Alleging non-implementation

of the said order dated 07.07.2010, C.A. No.992 of 2011 was filed

and the same was closed based on the compliance reported by the

official respondents therein. However, respondent No.4 herein has

-3- PK, J wp_45837_2016

filed CMA No.130 of 2014 in CA No.992 of 2011 alleging that the

compliance reported was not a fact. Finally, in order to get over

the appearance ordered in CMA No.130 of 2014, the official

respondents have issued proceedings in Rc.No.495/2010/P&E/A1,

dated 25.06.2016 proposing to revise the seniority of respondent

No.4 at Sl.No.99A i.e. above the name of the petitioner herein solely

on the ground that he secured more marks than the petitioner

herein at the time of his initial appointment, to which, immediately

the petitioner raised objections stating that as the respondent No.4

has not passed the required departmental tests, within the

stipulated time, he cannot be placed above the name of the

petitioner in the seniority list. However, brushing aside the said

objections, the official respondents passed the order dated

29.07.2016 stating that on account of the order dated 07.07.2010

passed by the Tribunal, the seniority list has to be prepared in

accordance with merit ranking alone and not based on roster point

and the same is illegal and arbitrary. Though, the petitioner has

instituted O.A. No.3620 of 2016 assailing the order dated

29.07.2016, the same was disposed by the Tribunal vide order

dated 12.09.2016 directing the petitioner to avail the alternative

remedy of filing of Statutory Appeal and the same was directed to

be disposed of by the authorities considering the fact that he was

not a party to O.A. No.11245 of 2009, dated 07.07.2010, which are

-4- PK, J wp_45837_2016

not binding on the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a

representation dated 26.09.2016 along with an Appeal of even date

seeking revision of zonal seniority list vide order dated 29.07.2016.

However, vide order dated 04.11.2016, once again the said

objections were brushed aside by respondent No.2 by placing

misconceived reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9856-9860 of 2016 with Civil Appeal

No.9861 of 2016 dated 27.09.2016. Further, the exemption sought

by the petitioner under Rule 16(h) of the 1996 Rules was also

dismissed by the Government vide Memo dated 16.06.2016. It is

further stated that the appeal dated 24.11.2016 preferred by the

petitioner challenging the order dated 04.11.2016 passed by

respondent No.2 is still pending and no orders are passed thereon

till date. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to set

aside the order dated 04.11.2016 in the interest of justice.

4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted

that petitioner and respondent No.4 were appointed as Prohibition

& Excise Inspector and joined on 21.11.1996 and 02.11.1996

respectively. Further, the services of the petitioner were

regularized from 02.11.1996 and as respondent No.4 did not pass

the requisite departmental tests, within the period of probation, he

was penalized under Rule 16(h) and his date of commencement of

-5- PK, J wp_45837_2016

probation was fixed as 27.07.1999 vide G.O.Rt.No.1993, Rev.(Ex.I)

Dept., dated 09.09.2006. Thereafter, a provisional seniority list of

Prohibition & Excise Inspectors of Warangal Division was

communicated vide Cr.No.2643/2004/P&E/A1, dated 28.07.2006,

wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.100 and

respondent No.4 at Sl.No.143. After considering the objections, the

provisional seniority list was confirmed vide Cr.No.2643/2004/

P&E/A1-2, dated 05.10.2007, basing on which, the Integrated

Seniority List of Multizone-III was prepared and communicated

vide Cr.No.2399/2009/CPR/L3-3, dated 29.09.2009 wherein the

name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.71 and respondent No.4

at Sl.No.237. While so, respondent No.4 submitted a representa-

tion that raising objection that one Sri K.Vara Prasad, who secured

less marks than him, was placed at Sl.No.142. However, the fact

remains that due to non-passing of requisite departmental tests,

the probation of respondent No.4 was re-fixed as 27.07.1999.

Similarly, the date of commencement of probation of said K.Vara

Prasad was re-fixed by the Government as 25.07.1999 vide

G.O.Rt.No.459, dated 16.03.2022. Accordingly, both the said

individuals were pushed down in ranking list. Thereafter, as per

the order dated 07.07.2010 passed in O.A. No.11245/2009 and

O.A.No.11590/1990 & batch, the Integrated Seniority List was

revised as per merit and a revised provisional Integrated Seniority

-6- PK, J wp_45837_2016

List was communicated on 25.03.2011 and the same was finalized

on 06.09.2014 wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.78,

respondent No.4 was placed at Sl.No.118 and K.Varaprasad was

placed at Sl.No.118A. However, in pursuance to the order passed

by the Tribunal in C.A. No.992/2011, the revised seniority list was

issued placing respondent No.4 at Sl.No.99/A i.e. above the

petitioner, as per merit, as the petitioner secured 313.6 marks

whereas respondent No.4 secured 315.5 marks. Consequently, in

the Integrated Seniority List, respondent No.4 was placed at

Sl.No.77/A i.e. above the petitioner who was placed at Sl.No.77.

Further, the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration

before respondent No.1. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ

petition.

5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by

respective counsel and gone through the record.

6) A perusal of the material on record discloses that the

petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were selected as Excise

Inspectors by direct recruitment through Public Service

Commission on obtaining 313.6 and 315.5 marks respectively and

they joined service on 21.11.1996 and 02.11.1996 respectively.

Further, the date of commencement of probation of respondent

No.4 and petitioner were initially fixed at 02.11.1996 but as

-7- PK, J wp_45837_2016

respondent No.4 could not complete the requisite departmental

tests, within the period of probation, his probation period was

extended upto the last date of passing of the last departmental test

and accordingly he was deemed to have commenced his probation

in the category of Prohibition & Excise Inspector w.e.f.27.07.1999

i.e. two years anterior from the date on which he passed the last

departmental test as stipulated under Rule 16 (h) of A.P. State and

Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996, and Government issued

G.O.Rt.No.1993, dated 09.09.2006, to that effect. While so, the

provisional seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors was

prepared by respondent No.3 vide Circular No.2643/2004/P&E/

A1, dated 28.07.2006, wherein the name of petitioner was shown

at Sl.No.100 and respondent No.4 at Sl.No.143, basing on the date

of regularization of services in the cadre of Prohibition & Excise

Inspector. Thereafter, after considering the objections raised by

certain individuals, the said provisional list was confirmed by third

respondent vide Circular No.2643/2004/P&E/A1-2, dated

05.10.2007. Basing on the final seniority lists of Zone V and II, the

Integrated Seniority List of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors of

Multizone-II was also prepared vide Circular No.2399/2009/CPR/

L3-3, dated 29.09.2009 wherein the name of petitioner was placed

at Sl.No.71 and respondent No.4 at 237 and one K.Vara Prasad at

Sl.No.142. The record further discloses that admittedly respondent

-8- PK, J wp_45837_2016

No.4 failed to pass requisite departmental tests within the period of

probation of three years. As such, the Government has re-fixed his

date of commencement of probation as 28.07.1999. Likewise, in

case of K.Vara Prasad also, his date of commencement of probation

was also re-fixed by the Government as 25.07.1999 vide

G.O.Rt.No.459, dated 16.03.2022. Therefore, both the individuals

i.e. respondent No.4 and K.Vara Prasad were pushed down from

original APPSC ranking list due to alteration of date of

commencement of probation as 28.07.1999 and 25.07.1999

respectively and were accordingly placed at Sl.Nos.144 and 143

respectively. Aggrieved by the placement of said K.Vara Prasad

above his name and challenging the said Integrated seniority list

dated 29.09.2009, respondent No.4 has filed O.A. No.11245 of

2009 and vide order dated 07.07.2010, the Tribunal has allowed

the said O.A. holding as under:

"In these circumstances, the impugned seniority list, dated 29.09.2009, is liable to be set aside and the respondents are directed to prepare the seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors in Multi Zone-III strictly as per the merit assigned by the 4th respondent-APPSC, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by following the procedure prescribed under the rules and shall consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent as per his seniority and if he is within the zone of consideration as per the directions of this Tribunal."

7) In compliance of the above order, the respondent authorities

have revised the Integrated Seniority List of Prohibition & Excise

-9- PK, J wp_45837_2016

Inspectors as per merit vide Circular No.12782/2009/ CPE/l3,

dated 25.03.2011 and the said list was finalized on 06.09.2014

wherein the names of the petitioner, respondent No.4 and K.Vara

Prasad were placed at Sl.Nos.78, 118 and 118A respectively.

Further, in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal in C.A.

No.992/2011, respondent No.3 has again revised the Zonal

seniority list and placed respondent No.4 at Sl.No.99/A i.e. above

the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 21.03.2011, considering the

merit assigned by the APPSC. Consequently, in the Integrated

Seniority List of Multizone-III (consisting of Zone V and VI),

respondent No.4 was placed above the petitioner vide proceedings

dated 29.07.2016 and the same was confirmed by respondent No.2

vide Proceedings dated 04.11.2016.

8) Here, it is pertinent to observe that petitioner is not a party

to any of the proceedings before the Tribunal and the lis was

admittedly confined between respondent No.4 and K.Vara Prasad.

That apart, respondent No.4 has not chosen to challenge

G.O.Rt.No.1993, Rev.(Ex.I), Dept., dated 09.09.2006, whereby the

date of commencement of probation of respondent No.4 was

extended in the category of Prohibition & Excise Inspector

w.e.f.27.07.1999 and the same has attained finality.

                                  - 10 -                           PK, J
                                                         wp_45837_2016




9)       In view of the above peculiar facts of the case and having

regard to the fact that the appeal dated 24.11.2016 filed by the

petitioner is still pending consideration before the Government,

this Court is of the view that it is appropriate to direct respondent

No.1 to dispose of the appeal at the earliest.

10) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing

respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on

24.11.2016, duly giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

and by putting all the affected parties on notice, strictly in

accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not

later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. Till such time, there shall be stay of proceedings

dated 29.07.2016 of respondent No.3 and proceedings dated