[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

K. Babu Rao vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By ... on 15 April, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                AT HYDERABAD

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

                    W.P.(TR).No.795 of 2017

                         Date:15.04.2026
Between:

K. Babu Rao.
                                                   ...Petitioner
                              And
The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department and
others.

                                                ...Respondents
ORDER:

Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri B. Sravan Kumar, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondent Nos.1

to 3 and Sri K. Babu Rao, learned counsel for the

respondent No.5.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking to direct the official

respondents to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be

promoted as Senior Assistant on notional basis in the

vacancy arisen in panel year 2008-09 by fixing his seniority

SK, J

over and above that of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 in

accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 and 16(h) of the

Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for

short 'the Rules') by taking into account the date of passing

of Departmental Tests with all consequential benefits by

holding the action of the official respondents in effecting

promotion by clubbing vacancies of different panel years

and without reference to date of passing of Departmental

Tests as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was initially appointed as Attender

on 20.03.1981, subsequently appointed by transfer as

Typist in March, 1992, passed Accounts Test

on 19.10.2008 and further promoted as Senior Assistant

on 30.06.2011 though vacancy was available from

February, 2010. The official respondents have promoted

the unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 as Senior Assistants

in the vacancies arisen in August, 2010 though they have

passed Departmental Tests on 06.10.2010 and 10.02.2010

respectively ignoring the petitioner's claim for promotion in

SK, J

spite of the fact that he has passed Departmental Tests

much earlier to them. Likewise, the respondent No.6, who

has not passed the departmental test, was allowed to cross

45 years and promoted as Senior Assistant on 25.08.2010

against the post which fell vacant in August, 2010.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the petitioner being Scheduled Tribe Community is

entitled for reservation in promotions. As per Rule 6 of the

Rules, 1996, list of candidates eligible for promotion has to

be prepared on annual basis and vacancies available

during the respective panel years have to be necessarily

filled up with the eligible candidates during the year

starting from 1st September of the year and as per

Rule 16(h) of the Rules, 1996, date of passing of tests has

to be taken as criteria for determining seniority. Once

vacancies have arisen during the panel year, the

respondents ought to have considered the candidature of

petitioner for promotion as Senior Assistant in preference

to the claim of seniors who were ineligible for such

promotion either on the ground of non passing of tests or

SK, J

non crossing of 45 years of age so as to available exemption

from passing of departmental tests. He submits that the

petitioner is entitled for notional promotion by fixing his

seniority over and above that of the respondent Nos.4 to 6

with all consequential benefits and requested to allow the

writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on

the following Judgments;

1. Vijay Singh Charak vs. Union of India1

2. R.Prabha Devi vs. Government of India 2

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Services-I basing on the counter submits that the petitioner

has passed Account Test during the year October, 2008

and the vacancy has arisen during February, 2010. As per

ROR, the vacancy reserved for S.C. vide roaster point -7

and the eligible candidate Sri P. Venkataiah, Typist, who

have passed Account Test during February, 2010, was

promoted in that vacancy as per ROR and the petitioner is

1 (2007) 9 SCC 743 2 AIR 1988 SC 902

SK, J

not eligible for promotion against that roaster point as he

belongs to Scheduled Tribe. As per Rule 5(b) of the Rules,

the posts of Senior Assistants, Superintendents etc., are all

non-gazette posts comes under non-selection posts and

there is no D.P.C for these posts as per Rule 6(h)(i) of the

Rules. For non selection posts, the Superintending

Engineer of concerned circle will prepare the seniority list

and the promotions will be considered as per seniority cum

eligibility. All the Senior Assistant Vacancies of the circle

are filled up only as per the Seniority and Eligibility as per

Rules. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 have passed Account

Test on 10.02.2010 and 06.10.2010 respectively and the

petitioner has passed Account Test during October, 2008,

but no juniors to the petitioner have promoted to the post

of Senior Assistant ignoring the petitioner and all the

candidates promoted as Senior Assistants are seniors to

the petitioner as they were eligible for promotion by passing

Account Test/exemption due to completion of 45 years of

age and they have promoted as per seniority and eligibility

SK, J

at their turn and finally the petitioner was promoted as

Senior Assistant on 30.06.2011 as per his turn.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further

submits that the cadre wise seniority list were prepared by

the Superintending Engineer and as per

seniority/eligibility, the candidates were promoted at their

turn only and as the petitioner has not got his turn and as

his seniors have become eligible for promotion as on the

date of vacancy arisen, they were promoted and the

petitioner was not promoted as there was no vacancy for

him and there is no delay made to favour any other and

also no favour was made to the respondent No.6 as he got

his promotion at his turn as per Rules in the vacancy

arisen in August, 2010. The circle is having the division of

Zone-V and Zone-VI and there is a dispute of seniority of

the circle establishment and there are representations on

the zonal issue. The petitioner made a representation on

14.10.2010 to consider his promotion out of way under

ROR, for which he is not eligible. He further submits that

the cadre wise seniority list of the unit were prepared as

SK, J

per Rules and the vacancies were filled up with the eligible

candidates and no vacancies were left over and further, no

tests are prescribed to these posts to pass during the

probation period and the promotions were issued in order

as per the Rules. In fact, the petitioner has given a

declaration that he has no objection against the seniority

list dated 23.09.2010 and all the candidates were promoted

as per seniority and eligibility at their turn as per Rules

and hence, the petitioner cannot be promoted notionally

over and above the respondent Nos.4 to 6 which is against

the Rules and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 basing on

the counter submits that the candidate is having right

to be considered for promotion as and when vacancies were

filled, but he has no right to seek a direction to fill up the

vacancies as and when arose. The petitioner has filed the

instant writ petition with delay and without giving any

reason and the same is liable to be dismissed on the

ground of delay.

SK, J

9. After hearing both sides and perusing the material

on record, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioner is seeking notional promotion as Senior Assistant

in the vacancy arisen in panel year 2008-09 by fixing his

seniority over and above that of the respondentNos.4 to 6.

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner being

Scheduled Tribe Community is entitled for reservation in

promotions. The respondents have not prepared the panel

for the said year and without giving promotion to the

petitioner as Senior Assistant given promotions to the

respondent Nos.4 to 6. In view of the same, he is entitled

for promotion from the panel year 2008-09.

[[{{{{[[[[[{{{[[

10. The contention of the respondents is that the

petitioner is not eligible for promotion as per the roster

point as he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community.

The posts of Senior Assistants, Superintendents etc., are all

non-gazette posts comes under non-selection posts and

further, there is no DPC for these posts as per Rule 6(h)(i)

of the Rules and no junior to the petitioner was promoted

SK, J

and the petitioner was promoted on 30.06.2011 as per his

turn.

11. The unit of appointment for the post of Senior

Assistant is circle and the respondent Nos.4 to 6 are not on

the same circles and they are seniors to the petitioner. As

the record shows that the petitioner has given declaration

that he has no objection against the seniority list dated

29.03.2010. No junior was promoted before promoting the

petitioner in the year 2011. In view of the same, the

question of granting notional seniority to the petitioner

from the year 2008-09 and fixing seniority over and above

the respondent Nos.4 to 6 does not arise. In view of the

same, there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. The Judgments relied on by the learned for the

petitioner in Vijay Singh Charak's case (1 supra) and

R.Prabha Devi's case (2 supra) are not apply to the facts of

this case.

SK, J

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of

West Bengal vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi3 held in para Nos.19

and 21 as follows;

"19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. xxxxxxxxxx

21. While we recognize respondent No. 1's right to be considered for

promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of

the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation". xxxxxxxx

(Emphasis supplied)

The above findings are squarely apply to the

instant case. The granting of notional promotion from the

date of passing of departmental test by the petitioner

cannot be acceptable and the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.