Telangana High Court
Ch. Bixapathi vs The State Of Telangana on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_23394_2019 &
wp_13595 & 23094_2020
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.23394 of 2019
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.13595 and 23094 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners, who are rendering services as Work Inspector
Grade-I, have been reverted to their earlier postwith retrospective effect,
on the ground that they were illegally promoted, and that they do not
have requisite technical qualification when they were initially promoted
decades ago.
2. In view of the commonality of issue and grievance, the writ
petitions are taken up for disposal by way of this Common Order. For
reference and discussion, the facts in W.P.No.23394 of 2019 are taken.
3. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Man-Mazdoor (manual worker)
in the 3rdrespondent-Irrigation & Command Area Development
Department in 1986, and petitioner No.2 in 1987. Subsequently, they
obtained promotions as Work Inspector Grade-IV, and later Grade-III,
and so on, ultimately as Work Inspector Grade-I in the year 2007. On an
anonymous complaint dated 13.08.2018 received by the 2nd
respondent/Engineer-in-Chief stating that the petitioners do not have the
technical qualification certificate from the year 1992 onwards, a Memo
dated 14.06.2019 was issued to the petitioners (and also to certain
retired personnel). The petitioners submitted a detailed representation
wp_23394_2019 &
wp_13595 & 23094_2020
NBK, J
dated 20.08.2019 by referring to the Order dated 29.01.2008 passed by
the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3138 of 2004, in a similarly
situated case of one Mr. Reddy Papi Naidu, Work Inspector, and the writ
petition W.P.No.7559 of 2008 filed by the respondent authorities against
the Order dated 29.01.2008 in OA.No.3138 of 2024, was dismissed by
this Court by order dated 08.04.2008. It is the contention of the
petitioners that they too are on the verge of retirement, and therefore the
impugned action of reversion to earlier post, after decades of service, is
illegal.
4. Heard Mr. C. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners; and learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the
record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on
the lines of writ affidavit, would contend that the petitioners were
promoted way back during 1989 & 1996 as Work Inspector Grade-IV,
and subsequently they obtained further promotions, and the action of the
authorities in reverting the petitioners to earlier post, after decades of
service, that too on the verge of their retirement of is illegal.
6. Learned Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit,
would contend that on the complaint received by the authorities that the
petitioners do not have necessary technical qualification at the initial
stage of promotion in the year 1992, the matter was examined and it was
found that the promotion of petitioners is illegal as they do not
haverequired technical qualification to serve in the promoted grade.
Therefore, they have been reverted to the lower Grade, commensurate
wp_23394_2019 &
wp_13595 & 23094_2020
NBK, J
with their qualifications. It is contended that the authorities are now
taking action by considering the eligibility criteria, as the earlier
promotions were not given on merit/eligibility but due to the arbitrary
action which went unnoticed for years. It is contended that when other
employees approached the respondent authorities for promotion
(seeking similar dispensation as that of the petitioners), the authorities
denied such requests for promotion on the ground of qualification, and
therefore, there is no illegality in the action of the respondent authorities
in reverting the petitioners to earlier posts, as the impugned action has
been taken to correct/rectify the earlier illegality and arbitrariness.
7. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the
record, it may be noted that the petitioners were appointed during
1986/1987 as man-mazdoor (manual labour) in the respondent-
Department. Even as per the counter affidavit, the petitioner No.1 has
SSC + ITI qualification (and hence eligible for Work Inspector Grade-III
position), and petitioner No.2 has SSC qualification (and hence eligible
for Work Inspector Grade-IV position). It is to be noted that non-
verification of technical qualifications, at the time of granting
subsequent promotions, cannot be the fault of the petitioners in the first
place, and admittedly they performed duties for decades until they got
their latest promotions as Works Inspector Grade-I. Further, even as per
the counter affidavit (at page Nos 5 and 6), the duties of different Grades
of Work Inspector do not differ either in skills or abilities or nature of
duties.
wp_23394_2019 &
wp_13595 & 23094_2020
NBK, J
8. It is to be noted that in W.P.No.7559 of 2008, the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the writ petition by order
dated 08.04.2008, observed as follows:
"On a perusal of the aforesaid G.O., it is quite clear that the
persons who were sought to be appointed as Works Inspector
must have three yearsexperience as Works Inspector Grade-IV
besides ITI certificate or its equivalent qualification. Though the
respondent did not possess the qualification of ITI, he was
promoted as Works Inspector Grade-III and thereafter as Works
Inspector Grade-II and the admitted position that he had been
working as such for a considerable time. However, the Department
having realized that the respondent has been wrongly promoted as
Works Inspector Grade-III and II, issued the impugned order of
reversion on 4.3.1996 nearly after a period of eight and half years.
The Tribunal taking into consideration the fact that no show
cause notice was issued to the respondent before the impugned
order of reversion was passed and considering the fact that the
respondent has put in more than ten years of service in the post of
Works Inspector, while relying on the judgments of the Supreme
Court in GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY vs. RATHOD
LABHU BECHAR AND OTHERS (2001 AIR SCW 351) and M.
BUCHA REDDY vs. BHAGYAMMA AND OTHERS (1999) (6) ALD 58))
allowed the said O.A. while setting aside the order of reversion.
In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or
irregularity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference.
The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No
costs."
wp_23394_2019 &
wp_13595 & 23094_2020
NBK, J
9. Further, after the dismissal of W.P.No.7559 of 2008, a Memo
dated 29.07.2008 was issued by the Principal Secretary to Government
(FAC), which reads as follows:
"The attention of Engineer-in-Chief (IW), Irrigation & C.A.D
Department, Hyderabad is invited to the references cited. He is
informed that after careful examination of the matter, Government
have observed that the applicant viz., Sri Reddy Papi Naidu, Work
Inspector, is on the verge of retirement and the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal / Hon' ble High Court orders have gone in his favour.
Filing an S.L.P. in Hon' ble Supreme Court of India may not be the
most appropriate step.
He is directed to implement the orders of A.P.A.T dated 29-
1-2008 in O.A.No.3138/2004 to continue Sri Reddy Papi Naidu as
Work Inspector, Gr.II and report compliance."
10. In the instant case, the petitioners, having been appointed in the
year 1986/87, rendered services for almost more than three decades and
are undoubtedly on the verge of retirement. The arbitrariness/illegalities
whatsoever occurred in granting further promotions to the petitioners
(over and above their actual qualification for promotion), cannot
beattributable to the petitioners. Furthermore, the 1st respondent, by
Memo dated 29.07.2008 has felt it notappropriate to carry the matter in
SLP before the Supreme Court as the petitioner therein (Mr. Reddy Papi
Naidu) was on the verge of retirement.
11. The action of the authorities in denying promotions to other
candidates due to non-possessing of prescribed educational/technical
qualifications cannot be faulted; however, the authorities cannot adopt
wp_23394_2019 &
wp_13595 & 23094_2020
NBK, J
the same denial dispensation towards the petitioners herein, at this
distance of time, after availing their services for more than two decades
in the promoted/higher posts. Therefore, this Court finds it just and
reasonable that the petitioners deserve equitable treatment (as that of the
petitioner in W.P.No.7559 of 2008), as the petitioners herein are also at
the fag end of their careers.
12. In that view of the matter, the action of respondent authorities in
reverting the petitioners to a lower Grade with retrospective effect, is not
sustainable in law.
13. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
28th May, 2025
ksm
wp_23394_2019 &
wp_13595 & 23094_2020
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.23394 of 2019
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.13595 and 23094 of 2020
28th May, 2025
ksm
