Telangana High Court

P. Suresh Babu vs The Director Of Public Health And Family ... on 25 September, 2025

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                 WRIT PETITION No.18334 of 2025
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the Proceedings Rc.No.2196/GAD/MZ-II/2024, dated 24.06.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent herein as highly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide, unconstitutional, violating Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from contrary to Rules 13 & 15 of AP (TS) Ministerial Service Rules, 1998, apart from violation principles of natural justice and set-aside the same and consequently, issue directions directing the 1st Respondent to issue revised provisional seniority list in terms of Rule 13 & 15 of the AP (TS) Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 after reviewing the promotions to the post of Office Superintendents in terms of Rule 13 of the Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 and then only, affect the promotions to the post of Administrative Officers in Multi Zone-II and pass..."

2. Heard Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel

appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 7.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners

were initially appointed as Junior Assistants, which was a District

Cadre Post under the earlier Presidential Order, 1975, in their

respective districts in erstwhile Zone-VI, and were subsequently

PK, J

promoted as Senior Assistants in the erstwhile Zone-VI, which was a

Zonal Cadre Post. It is further submitted that pursuant to the new

Presidential Order, 2018, the erstwhile Zones-V and VI were divided

into (7) Zones, and the petitioners, working as Senior Assistants in

erstwhile Zone-VI, were allotted to present Zone-VI, i.e., Charminar

Zone, based on their seniority and options exercised by them.

Further, although many juniors to the petitioners opted for Zone-VI,

they were allotted to different Zones such as Zone-IV and Zone-V.

Thereafter, in view of the availability of vacancies in the cadre of Office

Superintendent, which is also a Zonal Cadre Post, the juniors of the

petitioners allotted to Zone-IV and Zone-V were promoted as Office

Superintendents in their respective posts. However, despite being

seniors to them, the petitioners, who were allotted to Zone-VI, had to

wait for promotions, until the vacancies arose in Zone-VI, and they

had only secured promotion as Office Superintendents belatedly. As

such, the juniors of the petitioners in erstwhile Zone-VI were

promoted earlier to the petitioners and have become seniors to the

petitioners in the cadre of Office Superintendent. It is further

submitted that had the respondents treated the post of Office

Superintendent as a Multi-Zonal Post, instead of Zonal Cadre Post,

the Senior Assistants would have been promoted as per their seniority

PK, J

in erstwhile Zone-VI and then, the petitioners would not have been

subjected to any injustice. However, due to the treatment of post of

Office Superintendent as a Zonal Cadre Post, the juniors of the

petitioner secured a promotion prior to them, whereby, affecting the

scope of the petitioners being promoted to the next post, i.e.,

Administrative Office, which is a Multi-Zonal Post.

4. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 has taken a

decision to effect promotions to the post of Administrative Officers in

Multi Zone-II, based on an integrated seniority list of Office

Superintendents in Multi Zone-II, which consists of three Zones. It is

further submitted that due to the promotions to the post of Office

Superintendent in Zone-IV and Zone-V, the juniors of the petitioners

in erstwhile Zone-VI, have now become seniors to the petitioners, and

they are now likely to be promoted as Administrative Officers, and the

petitioners, who are their seniors, would have to work under their

juniors, which is wholly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory,

unconstitutional, mala fide, and in total violation of Articles 14, 16

and 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is further submitted that the authorities may have affected

promotions to the post of Office Superintendents in Zone-IV and

PK, J

Zone-V, owing to the administrative exigencies, but the said

promotions are not in accordance with law, inasmuch as, Rule 13 of

the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Services Rules, 1998, clearly

postulates the unit of appointment for the purpose of promotions,

direct recruitment and seniority in respective zones under the earlier

Presidential Order, 1975. However, unless and until respondent

No.2, who is the competent authority, amends the Andra Pradesh

Ministerial Services Rules, 1998, (adopted by Telangana State), the

authorities could not have treated the post of Office Superintendent

as a Zonal Cadre Post under the new Presidential Order, 2018, and

they ought to have affected promotions based on the seniority in the

cadre of Senior Assistants in the erstwhile Zone-VI only. As such,

preparation of the present provisional integrated seniority list of Office

Superintendents for Multi Zone-II, instead of preparing a seniority list

of Office Superintendents based on the seniority in the erstwhile

Zone-VI, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, mala fide,

unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution

of India, and also contrary to Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh

Ministerial Service Rules, 1998.

6. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 issued the present

impugned provisional seniority list dated 24.06.2025, and usually,

PK, J

the affected parties must be given at least four weeks of time to

submit their objections to the provisional seniority list. However,

without affording any such reasonable period of time to submit

objections, respondent No.1 has instructed the individuals to submit

their objections within two days only, i.e., by 05:00 PM on

26.06.2025, which is not only strange and unusual, but also contrary

to the Rules and the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in a catena of decisions. As such, the present impugned

seniority list dated 24.06.2025 is highly illegal, arbitrary,

discriminatory, mala fide, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16

and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to

Rules 13 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules,

1998. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court.

7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, on filing

of counter affidavit, submits that after the formation of Telangana

State, the President has issued orders in G.S.R.820 (E) in the year

2018, officially being titled as 'the Telangana Public Employment

(Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment)

Order, 2018. Since then, the Presidential Order, 2018, has been in

operation, in suppression of the earlier Presidential Order in

G.S.R.524(E) dated 18.10.1975. As such, the petitioners do not fall

PK, J

under the old Presidential Order, 1975. It is further submitted that

as per Part-VIII, Section 77 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Re-organization

Act, 2014, employees of local, district, zonal and multi-zonal cadres

that fall entirely in one of the successor states, shall be deemed to be

allotted to that successor state. It is submitted that as on the date of

bifurcation of the State, two zones were in existence in the present

State of Telangana, i.e., Warangal Zone (Zone-V) and Hyderabad Zone

(Zone-VI). However, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.124 dated

30.08.2018, dividing the erstwhile two zones into Multi Zone-I and

Multi Zone-II, consisting of seven new zones. Thereafter, as a part of

the Presidential Order, 2018, the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.317

dated 06.12.2021, issued guidelines for re-allotment of employees to

the newly created zones. Pursuant to the same, as per the options

exercised by the petitioners, they were allotted to said Zone-VI

(Charminar Zone), based on their seniority and preferences, vide

proceedings dated 30.12.2021 and 08.01.2022. However, the

petitioners never submitted any representations nor raised any

objections against their allocation orders.

8. It is further submitted that once the employees were allocated

to the newly formed zones, separate cadre strength and separate

seniorities, in respect of all zonal cadre posts, has been prepared and

PK, J

maintained in terms of Rule 13 of the Ministerial Service Rules, 1998.

Further, in accordance with the provisions under Paragraph 3 of the

Presidential Order, 2018, the Government has considered and

approved the scheme for organization of local cadres in the

Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, and necessary

orders were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.176 dated 04.08.2021, whereby,

the posts of Senior Assistant and Office Superintendent were

organized into zonal cadre posts and the post of Administrative Officer

was organized into multi-zonal cadre post. Therefore, promotions to

the posts of Senior Assistant and Office Superintendent were

supposed strictly made within the respective zones based on the

availability of vacancies and seniority. As such, after finalization of

the zonal seniority list of Senior Assistant in all the newly created

seven zones, promotions were affected, wherein, the petitioners were

also duly promoted as Office Superintendents in Zone-VI in the year

2023. However, even at that point of time, the petitioners have never

submitted any representations/objections.

9. It is further submitted that the Government adopted the

Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1998, with certain

modifications, vide G.O.Ms.No.195 dated 28.05.2016. As such, the

contention of the petitioners that the said Rules were not amended is

PK, J

false and baseless. Further, the petitioners were awarded promotions

to the post of Office Superintendent in accordance with these Rules

only in 2023, and now, they are questioning the validity of these

Rules, which is against the principles of natural justice. It is further

submitted that the post of Administrative Officer is a multi-zonal post,

under the new Presidential Order, 2018, and therefore, to affect

promotions to the said post, the seniority list of Office

Superintendents in Zones-IV, V and VI have been finalized, and a

provisional integrated seniority list of Office Superintendents

pertaining to Multi Zone-II has been prepared and published vide

Rc.No.2196/GAD-MZ-II/2024 dated 24.06.2025, calling for objections

from the individuals, by giving two-days' time. It is submitted that

the employees at Sl.Nos.1 to 15 in the provisional integrated seniority

list were due to retire from service on 30.06.2025. As such,

considering these facts and a means of accelerated communication,

two-days' time has been prescribed for submission of objections.

Further, there is no specific provision in the Rules for prescribing a

time limit for submission of objections on the seniority list. However,

the petitioners submitted their objections and without waiting for a

reply, have hastily approached this Court and filed the present writ

petition.

PK, J

10. It is further submitted that in the event of a revision of the said

list, vitally all the affected parties must necessarily be impleaded in

the writ petition. However, in the present case, the petitioners have

not specified the details of the employees who were shown as seniors

to them in the provisional integrated seniority list, nor arrayed any

individuals against whom seniority is sought, which is contrary to the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabodh Verma & Others v.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 1. It is further submitted that the

post of Administrative Officer has been organized into multi-zonal

post as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.124 dated 30.08.2018

under paragraph 3 of the Presidential Order. However, the petitioners

did not choose to challenge the same. It is further submitted that as

paragraph 11 of the new Presidential Order, 2018, makes it clear that

it has an overriding effect/primacy over any statute. As such, the

previous Presidential Order, 1975, has pales to insignificance.

Therefore, the new Presidential Order, 2018, being issued Article 371-

D of the Constitution of India, has primacy in law and overrides any

statutory provisions. Thus, any provision made contrary to the

Presidential Order is nugatory and otiose. Hence, the reliance placed

upon by the petitioners on Rule 13(d)(i) & (ii) of the Ministerial Service

1 AIR 1985 SC 167

PK, J

Rules cannot be accepted. It is further submitted the Government

has issued G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 19.03.2022, duly making an

amendment to the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules,

1996, so as to align the unit of appointment with the Presidential

Order, 2018. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the

service Rules are not amended is baseless.

11. It is further submitted that Rule 34 of the Telangana State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, states that when an integrated or

common seniority list of a particular class or category or grade in any

service belonging to different units of appointment has to be prepared

for the purpose of promotion or appointment by transfer, such an

integrated or common seniority list shall be prepared with reference to

the provision of Rule 33(a) of the State and Subordinate Service

Rules, provided that the said seniority list of the persons inter-se

belonging to the same units shall not be disturbed. As such, in

accordance with the said Rule 34 and the new Presidential Order,

2018, the present integrated provisional seniority list of Office

Superintendents belonging to different zones in Multi Zone-II has

been prepared, duly taking into consideration the date of promotion

and without disturbing the unit seniority. As such, there is no

illegality or violation of any Rules in preparing the present integrated

PK, J

provisional seniority list. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the

present writ petition.

12. Reliance has been placed on a the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ucchab Lal Chhanwal 2, and a

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Nageswara Rao

and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 3.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.4 to 7, while drawing the attention of this Court to the dates of

appointment and promotion as Senior Assistants and Office

Superintendents of the unofficial respondents as well as of the

petitioners, submits that the petitioners are themselves juniors to

respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the cadre of Senior Assistant and that all the

petitioners are juniors to all the unofficial respondents in the cadre of

Office Superintendent. As such, the petitioners cannot claim

seniority or promotion over and above the unofficial respondents. It is

further submitted that the present writ petition has been filed against

a provisional integrated seniority list, calling for objections regarding

the placement of the individuals in the seniority list and the

petitioners have submitted their objections. Thus, a provisional

2 (2014) 1 SCC 144 3 2006 (4) ALD 649

PK, J

seniority list would not give rise to any cause of action, the writ

petition is not maintainable. Further, since none of the affected

parties, whose seniority is likely to be affected/altered, have not been

arrayed as respondents, the present writ petition is also liable to be

dismissed in limine due to non-joinder of necessary parties. It is

further submitted that the unofficial respondents are presently

working as Office Superintendents in Multi Zone-II and are fully

qualified and eligible for promotion as Administrative Officers, being

seniors to the petitioners in the feeder category. As such, the balance

of convenience also would lie in their favour.

14. It is further submitted that the contentions of the petitioners

that the respondents ought to have treated the post of Officer

Superintendent as a Multi Zonal Post instead of a Zonal Post; that

only due to non-availability of vacancies in their unit of appointment,

i.e., Zone-VI, they could secure a promotion belatedly; and that the

respondents cannot affect promotions without amending the

provisions of Rule 13 of the Ministerial Service Rules, are

unsustainable. It is submitted that averment of the petitioners that

they are not aware whether the earlier Presidential Order, 1975, has

been repealed or not, is also untenable, as the new Presidential Order,

2018, came into operation, w.e.f., 30.08.2018, only in supersession of

PK, J

the earlier Presidential Order, 1975, and the organization of cadres

have been affected in accordance with the new Presidential Order,

2018. It is further submitted that consequent upon the creation of

new units, the petitioners themselves have opted for Zone-VI with an

intention to stay within Hyderabad and nearby places, secured

promotion as Office Superintendents and are working as such. As

such, it would not be open for them to approbate and reprobate.

15. It is further submitted that all the allotments have been made

strictly in tune with the provisions contained in Paragraph 4 of the

Presidential Order, 2018, and the petitioners never challenged their

allotment. Further, as per Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order,

2018, each unit of appointment is distinct and different, as it

stipulates that each part of the State, for which a local cadre has been

organized in respect of any category of posts, shall be a separate unit

for the purpose of recruitment, appointment, discharge, etc. As such,

once the petitioners have opted for and accepted their allotment to

Zone-VI, they cannot have any grievance against other individuals

working in different units of appointment. It is submitted that the

present provisional integrated seniority list has been prepared in

accordance with Rule 34 of the Telanana State and Subordinate

PK, J

Service Rules, 1996, without disturbing the inter-se seniority within

zones. As such, the impugned seniority list is legally justifiable.

16. It is further submitted that in view of amendment to Rule 7 of

the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the unit of

appointment for posts organized as district, zonal and multi-zonal

cadres under the provisions of the Presidential Order, 2018, shall be

the district, zone and multi-zone respectively. As such, in view of the

non-obstante contained in Rule 7, the provisions of the said Rule

would prevail over the provisions of Rule 13 of the Ministerial Service

Rules. As such, the heavy reliance placed upon by the petitioners on

Rule 13 of the Ministerial Service Rules, is misplaced. Even if the

plea of the petitioners would have to be accepted, then their very

promotions as Office Superintendents, affected under the new

Presidential Order, 2018, framework, would be rendered illegal. It is

submitted that the plea of the petitioners to follow the erstwhile Zone-

VI seniority for the purpose of affecting promotions to the posts of

Office Superintendents and Administrative Officers is also irrational,

inasmuch as, the local cadres have already been organized and the

allotments and promotions were also given effect to. Therefore, it is

prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

PK, J

17. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Division Bench

of this Court in T. Ganaganna v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 4

18. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

19. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioners have

approached this Court, assailing the provisional integrated seniority

list of Office Superintendents in Multi Zone-II (Zones-IV, V and VI)

issued in proceedings Rc.No.2196/GAD-MZ-II/2024 dated

24.06.2025, whereby, objections were called for from the individuals.

As can be seen from the record, petitioner Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6

submitted their objections to the said list on 25.06.2025 and

26.06.2025. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they were

placed below their juniors in the said list, owing to their delayed

promotions in Zone-VI due to non-availability of vacancies in the

cadre of Office Superintendents in their Zone.

20. Admittedly, while the petitioners and unofficial respondent

Nos.3 to 7 were working as Senior Assistants, after the formation of

the State of Telangana, in supersession of the earlier Presidential

Order, 1975, the new Telangana Public Employment (Organization of

4 2011 (2) ALD 502 (DB)

PK, J

Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018,

(Presidential Order, 2018) came into operation w.e.f., 30.08.2018.

Pursuant thereto, the Government had issued orders in

G.O.Ms.No.317, General Administration (SPF-I) Department, dated

06.12.2021, re-organizing the local cadres into Multi Zone-I and Multi

Zone-II, which consists of seven Zones. Accordingly, the petitioners

were allotted to Zone-VI (Charminar Zone), as per their seniority and

the options exercised, while the unofficial respondents were allotted to

other zones, i.e., Zones-V and VII, all falling within Multi Zone-II.

Thereafter, petitioner Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 were promoted as Office

Superintendents on 27.07.2023, and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were

promoted as such on 02.05.2023, while the unofficial respondents

were promoted as Office Superintendents on 06.12.2022, 23.09.2020,

30.05.2020, 25.01.2021 and 06.12.2022, respectively. The specific

contention of the petitioners is that in view of the allocations to new

local cadres, their juniors allotted to different Zones secured as Office

Superintendents prior to their promotions, which was delayed due to

lack of vacancies in Zone-VI. It is trite law that an individual

belonging to one zone cannot question the seniority of an individual

belonging to a different zone. In T. Ganganna (supra), the Division

Bench of this Court held as under:

PK, J

"10. Be that as it may, in this particular case, the petitioner-applicant is questioning the seniority and promotion of an individual who belongs to not only a different zone, but also different multi-zone. The question with regard to intra-zonal seniority is no longer res integra.

It is now well settled that an individual belonging to one zone cannot question the seniority of an individual belonging to a different zone. It cannot be called fortuitous from a legalistic point of view in view of the mandatory provisions under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India and the Presidential Order, 1975, which was a direct consequence of the special provisions under the said Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the O.A. observing that the applicant did not disclose any cause of action and he has also not placed any material based on which his relief can be granted."

21. The main contention of the petitioners is that the respondents

have treated the post of Office Superintendent as a Zonal Post,

instead of a Multi Zonal Post. Here, it is to be noted that the in

pursuance of the new Presidential Order, 2018, the local cadres were

re-organized vide orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.317

dated 06.12.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.176 dated 04.08.2021, whereby,

the post of Office Superintendent has been re-organized as zonal

cadre post. In this connection, the petitioners assert that the

promotions ought to have been effected duly taking into consideration

their seniority in the feeder category, i.e., Senior Assistant,

irrespective of the new zonal allotments, unless and until the

Ministerial Service Rules are amended by the authorities. Reliance

PK, J

has been heavily placed upon Rule 13(d)(i) and (ii) of the Ministerial

Service Rules, which is extracted hereunder:

13. Unit of Appointment:

Departmental Unit, recruitment, discharge and re-appointment:

For purposes of direct recruitment, promotion, appointment by transfer, seniority, discharge and re-appointment and appointment as full member to a service and such other matters as may be specified by the State Government, a Departmental unit shall mean:-

(d) in the case of posts which are within the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres .and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975;

(i) each department in each District or a group of offices in a part of the District into which the several offices in a District in that Department may be grouped, by an order of the Head of the Department issued with the approval of the Government for the categories of posts the minimum of the scale of pay which is equivalent to or less than the minimum of the scale of pay of Junior Assistants;

(ii) each Department in each zone specified in the second schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 or a group of zones, as may be specified by the Government by an order under the said Presidential Order, 1975; or an administrative unit or units to be specified in a zone for all categories of posts, the minimum of the scale of pay of the post of Junior Assistants, by an order to be issued by the Head of the Department with the approval of the Government;

22. In this regard, it is also relevant to refer to the Presidential

Order, 2018, more particularly, Paragraph 11 of the said order, which

deals with the order having the over-riding effect.

"11.Order to have over-riding effect.- The provisions of this Order shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any Statute, Ordinance, rule, regulation or other order

PK, J

made before or after the commencement of this Order is respect of direct recruitment to posts under the State Government or any local authority."

23. From the above, it is unequivocally clear that all the provisions

of the said Presidential Order, 2018, have an absolute primacy over

any statute, ordinance, law, rule or regulation, irrespective of whether

such a provision is made before or after the new Presidential Order,

2018. Hence, in view of the over-riding provision granted in

Paragraph 11 of the Presidential Order, 2018, it can be inferred that

an amendment to the Ministerial Service Rules, 1998, would not have

any effect. As such, the reliance placed upon by the petitioners on

the earlier Presidential Order, 1975, in wholly misplaced and their

contention that the promotions ought to have been effected only after

the amendment of Ministerial Service Rules also stands no merit.

24. Further, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners never

challenged the organization of local cadres at any point of time. In

fact, the petitioners themselves opted for allotment to Zone-VI, and

they readily accepted their allotment to the said Zone, and

subsequently, secured the promotion to the post of Office

Superintendent, which was also never challenged. However, the

petitioners are now disputing the re-organization of local cadres and

PK, J

the promotions granted thereafter, which, in the considered opinion of

this Court, is impermissible as it attracts the principle of approbate

and reprobate. In a catena of cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court

categorically held that a party, having accepted the benefit of a

particular order or arrangement is estopped from subsequently

questioning or challenging the said order. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment

Corporation and another v. Diamond & Gem Development

Corporation Limited and another 5, particularly addressed the

doctrine of estoppel. The relevant portion of the said decision

extracted hereunder:

"I. Approbate and reprobate

15. A party cannot be permitted to "blow hot-blow cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate". Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself. This rule is applied to ensure equity, however, it must not be applied in such a manner so as to violate the principles of what is right and of good conscience. [Vide Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao [AIR 1956 SC 593] , CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm Muar [AIR 1965 SC 1216] , Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement [(2008) 14 SCC 58 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 706 : AIR 2009 SC 713] , Pradeep Oil Corpn. v. MCD [(2011) 5 SCC 270 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 712 : AIR 2011 SC 1869] , Cauvery Coffee Traders v. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd. [(2011) 10 SCC 420 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 685] and V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer [(2012) 12 SCC 133 :

(2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136 : JT (2012) 9 SC 260] .]

(Emphasis supplied)

5 (2013) 5 SCC 470

PK, J

25. Further, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the

provisional seniority list dated 24.06.2025. However, the petitioners

failed to array any individuals as party respondents, whose seniority

is likely to be affected or who have been wrongly placed over and

above the petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Prabodh Verma &

Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 6, held as under:

"A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and disposed of the Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties."

26. Further, in Ucchab Lal Chhanwal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex

Court held as under:

"14. In the case at hand the dispute relates to promotion which will have impact on inter se seniority. The learned counsel for the respondents assiduously endeavoured to convince us that they are agitating the grievance with regard to their promotion and it has nothing to do with the persons junior to them who had been promoted. Despite

6 AIR 1985 SC 167

PK, J

the indefatigable effort, we are not persuaded to accept the aforesaid proponement, for once the respondents are promoted, the juniors who have been promoted earlier would become juniors in the promotional cadre, and they being not arrayed as parties to the lis, an adverse order cannot be passed against them as that would go against the basic tenet of the principles of natural justice. On this singular ground the directions issued by the writ court as well as the Division Bench pertaining to grant of promotion to the respondents are quashed. To elaborate, as far as the conclusion of the High Court relating to the circular is concerned, it is unexceptionable and we concur with the same."

27. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is per-se not

maintainable, in view of non-joinder of necessary parties by the

petitioners. However, it is only after this Court granted an interim

order dated 13.06.2025, directing the respondents not to finalize the

provisional seniority till the filing of counter affidavit, the unofficial

respondent themselves approached this Court by way of filing a

vacate stay petition, along with the implead application that was

ordered on 10.09.2025, duly bringing them on record as party

respondents.

28. Further, as per the new Presidential Order, 2018, the post of

Administrative Officer is organized into Multi Zonal cadre post.

Hence, in compliance with their obligation, the respondents prepared

the present integrated seniority list of Office Superintendents of all

Zones within Multi Zone-II, which cannot be faulted with at this

PK, J

stage, more particularly, since the said list is only a provisional

seniority list, issued for the purpose of receiving and finalizing any

objections against the said list. It is also a well settled law that a writ

petition usually does not lie against a provisional seniority list, as no

final rights are affected. Moreover, objections may be filed in case of

any grievance, which, in the present case, have also been duly

submitted by the petitioners.

29. In B. Ananda Rama Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra

Pradesh and Ors. 7, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:

"7. Further, it is well settled that in matters of seniority, the Courts would not ordinarily come into the picture at the stage of provisional seniority list. It is for the reason that after preparation of provisional seniority list, objections are called for from aggrieved parties who may bring the grievance to the notice of the competent authority. These objections are considered and final seniority list is issued. It is only the final seniority list that can be challenged and the provisional seniority list ordinarily cannot be permitted to be challenged."

30. Similarly, while dismissing W.P.No.19360 of 2009 vide order

dated 24.08.2022, another Division Bench of this Court observed:

"...This Court having noticed the said fact is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot challenge the provisional seniority list and at best he can file objections and if the objections are not properly dealt with by the respondents then he can challenge the said seniority list by preferring an appeal under Rule 26 of the

7 (2001) 4 ALD 289

PK, J

State and Subordinate Service Rules or pursue his remedies, in accordance with law."

31. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with

the impugned provisional integrated seniority list dated 24.06.2025.

However, since the objections of the petitioners are pending, this

Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to dispose of the

petitioners' objections dated 25.06.2025 and 26.06.2025, against the

provisional integrated seniority list of Office Superintendents dated

24.06.2025, and to finalize the said list, strictly in accordance with

law. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

32. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition,