[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

R. Gopi Krishna Varma vs The High Court For The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2026

Author: P. Sam Koshy

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
                      AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
               WRIT PETITION NO.12161 OF 2024
                            Date:   26.03.2026

Between:

R. Gopi Krishna Varma
                                                    ...Petitioner
                                    AND
The High Court for the State of Telangana
Rep. by its Registrar General, Hyderabad and 12 others
                                                 ...Respondents


                                ORDER

Heard Mr.G.Jithender Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel

representing Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, learned Standing Counsel

for the High Court appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the

following relief/s, viz., 2 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

"......to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in not following the Telangana Judicial Ministerial and Subordinate Service (amended) Rules, 2018 vide G.O.Ms.No.37 (Law LA, LA&J-Home-Courts.B) Department, dated 20.05.2021 while not considering promotion of the petitioner from the post of Senior Assistant (Category-4) to the post of Superintendent (Category-3) in the unit of the respondent No.3 as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of Rules made in TJMSS (amended) Rules; so also Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent by following TJMSS (amended) Rules by revising promotion proceedings dated 31.05.2022, effecting promotion to petitioner from 31.05.2022 on par with the unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5, and also revising promotion proceedings dated 02.09.2023, on par with the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 13 by considering petitioner representations dated 08.07.2022, 30.08.2022, 21.09.2023 and 11.03.2024 and pass order or orders as deemed fit and property in the interest of justice."

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was

initially appointed as Copyist, vide proceedings No.1207, dated

17.02.1994, at District and Sessions Judge Court Unit, Medak

at Sangareddy. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the 3 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

unit of Metropolitan Sessions Judge Unit, Hyderabad in the year

2009 as Typist and later promoted as Senior Assistant

(Category-7) on 03.04.2017. Further, on petitioner's request, he

was transferred to the Unit of Principal Special Judge for CBI

Cases, Hyderabad and has been working since 2020.

4. As things stood, the name of the petitioner was shown at

Serial No.4 for his next promotion for the post of Superintendent

(Category-3). The respondent No.3 issued call letter, dated

21.05.2022 to attend interview on 28.05.2022 for promotion to

the post of Superintendent (Category-3) as the petitioner stood at

Serial No.4, however respondent No.3 did not consider the

petitioner's name for promotion and issued promotion order to

other employees including the petitioner's junior who stand at

Serial No.5 and 6. Upon enquiry, it was orally informed that

petitioner was not considered for promotion on the ground that

he was not holding a Graduation degree.

5. On 30.08.2022, the petitioner submitted a detailed

representation seeking consideration of his name for promotion

to the post of Superintendent, as per G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 4 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

20.05.2021. On 02.09.2023, the petitioner was called for

interview, but again he was not considered for promotion

without assigning any reasons, though he stood at Serial No.1,

but other petitioner's junior employees were promoted to the

post of Superintendent, ignoring the petitioner. Thereafter,

petitioner submitted four representations on various dates, but

till date, the same were neither considered nor disposed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per

G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 18.05.2018, The Telangana Judicial

Ministerial and Subordinate Service Rule, 2018, the eligibility for

being promoted to the post of Superintendent is that the person

should possess Graduation from any recognized University and

he also must have passed prescribed departmental tests such as

Civil Judicial Test Papers (I and II), Criminal Judicial Test and

Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I. Thereafter, on

recommendation of the respondent No.1, the State Government

issued amended G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021, whereby Rule

35 for clause (b), the following shall be substituted as below:

5 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 18.05.2018 G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021 Rule 35, Clause(b) Rule 35, Clause(b) substituted/amended

(b) In case of persons who are in "(b) In case of persons who are in service on the date of issue of service on the date of issue of these rules and who are otherwise these rules and who are eligible for promotion to the higher otherwise eligible for promotion to posts of category 2 to 7 and for the higher posts of category 2 to whom a Graduation Qualification 10 and for whom a Graduation is now prescribed as a pre- Qualification is now prescribed as requisite for such promotion, may a pre-requisite for such promotion, be promoted, even though they do may be promoted, even though not possess the Graduation they do not possess the Qualification, but they shall be Graduation Qualification, but they required to acquire the prescribed shall be required to acquire the qualification within the period of prescribed qualification within the five (5) years from the date of period of five (5) years from the promotion. This concession shall date of promotion. This be in force for a period of three (3) concession shall be in force for a years from the date of issue of period of three (3) years from the these rules. date of issue of these rules. "

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per

the said G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 18.05.2018 and the amended rule

vide G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021 which will be in force for a

period of three years and end by 19.05.2024 and during the said

period the petitioner was initially called for interview on

28.05.2022 for promotion to the post of Superintendent

(Category-3) as the petitioner is fully eligible for

relaxation/concession and entered into the zone of

consideration, as the amended rules were in force. However, 6 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

respondent No.3 did not choose to consider the name of the

petitioner under the said amended rule.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that

in other units of judiciary, similarly placed employees were given

promotions, who do not possess the Degree Qualification,

subject to acquiring prescribed qualification within a period of

five (5) years from the date of their promotion as per

G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021, Rule 35, Clause(b), but the

official respondents did not consider the petitioner's promotion

to the post of Superintendent which is violative under Articles

14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and prayed this Court

to direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner for

promotion to the post of Superintendent and pass appropriate

orders.

9. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that petitioner could not be

selected for promotion in both interviews on 28.05.2022 and

02.09.2023, as the petitioner has not acquired the requisite

qualification of Graduation and that relaxation/concession 7 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

period of three years, vide G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 18.05.2018

which expired by 18.05.2021 itself. The amendment rule, vide

G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021 do not apply to the petitioner

as the concession period for promotion for the category 2 to 7

was ended on 18.05.2021, which was later extend to the

category 8 to 10 as per amended rules and the concession would

apply to the categories to 8 to 10 only.

10. Learned Senior counsel further contended that promotion

from the Category-7 to Category-3 i.e., from Senior Assistant to

Superintendent will not be applicable, as the life of the

G.OMs.No.29, dated 18.05.2018 was ended on 18.05.2021 and

the vacancy fall vacant for the post of Superintendent on

28.05.2022, therefore the said G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 18.05.2018

will not be applicable on the petitioner's case. The Rule 35,

Clause(b) amended, vide G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021 is

applicable to the categories 8 to 10 and the concession also

applies to categories 8 to 10, but not to the petitioner who falls

in the category 2 to 7.

8 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

11. Learned Senior counsel further contended that after

issuance of G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 18.05.2018, the promotion to

the post of Superintendent (Category-3) clearly stipulates that

the qualification prescribed for promotion from the cadre of

Senior Assistant (Category-7) is Graduation from any recognized

University and in the G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021, other

amendments were made in respect of additional qualification

i.e., computer skills for direct recruitment, method of appointed

by direct recruitment without amending the educational

qualification.

12. Learned Senior counsel further contended that said

wording which was made as "now" prescribed under the

G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021 Rule 35, Clause(b), the said

G.O. relates to the posts where qualification of Degree was

prescribed and further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.29, it

specifically shows that, it is in respect of persons who are in

service as on the date of issuance of the said Rules and who

were otherwise eligible for promotion to the higher posts falling

under categories 2 to 7, for which graduation qualification

prescribed as a pre-requisite for such promotion and such 9 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

persons may be promoted even though they do not possess the

graduation qualification. However, such persons are required to

acquire the prescribed qualification within a period of five (5)

years from the date of promotion and the concession was made

to be in force for a period of three (3) years from the date of

issuance of the Rules.

13. Learned Senior counsel has specifically stated that

G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 18.05.2018 pertains to the Category 2 to 7,

which also includes the post of Superintendent and even

G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021 has the similar provision

under Rule 35 which also mentions or refers to the wording of

"now". The scope of the categories was extended from Category

2 to 7 to category 2 to 10 and Graduation qualification was

made compulsory for the category 8 to 10 under the said

G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021, without disturbing the

existing rider.

14. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

10 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

15. The contention of the petitioner is that during the period

2021-2024, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of

Superintendent (category-3) on par with the similar situated

employees. On perusal of record it is evident that many

employees were given promotion to the post of Superintendent in

other units though they did not possess the Graduation

qualification but considering their case in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021 and the petitioner was eligible

to get concession under the said G.O., as the petitioner seeking

promotion from the year 2022 onwards.

16. The reasons which are cited by the respondents for non-

considering the petitioner for promotion is that the petitioner

does not come within the G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021 as

the Educational Qualification was prescribed as "Graduation" for

such promotion in the year 2018 itself instead of intermediate

and the concession period was made for three (3) years only. In

fact it is the life of the said G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 18.05.2018 is

upto 18.05.2021. Another ground raised by the learned Senior

counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 is that the

G.O.Ms.No.37 is not applicable for the petitioner for the reason 11 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

that the said G.O. is only applicable for employees falling under

Category 8 to 10 for the employees who do not possess have

Graduation qualification, and applicability of the same is from

20.05.2021 as the word used in said G.O. is "now", which as per

the learned Senior means for the present when the promotion

stood place.

17. It is pertinent to mention that the word which is used as

"now" was already mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.29, dated

18.05.2018 and there is no change with same rider in the

G.O.Ms.37, dated 20.05.2021, however it was mentioned that it

was applicable for employees who are falling under the Category

2 to 10 and where the pre-requisite qualification prescribed is

Graduation. Admittedly, the petitioner falls under the category-

7 and the reason cited by the official respondents that non-

applicability of the said G.O.Ms.37, dated 20.05.2021 to the

petitioner cannot be accepted, when the G.O.Ms.37, dated

20.05.2021 itself has specifically stated that it is applicable to

the Category 2 to 10 and the life of the said G.O. was still

subsisting as on the date of the promotions which being effected

from three (3) years i.e., from the year 2021 to 2024 and also 12 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

when the promotions were effected on similar situated persons

in the year 2022 to 2023.

18. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that once the

said concession/relaxation was extended to the other employees

in the other Units, on the ground of parity we are unable to

accept the contention of the respondents that the relaxation

cannot be extended to the petitioner, when the G.O. itself

speaks, that it is applicable to the Category 2 to 10 and the

petitioner is being at Senior Assistant (Category-7) is certainly

entitled for the promotion to the post of Superintendent

(category-3).

19. In view of the above reasons cited, this Court is of the

considered opinion that denying the promotion to the petitioner

for the post of Superintendent (Category-3) on the ground that

petitioner is not possessing Graduation Qualification on one

hand and effecting promotions to the similar situated employees

working in other units who does not possess Graduation

Qualification on the other hand is not justifiable and also

amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

13 of 13 PSK, J & NNR, J WP_12161_2024

20. Accordingly, the official respondents are directed to

consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the

post of Superintendent (Category-3) by following TJMSS

(Amended) Rules by extending the concession/relaxation as per

G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 20.05.2021, without disturbing the

promotions which was already granted to the other employees.

However, if the petitioner is already promoted during the

pendency of the writ petitioner, he shall be entitled for all

consequential benefits.

21. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY

________________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Date: 26.03.2026.