Telangana High Court
Dr.Ekambari, vs The Vicechairman And Managing ... on 19 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1836 AND 1821 OF 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the
appellant, Ms. D.Sai Mahitha, learned counsel representing
Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State
Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC)-respondent No.1 and
Sri P.Suresh Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Sri P.V.S.S.S.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in
W.A.No.1836 of 2017 and respondent No.3 in W.A.No.1821 of
2017 and perused the record.
2. The present writ appeals are filed challenging the legality
and correctness of the common order dated 03.11.2017 passed
in W.P.No.15773 of 2013 and W.P.No.3396 of 2009 by the
learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge
dismissed the said writ petitions.
3. The challenge of the appellant/writ petitioner in the two
writ petitions was to the effect of promotion of respondent No.2-
Smt.Sailaja Murthy to the post of Senior Medical Officer by
overlooking the seniority of the appellant.
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the plea of the
appellant/writ petitioner by common order dated 03.11.2017
holding inter alia that respondent No.2 joined the service of
APSRTC as Assistant Medical Officer on 17.02.2000 and the
appellant was appointed as Medical Officer on 02.08.2003. The
learned Single Judge considering the fact that respondent No.2
was appointed as Assistant Medical Officer prior in point of time
to the appointment of the appellant as Medical Officer (both of
which posts constituted feeder category to the post of Senior
Medical Officer (Specialist)) observed that respondent No.2 being
senior was rightly promoted to the post of Senior Medical Officer
(Specialist).
5. The learned Single Judge further held that the promotion
of respondent No.2 who was senior to the appellant was in
accordance with the rules and reservations of the APSRTC and
also as per Appendix-A of the Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations,
1966.
6. The learned Single Judge did not find any reason to
interfere with the action of the authorities effecting the
promotion of respondent No.2 and accordingly dismissed the
underlying writ petitions.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the
appellant being a Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate, was unjustly
deprived of her rightful seniority as the roster point No.8,
specifically earmarked for ST (Women), was erroneously filled by
a general category candidate in the year 2007 instead of being
carried forward for the appellant. Further, it is contended that
the justification put-forth by the respondents, that adequate
representation in the cadre already stood satisfied owing to the
appointment of another ST(W) candidate, namely Dr.
Suvarnamala, is untenable inasmuch as her appointment was
made on open merit and not against a reserved vacancy.
Consequently, such an illegality has resulted in the appellant
being relegated to roster point No.25, thereby causing her grave
prejudice and substantial loss of seniority.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the
appellant being senior to respondent No.2 in service as Medical
Officer and also in qualification as per the common law and the
principles of natural justice, the seniority is required to be
decided from the date of entitlement to said promotion and the
learned Singled Judge erred in rejecting the contentions of the
appellant solely on the ground that the appellant and
respondent No.2 have been promoted as Senior Medical Officer
(Specialist) on the same day i.e., 20.02.2010 and holding that in
the regulations in Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 such
specification did not exist.
9. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that in regard to the promotion for the post of
Assistant Medical Officer and Medical Officer, it cannot be based
upon number of years in service but has to be considered from
the period of service as Medical Officer which the appellant had
at the time of promotion. Further, it is contended that the
finding of the learned Single Judge in respect of the length of
service from feeder category being taken into consideration for
effecting the promotion to the post of senior Medical Officer
(Specialist) is incorrect and contrary to the preparation of final
seniority list of Medical Officers.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant also contends that the
learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that when
the roster point regarding ST (W) quota was lying vacant, the
endorsement to carry forward the roster point No.8 on
05.11.2004 was improper and on completing of five/six years of
service, the appellant ought to have been promoted. The
concerned officer of Social Welfare Department failed to promote
the appellant by filling the said post even after completion of the
required period by the appellant.
11. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to
consider the arguments/submissions made in respect of the
qualification of respondent No.2-Sailaja Murthy i.e., she does
not possess any qualification for promotion as Senior Medical
Officer (specialist) as her PG Diploma is not recognized by the
Medical Council of India as per Section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (for short, 'MCI Act') and alleged the
promotion orders are illegal.
12. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge failed to
observe the Merits Rating Report dated 31.03.2012 of
respondent No.2 from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and has
erroneously upheld the promotion of respondent No.2 as
Specialist Senior Medical Officer. The Merits Rating Report
wherein it was clearly recorded/stated that respondent No.2
lacks skill in the specialization and did not perform any single
procedure in the specialization which she has claimed to have
pursued and on the basis of which, she has been promoted as
specialist Senior Medical Officer.
13. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge erred in
holding that R.T.C. Regulations do not require P.G. qualification
recognized by the Medical Council of India, ignoring the
amended A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Recruitment) Regulations,
1966, which prescribe medical qualifications under the
Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for
recruitment to the posts of Senior Medical Officer (Specialist),
Medical Officer (Specialist) and Medical Officer (General).
14. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
15. The fulcrum of the case of the appellant is the fixation of
seniority between the appellant and respondent No.2 in the
promotional cadre for the post of Senior Medical Officer, to
which both were promoted on the same date i.e., 20.02.2010
and the dispute arose when the appellant, who was senior in
the feeder cadre of Medical Officer, as being placed junior to
respondent No.2 in the promotional cadre.
16. In regard to the contention of respondent No.2's eligibility
for promotion based on a P.G. Diploma from an open University,
it is observed that though the MCI Act governs standards of
medical education and practice, it does not regulate service
conditions or promotional criteria of an autonomous body like
the A.P.S.R.T.C., unless incorporated in its regulations.
17. Further, it is pertinent to note that the learned Single
Judge has rightly held that eligibility for promotion is governed
by the A.P.S.R.T.C. Recruitment Regulations, which at the
relevant time, permitted consideration of the said diploma. The
Corporation, being bound by its own rules and regulations,
acted in accordance therewith, and the appellant, having
entered service under the same framework, cannot challenge its
applicability to another employee. Therefore, the challenge to
respondent No.2's eligibility, based on the provisions of the MCI
Act, is untenable.
18. Regarding the issue of determination of seniority where
promotions under the rule of reservation were effected on the
same day, it is to be noted that the seniority in the promoted
cadre is to be reckoned with reference to the order of roster
points earmarked for reserved vacancies and not on the basis of
seniority in the feeder cadre. In the instant case, roster point
No.16 precedes roster point No.25 and accordingly, respondent
No.2 having been promoted against the earlier roster point was
rightly placed as senior to the appellant.
19. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge
has rightly observed that the R.T.C. Regulations do not provide
for carrying forward the seniority of the feeder category in cases
where promotions are made against specific reserved slots, as
such, promotions are not general in nature but based on
seniority-cum-merit. Therefore, the principle of maintaining
feeder-cadre seniority has no application in the present context.
20. On perusal of the record, it is observed that the rule of
reservation in promotions took effect on 27.03.2003, and by
30.06.2007, Dr. C. Suvarnamala, belonging to the S.T.(W)
category, was already serving in the cadre of Senior Medical
Officer, thereby, ensuring adequate representation of the
community. Therefore, the appellant's contention that she
ought to have been promoted earlier against roster point No. 8 is
devoid of merit, and the decision of the Corporation not to carry
forward the S.T. (Women) roster point No.8 during 2007
selections stands justified.
21. We have noted that the learned Single Judge rightly held
that the selection panel dated 09.02.2010, which constituted
the very basis for the promotions and the resultant seniority
list, and which had unequivocally placed respondent No.2 at Sl.
No. 6 and the appellant at Sl. No. 15 was never assailed by the
appellant. Therefore, the attempt to question the consequential
seniority list after several years, without challenging the
foundational panel, is clearly an afterthought and barred by
delay and laches.
22. In conclusion, this Court is of the view that the
promotions were effected in accordance with the reservation
policy and the governing service regulations of the Corporation.
23. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the underlying common order of the
learned Single Judge as it does not suffer from any perversity,
illegality or error of jurisdiction warranting interference of this
Court.
24. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. 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: 19.09.2025
ssp
