2. These Writ Appeals are directed against the judgment
3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are
4. W.A.No.1110 of 2024 is filed by respondent Nos.1
5. W.A.No.1186 of 2024 is filed by respondent No.3 in the
6. The writ petitioner is respondent No.1 in both the appeals.
7. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed
8. Heard Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General
representing Smt. L.Pranathi Reddy learned counsel for the
W.A.No.1110 of 2024 and perused the record.
9. The factual background, necessary for the adjudication of
iv. The Executive Council of respondent No.1-University, in
its 55th meeting held on 18.01.2021, resolved that writ
petitioner was not eligible for transfer from Subordinate
Service (Technical) to Administrative Service. The same
was communicated to the writ petitioner. Subsequently,
respondent No.3 was promoted from the post of
Superintendent (a post in the Ministerial Service) to the
post of Assistant Registrar. The relevant portion of the
minutes of the 55th meeting held on 18.01.2021 order is
extracted as under:
10. Being aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1-
11. Learned Advocate General on behalf of respondent No.1-
12. QUALIFICATIONS FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT:
Provided that no candidate other than a citizen of India may
be appointed except with the previous sanction of the State
Government and except in accordance with such conditions
and restrictions as they may be laid down. Such sanction
shall not be accorded unless the State Government are
satisfied that sufficient number of citizens of India, who are
qualified and suitable are not available.
(v) No person shall be eligible for direct recruitment, If he is
less than 18 years of age and unless otherwise specified in
the special or adhoc rules and if he is more than 34 years of
age as on the 1st day of July of the year in which the
notification for selection to the relevant post, category or
class or a service is made:
(ii) Uniformly by 10 years in the case of Persons With
Disabilities:
NB: This concession shall be in force till the end of May,
2021.
(iii) In the case of widows, divorced women and women
judicially separated from their husbands, who are not
remarried, the maximum age limit for direct recruitment to
posts carrying a scale of pay equal to Junior Assistants or
less, shall not exceed 40 years In the case of SCs and STs
candidates and 35 years in the case of others:
Provided that for compassionate appointment to the spouse
of deceased Government employee, the upper age limit shall
be 45 years Irrespective of the community.
(c) When direct recruitment is to be made to any State or
Subordinate Service by examination or selection, -
(i) a person who worked in the armed forces of the Indian
Union, shall be allowed to deduct from his age a period of
three years in addition to the length of service rendered by
him in the armed forces for purposes of the maximum age
limit;
(ii) a person who was recruited as a whole-time Cadet
Corpse Instructor on or after the 1st January, 1963 on his
discharge from the NCC either before or after the expiry of
the initial or extended tenure of his office in NCC having
served for a period of not less than six months prior to his
release from the NCC shall, subject to the production of a
certificate to that effect that he has been released from the
NCC be allowed to deduct from his age a period of three
years in addition to the length of service rendered by him In
the NCC for purposes of maximum age limit:
Provided that the person referred to In sub-rules (1) and (ii)
above shall, after making the deductions referred on in the
sub-rules shall not exceed the maximum age limit prescribed
for the post.
(iii) a person already in service of the State Government,
who has been appointed regularly, shall be allowed to
deduct from his age the length of regular service under the
State Government up to a maximum of five years for
purposes of the maximum age limit
(2) The minimum General Educational Qualifications
wherever referred to in these or special rules shall be the
qualifications prescribed in Schedule-II of these rules.
(3) (a) A candidate should possess the academic
qualifications and experience Including practical experience
prescribed, If any, for the post, on the date of the notification
for direct recruitment issued by the concerned recruiting
agency.
(b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to a post by
promotion or appointment by transfer, unless he possesses
the academic qualifications and technical or other
qualification and has passed the departmental and other
tests and has satisfactorily completed any course or training
prescribed in the special rules as a prerequisite qualification
for the post, to which he is to be appointed by promotion or
by transfer.
(4) Disqualification for appointment:-
(a) A candidate shall be disqualified for appointment If he
himself or through relations or friends or any others has
canvassed or endeavored to enlist for his candidature
extraneous support, whether from official or non-official
sources for appointment to any State or Subordinate Service.
(b) No person who has more than one wife living or who has
spouse living, marries in any case, in which such marriage
is void by reason of its taking place during the life time of
such spouse, shall be eligible for appointment by direct
recruitment to any State or Subordinate Service.
(c) No woman whose marriage Is void by reason of the
husband having a wife living at the time of such marriage or
who has married a person who has a wife living at the time
of such marriage, shall be eligible for appointment by direct
recruitment to any State or subordinate Service.
(d) No person who has been dismissed from a State or
Central Government service or from the service of Central or
State Government undertaking or local or other authorities
or who has been convicted by a court of law for an offence
involving moral turpitude shall be eligible for appointment to
any State or Subordinate Service.
It is submitted that the learned Single Judge
fundamentally erred in relying upon Clause 12 of Statute
XIV of the First Statutes of respondent No.1-University to
hold that the writ petitioner was eligible. The learned
Advocate General argued that Clause 12 merely
prescribes the methods of appointment such as open
competition, promotion, for broad service categories. But,
it does not, and cannot, prescribe the detailed
qualifications, eligibility criteria, or feeder cadres for
specific posts, and to read it as permitting a free-flowing
transfer from one service to any other service is an
erroneous over-simplification.
b) Absence of specific recruitment Rules & Role of Executive
Council: The learned Advocate General emphasized that
for the post of Assistant Registrar, no specific statutory
recruitment Rules detailing qualifications and feeder
cadres have been framed. In such a vacuum, Executive
Council, being the highest executive body of respondent
No.1-University under the Jawaharlal Nehru
Technological University Act,1972 (for short 'JNTU Act'), is
empowered to issue executive instructions and
resolutions to govern appointments. The resolutions
passed in the X and XI meetings of the Executive Council,
which clearly state that the post of Assistant Registrar
shall be filled by promotion from the post of
Superintendent, have been in continuous practice since
1993. This settled practice, which was evolved on
account of administrative necessity, carries great weight.
c) Violation of Established Service Classification: It is
submitted that respondent No.1-University's services are
distinctly classified under Statute XIV(1) into Academic,
Administrative, Ministerial, Subordinate (Technical), etc.,
which are created for a functional purpose. It was argued
that the post of Superintendent is the recognized feeder
cadre for Assistant Registrar, bridging the Ministerial and
Administrative services. The writ petitioner, belonging to
the Subordinate (Technical) Service, cannot bypass into
the Administrative Service without first being integrated
into the recognized channel of promotion, i.e., the
Ministerial Service, and rising to the level of
Superintendent.
d) Misapplication of Telangana State and Subordinate
Service Rules,1996: Rule 8 of the Telangana State and
Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules,
1996') is extracted as under:
8: Eligibility for promotion or appointment by transfer :-For
appointment to a higher post either by promotion from one
category to another within a service or by appointment by
transfer from one service to another service, a member of a
service or class of a service, shall have satisfactorily completed
his probation in the category from which he is proposed to be
promoted or appointed by transfer to such higher post.
It is submitted that the learned Single Judge's
reliance on Rule 8 of the Rules, 1996 is misplaced. It is
argued that the said rule merely states a general principle
of eligibility, and the said rule applies if such a transfer is
permitted by the specific recruitment rules. It is
submitted that the said Rule does not create a right to be
transferred from one service to another. It is also
submitted that the respondent No.1- University's own
statutes and settled executive resolutions have created a
specific framework and the general state rules cannot
override them.
e) Scope of judicial review: The learned Advocate General
argued that the learned Single Judge exceeded the limits
and the scope of judicial review. It is argued that the
decision of the Executive Council was neither arbitrary
nor mala fide. It was based on a rational interpretation of
the service structure, and the writ Court cannot
substitute its own view for that of the academic and
administrative body in determining the appropriate feeder
cadre and necessary administrative experience.
Submissions of Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner
12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, supporting the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge, vehemently argued
the following:
a) By placing reliance on Clause 12 of Statute XIV, it is
argued by the learned counsel that the said clause
explicitly permits "in-service personnel who possess the
qualifications" to appear for selection to posts in the
Academic and Administrative Services, and the writ
petitioner, being an in-service candidate who has passed
all requisite departmental tests, fulfils this criterion and
cannot be excluded from consideration.
b) The learned counsel submitted that the writ petitioner,
who was earlier serving in the Ministerial Service as a
Junior Assistant, had been transferred by respondent
No.1-University to the Subordinate (Technical) Service as
a Technical Assistant. To justify such transfer,
respondent No.1-University had itself invoked Rule 8 of
the State and Subordinate Service Rules. It was argued
that the same principle ought to apply in the case of
transfer to the Administrative Service as well, as
respondent No.1-University cannot be permitted to
approbate and reprobate. It is further argued that
respondent No.1-University cannot adopt inconsistent
stands to justify its illegal and arbitrary action.
c) The learned counsel also submitted that denying the writ
petitioner a chance to be considered, despite her superior
qualifications (B.Tech, MBA and qualification of multiple
departmental tests), while promoting others who have
passed all tests, is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution.
d) The learned counsel further stated that the rejection of
the writ petitioner's representation by the Executive
Council was by a cryptic non-speaking order, which was
rightly interfered with by the learned Single Judge.
Consideration by this Court
13. Upon a careful consideration of the rival submissions, the
statutory provisions and the precedents relied upon, this Court
finds considerable merit in the contentions advanced on behalf
of respondent No.1-University, for the following compelling
reasons:
I. Misplaced reliance on Statute XIV (12):
14. The interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge on
Clause 12 of Statute XIV is legally untenable. Clause 12 is a
general enabling provision prescribing the broad modes of
recruitment. It provides that appointments to the
Administrative Service shall be made by open competition,
permitting in-service personnel to participate. However, the
said provision does not define the category of in-service
personnel who are eligible to compete for such posts.
15. Further, the language of Clause 12 cannot be extended to
imply that every in-service employee, irrespective of cadre or
classification, such as, Technical Assistant, Librarian, or
Laboratory Attendant is eligible for appointment to the post of
Assistant Registrar. Such an interpretation would disrupt the
established cadre structure and defeat the purpose of
maintaining distinct service classifications within the
University. The rule of interpretation generalia specialibus non
derogant (general provisions do not derogate from special ones)
used to resolve contradictions in the statutes would apply to the
present case. The specific rule governing eligibility is found in
the long-standing administrative practice and resolutions of the
Executive Council, which clearly identify the feeder cadre for
appointment or promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar and
that specific Rule, would govern the general. The learned Single
Judge's contrary view overlooks this governing framework and
therefore, cannot be sustained.
II. The Primacy of the Executive Council's Resolutions:
16. It will not be out of the context to note that in the absence
of specific statutory recruitment rules, it is both permissible and
necessary for the Executive Council, being the highest executive
body under the JNTU Act, to prescribe service conditions and to
regulate recruitment through duly passed resolutions. The
resolutions adopted in 1993, designating the post of
Superintendent, as the feeder cadre for appointment to the post
of Assistant Registrar, constitute a conscious and reasoned
policy decision. This policy has been consistently adhered to for
over three decades, thereby giving rise to legitimate expectations
and forming the basis of settled seniority structures within the
University administration.
17. It is now well-settled that a long-standing and consistent
administrative practice, when not repugnant to the parent
statute, carries substantial persuasive value and is entitled to
judicial recognition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, in
disregarding this settled institutional policy and administrative
continuity, failed to accord due deference to the legitimate
exercise of policy-making authority of the Executive Council for
functional administrative arrangements.
III. The Distinct Nature of Service Classifications:
18. It is to be noted that the classification of services under
Statute XIV(1) is purposeful and cannot be disregarded as
superfluous. Each service, such as, Academic, Administrative,
Ministerial, and Subordinate (Technical) is distinct in function,
skill, and responsibility. The post of Assistant Registrar, being a
core administrative position, requires experience in academic
governance, finance, and personnel management, for which the
post of Superintendent serves as the feeder cadre.
19. Further, the duties of a Technical Assistant Grade-I,
confined to technical and laboratory functions, are not
comparable in nature or scope to that of a Superintendent. The
respondent No.1-University's policy of restricting direct
movement from a technical subordinate post to a senior
administrative position is, therefore, founded on an intelligible
differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of
maintaining efficiency and administrative coherence. Thus,
such a classification is reasonable and does not violate Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
IV. Misplaced Reliance on Rule 8 of State Rules and the writ
petitioner's Past Transfer:
20. The writ petitioner's reliance on her earlier transfer and
Rule 8 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules is
misconceived. The prior transfer from Junior Assistant to
Technical Assistant was confined to the subordinate, non-
gazetted cadre and was treated as an exceptional case requiring
audit justification and Government ratification, which remains
pending. Such an irregular and contested instance cannot be
invoked as a precedent to claim a vested right for inter-service
transfer.
21. Rule 8 of the State Rules, on a plain reading, merely
prescribes the eligibility condition and does not, by itself, create
a substantive right to seek transfer. The applicability of Rule 8
is contingent upon permissive provisions in the relevant special
or institutional rules. Thus, in the present case, the University's
framework, as defined by its executive resolutions, does not
permit direct transfer from the Technical to the Administrative
Service, and thereby the writ petitioner's claim is therefore,
legally untenable.
V. The Scope of Judicial Review:
22. This Court is of the considered view that the scope of
judicial review in matters of administrative appointments is
limited to examine whether the decision suffers from
arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. It
is not for this Court to determine the appropriate feeder cadre or
to weigh the comparative merits of administrative and technical
experience. The decision of the Executive Council, being based
on a rational and time-tested policy, cannot be termed perverse
or illegal to warrant interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, however,
exceeded the limits of judicial review by intruding into the policy
domain and directing reconsideration contrary to the
respondent No.1-University's established service framework and
institutional autonomy.
23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
view that the writ petitioner did not fulfil the essential eligibility
criterion for being considered for the post of Assistant Registrar,
as she was not holding the post of Superintendent or any other
post in the recognized channel of promotion and that the
appointment of respondent No.2 was in accordance with the
established practice and resolutions of respondent No.1-
University.
24. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the impugned
order dated 06.03.2024 of learned Single Judge suffers from
infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The impugned
order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.8455 of 2022 is liable to be set aside.
25. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are allowed and the
impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.8455 of 2022 is set aside. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 06.11.2025
ssp
