T.Nagaraju, v. Sri. Rajeshwar Tiwari, I.A.S,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Judgment date: 2024-01-09

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-01-09. T.Nagaraju, v. Sri. Rajeshwar Tiwari, I.A.S,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

[ 33831 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 18959 OF 2017 AND CONTEtIPT CASE NO: 1946 F 2017 W. P. NO: 18959 OF 2017 Between: T Nagaraju, s/o. Satyanrayana, Aged about 45 years, Occ Senior Assistant, 0/o. Superintendent District Headquarters C[WP), Karimnagar, Karimnagar District' PETT,. NER AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health Medical and . amily Welfare Department, SecretariatBuildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Telangana Vaidla Vidhana Parishad, Hyderabad. 3 P Sudheer, Aged about 44 yearc, Occ Senior Assistant, 0/o. Superintendent District Headquarters (TWP), Jagityal, Jagityal District. 4 Ahmed Hussain, Aged about 45 years, Occ Senior Assistant, 0/o. Superintendent District Headquarters (TWP), Karimnagar, Karimnagar :)rstrict' ... RESP.

NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affkjavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the impugned show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent in Rc. No. 50/ G12014 dated 20. 01. 2017 wherein deckJed to revise the tinal senrority list issued in Procgs. Rc. No. 3699/ G112011 datd 08. 12. 2011 after tapse of more than 6 years contrary to the Circular. Memo. No. 57759 / Ser. -fu 2004-1. dated 20. 05. 2004 and also in violation of Rule 23 and 26 of State and Subordrnate Service Rules is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the sanre by declaring the final seniority list issued in Procgs. Rc. No. 3699/ G1 / 201 1 dated 08. 12. 2011 become final with a consequential dir€ction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Super,.

lendert from the date of approving his name by the serection committee with ail conseluential benefits l. A. NO: 3OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 23110 oF 20171 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fi ed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the show cause notice iisued by the 2nd respondent in Rc. No.. 50/G/2014 dated 20. 01 . 2012 by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of superintendent in the existing vacancy forthw,th l. A. NO: 1 OF 2t)17 llP. NO:4067 0F 20171 Beturlen: 1 Aged aboq! 44. years, Occ I,9r. 41ff,, Senior Assistant, 0/o. Superintendent L)istrict H€adquarters (TWp), Jagityal, Jaqityal Distriii. 2 Anmeo Htlssarn. Aoed about 4E yeq1i, Senior -ti{ryp],'- _Occ Assistant, O/o. Superinterrdent Distri-ct Headquartiri fiimnrgrr, K",ilna6;; ..... VACATE STAY PETITTONERS/RESPONDENT No. 3&4 AND 1.

Tlre state o' Teranoana, principar uy its secretary, Bup Hearth Medicar and r-e epfrrment, 5e. "19t9,Li ii'riijiibi'iivoeraoaa. |ilp^ryglg z. I ne " uommts;toner, l-elangana Vaidya Vidhanapariihad, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 T Nagaraju. , Vo. Satyanraygg, A. ged -Distri6t about 45 years, Occ Senior Assistant. {i/o. Superit rtendent H6ad-q uarters-iTw'pj, G*ilr;;;; 6il;;;; i District. . -.. RESPONDENT/WRITPETITIONER Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the afrrcavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim. r)rder granted in w. p. M. p. No. 23110 of 2017 in w. p. No. 1g9s9 of 2O17 dt. 13-06-2J17 by dismissing the writ petition l. A. NO:2 OF 20171VWMP. NO:41 22 0F 2017t Between: The Commissioner, Telangana Vaidya Vidhana parishad, Hyderabad .... PETITOINER/RESPoNDENT No. 2 AND J 1 T-Nagaraju, s/o. Satyanrayana, Aged about 45 years, Occ Senior Assistant, 0lo.

Superintendent District Headquarters (TWP), Karimnagar' Karimnagar Distrjct ... RESpoNDENT/pETrroNER 2. The State of Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health Medical lqlangqna, and^Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings j Hyderabad. ^ 3. P. Sudheer Aged about 44 years , Occ: Senibr Alsisstant O/o. Superintenden[ District Headquariers (TWp) 4. Ahmed Hussain Aged about' 45 yeirs , Occ: Senior Assistant O/o. - Superintendent District l-lead Quarters (TWp) Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vaca lhe interim order passed in Wp No. 18959 of 20. 17 dated 1 3. 06. 2017 " Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAVINDER ALKUCHI Cou,,,;e,i for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Smt. BACHANA S. WADDEPALLI, SC FOR TGVVP Cour,:iel for the Respondent Nos. 3&4: SRI B.

SHIVA KUMAR coN TEMPT CASE NO: 1 946 0F 2017 ,12 Contempt Case under sections 10 to of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for will full and deliberate disobedience of the orders dated 13. 0$ 2017 in W. P. M. P. No. 23110 ot ZO17 in W. p. NO. 1t959 of 2017 Beh. , i en: S/ o. Satyanrayana, Aged about 45 years, Occ Senior Assistant, LNqg"oj,l, Superintendent Districf Headquarters (T ! {o. V V? ), Kirimnagar, farimnagar Drstrict. ... PETITIONER ANn 1 Sri.. Rajeshwar Tiwari, l. A. S, princpal Secretary, Health tvledical and Family r/Yelfare Department, Telangana Stdte, Secretariia-t Buitdings, Hyderabad. 2 Smt-Va <ati Karuna, l. A. S, Commissioner, Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parisha l, Koti Hyderabad ... CONTEMNORS Courrs;el for the Petitioner: SRl. RAVINDER ALKUCHI Courrsel for the Respondent No. 1: Gp FOR MEDTCAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE Courrr. el for thr: Respondent No. 2: Smt. RACHANA S.

WADDEPALLI, SC FOR TGWP The t-ourt mad,: the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE LAXMI NARAYANA AIISHETTY WRIT PETITION No. 18959 of2Ol7 and CONTEMPT CASE No. 1946 of 2OL7 COMMON ORDER: The present writ petition has been filed seeking the followirrg reliet ".. to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the impugned show-cause notice issued by the 2"d respondent in Rc. No. SO/G/ 2014 dated 2O. O1. 2O17, wherein decided to revise the final s€niority list issued in Procgs. Rc. No. 3699/ G 1/201 I dated 08. 12. 2011 after lapse of more than 6 years contrary to the Circular Memo No. 57759 /Ser. A/2OO4-l, dated 20. 05. 2004 and also in violation of Rules 23 ar. d 26 of State and Subordinate Service Rules, is ittegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same by declaring the final seniority list issued in Procgs. Rc. No. 3699 /Ol I 2O11 dated 08. 12.

2011 become final with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent from the date of approving his name by the selection committee with all consequential benefits and pass.... " 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under: 2. 1. Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 09. 11. 1993 and subsequently, promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 26. O8. 2OO3. Accordingly, his services were I . r,t LI,4,J b' P. t\o 189j9 oI2017 & C. C i'o t9t6 of 2017 regulrrized and probation was declared in the cadre of Senior Assislant. Later, his services were absorbed in Telangana Vaidy,r Vidhana Parishad and he rendered 24 years of service in the dr:partment and eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Superintendent. Respondent no. 2 issued provisional senior: ty list in the cadre of Senior Assistalts vide Rc. No. 1 I I 1/ HR.

CELLIAPWP/Ministerial/2O11, dated 26. O3. 2Ot1 and called ior objections if any. After considering the objections, 2na respon,lent issued fina-l seniority list vide proceedings Rc. No. ii699lG1l2O1L, dated, O8. t2. 2011, as per which, his narne q'as placed at Sl. No. 9, whereas, the unofficial respondents 3 and 4 were placed at Sl. Nos. 10 and l1 respectively. 2. 2. The 2"d respondent issued proceedings vide Rc. No. SO/G/ 2014, d,rted 06. 06. 2016 calling for his senrice particulars along with tv'o others for effecting promotion to the post of Superint endent. The selection committee approved the panel for promotic n on 31. 08. 2016 including his name. Accordingly, 2"a responde nt effected promotion to the post of Superintendent in hne-V|, however, though the committee approved his name, he was igrro: ed for promotion.

By the said action of the authorities, tJle petitioner becomes junior in the cadre of Superintendent and he vrould loose his seniority in multi zone_l to the next l LIiA,J w. P. No. l8959 of 2017 & C. C. No. l946 of20l7 higher promotion. Petitioner contended that individuals promoted as Superintendent in Zote-YI are junior to him nearly lO years. It is submitted that next promotions for the post of Administrative Ofhcer is multi-zone consisting Zane Y &Yl. 2. 3. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted a representation to the 2"d respondent to revise their seniorit5r placing their names over and above the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 issued proceedings vide Rc. No. 50 lG/2014, dated OL. O7. 2016 rejecting the claim of respondents 3 and 4 for revision of their seniority. Surprisingly, the 2. d respondent issued show-cause notice vide Rc. No. 5O/G/2014, dated 2O. O7. 2O17 to rhe petitioner stating that respondents 3 and 4 submitted representation to rectiff their seniority as per tJ.

e parent department and directed him to submit his explanation by placing his name at Sl. No. 3 below the respondents 3 and 4. 2. 4. Accordingly, petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 01. 03. 2017 stating that once the final seniority was issued long back i. e. , on O8. |2. 2OII by the 2. d respondent that become frnal for all purpose. He contended that after lapse of more than six years, 2"d respondent deciding to revise the seniority Iist once again, which is contrary to the Government instructions / 'l --a.. 1. L,\'1J tY P \:o 18959 oI20l7 & ('. C. lo. t9a6 oI )017 issued from time to time and 2"d respondent has no power or author:ty to review the seniority on his own. Contrary to Rules 23 and 26 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (. br short, 'RulesJ, final seniority list was issued after calling objections. The Hon'ble Apex Court heid that settled seniority cannot be unsettled after lapse of three years. The Honble Apex Court in B. S.

Bajwa and another rrs. State of Pubjab and othersr held that seniority of the employees cannot be unsettled after reasonable time. Following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Government issued Circular Memo 11o. 57759 /Ser. A/2OO4- 1, dated 2O. O5. 2OO4. In view of the same, issuing present show cause notice dated 20. Ol. 2Ol7 for revision of seniority by the 2"d respondent is contrary to the Rules 2 3 & 26 of the Rules and the Circular Memo dated 20. O5. 2CtO4. 3. Aggrieved by the said show-cause notice dated 2O. Ol. 2OI7 , petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Th. s Court vide order dated 13. 06. 2017 in WPMP No. 231lO of 2Ol7 granted interim relief suspending the show-cause notice dated 20. Ol. 2Ol7 by directing the respondents to I (t998) 2 s(:c 523 I,NA J tY. P No. lE959 oI20l7 & C. C. No. t9! 6 of 20t7 consider the claim of petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent in the existing vacancy forthwith. 5.

Alleging that the orders passed by this Court on 13. 06. 2017 are not complied with, the petitioner frled C. C. No. l946 of 2O77. The respondents 3 & 4 and 2"d respondent filed WVMP Nos. 4O67 of 2017 and 4122 of 2077, respectively, praying to vacate the interim orders granted on 13. 06. 20t7. 6. ThIe 2nd respondent filed counter and contended that the unoflicial 3. d respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant on 30. 10. 1993 and promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 29. O8. 2OO3. The unoflicial respondent no. 4 was appointed as Junior Assistant on 06. 10. 1993 and was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 01. 09. 2003. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 09. 11. 1993 and further promoted to the post of Senior Assistan t on 26. 08. 2003. Subsequently, their services were absorbed into Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, wherein, on exercising their option, their seniority is to be protected as in the parent department.

The unoflicial respondents 3 and 4 claimed to be senior to tJ:e petitioner as per Rule 33(a) of APSSR 1996, i. e. , seniority of a person in a service, class, category or l)iA. J u'P n'o. t8959 of 20t7 & C C No. 1946 oI20t7 a been reduced to a lower rank as grade shall, unless he has his frrst appointment punishrnent, be determined by the date of category or grade' to such service, class, the respondent had requested 6. 1. It is contended that 2'd Services, Karimnagar calling for District Coordinator of Hospital petitioner vide Rc'No'5O/G/2O la' the senice particulars of the same to the 2"d dated O5. O6. 2O16, who in turn, submitted the had not approved respondent. The Selection Committee of Offrce Superintendent as candidale for promotion to the post Nos. 3 and 4 raised objections stating the uno [frcial respondent that thoir seniority has to be rectihed as per their parent department seniority i. e.

, Regional Director Medical & Health Services, Warangal, Tnne-Y - There is no link between t}re promoti()n of the Office Superintendent in Zones-V and VI as both art different units of appointments as the post of Office Superintendent is as per zonal cadre and petitioner belongs to zone-Y eLnd therefore, the promotion to the next promotion at this stage does not arise. 6. 2. Further, the provisional seniority list of senior assistants has beee prepared in the year 2013 and no further final seniority list has been prepared thereafter' In the year 2016' I. NA. J tt' P. tio. t8959 of )0t7 & C. C. No t9t6 ol20l7 after bifurcation of the State of Telangana, the then Commissioner of Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Hyderabad has communicated to the petitioner and unofficial respondents the final seniority list of senior assistants prepared in the year 2Oll by oversight as tJ. e original hles are retained by the Commissioner, A. P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad.

Unaware of the provisional seniority list of senior assistants prepared in the year 2013, the list of senior assistants prepared in 2O11 was sent to petitioner and the respondent no. s3 and 4, instead of 2O13 list. 6. 3. The 2"d respondent had issued show-cause notice to the petitioner as per Rule 24(b) of Telangana State and Subordinate Rules i. e. , the State Government shall have the power to revise in any manner they consider suitable, any list of eligible candidates for promotion to any category, class or service in respect of subordinate service. The aJoresaid power of revision by the Government could be exercised by them in respect of an order passed by ttre Head of Department or by any other subordinate authority and therefore, petitioner's plea cannot be considered as he is junior to the unofficial respondent nos. 3 and 4 u'. P. \'o. t8959 of 2017 & C. C. No t946 ol2017 t 6. 4. I,.

is further contended that petitioner and the unofficial respon(lents have been shown at appropriate positions according to their parent department in the provisional seniority of ;enior assistants in the year 2O11. As per rule 23 of . list APSSR, 1996, an order appointing a member of a service or class of service or category, to a higher post by transfer or by promoti)n may, within a period of six months from the date of such orrler, be revised by an authority to which appeal would lie against the order of dismissal passed against a member of a service, class or category. Such revision may be made by the appellat<: authority aforesaid, either on its own motion or on an appeal filed by the aggrieved member of the service, but in the present case, petitioner is not promoted to higher category. Hence, tlris rule does not apply in tJle present case. 6. 5.

Th,: 2"d respondent on careful examination of service _ particulars, absorption orders and parent department final seniority lists of petitioner ald unoflicial respondents, had decided l. o issue show-cause notice by placing the unofficial respondents above the petitioner as per their parent department seniority rls per the absorption orders. 7. The unofficial respondents 3 and 4 frled counter arrd coit? trdeci that petitioner and unofficial respondents 3 and 4 rt. P lio. lE959 of20l7 & C. C No 1916 oI20l7 were promoted as senior assistants in the year 2008 and in the promotion list also, the unofhcial respondents were seniors by counting the date of joining as a criteria, whereas, the promotion list, the department given 15 days time for joining in the promotion post. 7 . 1. The 2nd respondent issued a provisiona. l seniority list of the senior assistants on 23. O 1. 2009 and in the said list, their seniority was rightly figured.

In the year 2016 after bifurcation of the State, the final seniority list of Senior Assistant has been communicated on 01. 07. 2016. After receiving seniority list, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted representation stating that petitioner is junior to them and it is brought to the notice of respondents that initially, petitioner worked in the Department of Director of Medical Education and as per the options called by AP Vidya Vidhan Parishad, the petitioner opted for absorption into Vidya Vidhan Parishad and his services were absorbed into said Parishad with immediate effect and seniority will be as per their seniority in their parent department. The absorption proceedings clearly indicates and establishes that respordents 3 and 4 are entitled to the seniority of the parent department i. e. , from the date of joining into the post of Junior Assistant. w P No. tE959 oJ 2011 & -1' C. C No. l946 oI20l7 l0 7. 2.

It is further contended that petitioner suppressed all the facts and hled the present writ petition stating that final senioritf list was issued on 08. 12. 2011. However, the fact remains that initially the provisional list was issued in the year 2OO9, l;Jter in 20 13 and hnally on 01 . O7. 2O 16. For the said seniorit r list, respondents 3 and 4 submitted written objections stating that their parent department seniority was not taken into corLsideration. On this ground alone, the 2"d respondent had rig htly issued show-cause notice, impugned herein' If petition(rr has any objection, it is open to him to file objections' Without doing so, suppressing the real fact that respondents 3 and 4 are senior to him, the petitioner filed tJ:e present writ petition ,rnd the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Hear,l Sri N. Ramesh, leamed counsel for petitioner, learned Governrr.. ent Pleader, Health Medical & Family Welfare Department for respondent no. 1, Ms. W.

Rachana learned counsel for 2"d respondent in W. P'No. 18959 of 2Ol7 and C. C. No. 1946 of 2017, Sri B. Shiva Kumar leamed counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri P. V. Krishnaiah learned counsel for proposed respondents 5 and 6 in W. P. No. 18959 of 2017 -tt/. P No 16959 of 2017 & C. C. lio. l916 of20l7 9. learned counsel for petitioner submitted that initially, petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 09. 1 1. 1993 and promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 26. 0g. 2OO3. On 26. 03. 2O1l, 2nd respondent issued provisional seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistant calling for objections and after considering the objections, the 2nd respondent issued final seniority list vide proceedings dated Og. 12. 2011, as per which, petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 9, whereas, unolhcial respondents were placed at Sl. No. 1O and 11. He further submitted the show-cause notice, impugned herein, was issued by th6 2"a respondent to revise the final seniority list dated O8. |2.

2OI l after lapse of more than six years, contrary to the Circular dated 20. O5. 2004 and also in violation of Rules 23 and 26 of th,e State and Subordinate Rules and hence, impugned show-cause notice is liable to be set aside. lO. Per antra, the Government pleader for 2nd respondent submitted ttrat hnal seniority list of senior assistants was prepared in the year 2O13 and no further seniorit5r list has been prepared after that; ttrat after bifurcation of State of Telangana, the then Commissioner of Telangana Vaidya Vidhana parishad, Hyderabad (TWP) by oversight communicated the final senircrit5r I. NAJ tr P. tio. 18959 oJ 2017 & C. C No t946 of20t7 t2 list of senior assistants prepared in the year 2Ol1 to the petitiorrer and unofficial respondents as the original files were retaine I by the Commissioner. Unaware of the provisional list of senior lssistants prepared in the year 2013, the 2011 list was sent inr;tead of 2013 list. I 1. The learned Govt.

Pleader for 2"d respondent would submit that thr: Selection Committee had not approved any candidate for pronrotion to the post of Officer Superintendent as objections were raised by the respondents 3 and 4 on 20. 07. 2016 and 26. O9. 2D16 stating that their seniority has to be rectified as per their pa:ent department seniority. 12. Hr: furttrer submitted that 2nd respondent had called for the orillinal service register of the petitioner as well as respond,:nts 3 and 4 for verifrcation of seniority vide letter dated Ol. 1O. 2(r16 and after careful examination of their service particul€rs, absorption orders and parent department, it was decided to issue show-cause notice to tJlem and accordingly, issued Ure impugrred show-cause notice. lrarned counsel for 2"d respc ndent finally submitted that 2"d respondent had rightly issued tlLe show-cause notice to revise the seniority list issued on O8. 12 2011. \ t{. P. No. 16959 of 2U 7 & C. C. No. t946 of20t7 I3 13.

*arned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that as per the service particulars and seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistant, 4b respondent was placed at sl. no. lg5, 3rd respondent was placed at sl. no. lg7/a and the petitioner was at sl. no. l87lb and based on the above seniorit5r, they were promoted as senror assistants duly mentioning their above senlonty number in their promotion orders of senior assistants vide Proceedings Rc. No. A1 /2388/2002_39, dated 25. 08. 2003. As per the proceedings dated 25. Og. 2OO3, petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were directed to join as Senior Assistants within the prescribed time limit of 15 days and accordingly, they have joined as senior assistants within the prescribed period. 14. He further submitted that during the year 2OOB, petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were absorbed into APWP (now, TWp) and lt is clearly mentioned in their absorption orders that their parent department seniority will be protected.

Accordingry, the provisional seniority rist of senior Assistants in Zone-v was prepared by the then commissioner, APWP, Hyderabad and cornmunicated to all vide Rc. No. 3699/ Gl/Xfl, dated 2|. Og. 20ll and in the provisional lisr, the LlIA,J tY P No 18959 of20t7 & C. C |o I9t6 of 20li l4 petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were kept properly in accorda nce with their seniority list as per their parent departnlent. Before completion of three years of hnal seniority list, age in the provisional seniority list o[ Oflice Superintendent in Zote-Y was prepared in the year 2O 13. 15. Fle further submitted that unless the provisional senioriqr list of 2O11 is revised as per the seniority of parent departrr ent, the respondents would not get the promotion as per thei:' parent department seniority. He hnally submitted that 2. d res;tondent had rightly issued the show-cause notice, impugnt,d herein, to revise the flrnal seniority list issued on 08. r2. 20rt. Consideration: 16.

This Court considered the detailed submissions made by the respective counsels and perused the material placed on record. 17 . It is not in dispute that the peLitioner and unoffrcial respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as Junior Assistants -on I,NA J I{. P No. 18959 ol20l7 & C. C. No. l946 of2017 l5 09. 11. 1993, 30. 1O. 1993 and 06. 10. 1993 respecLively and further, they were promoted as senior assistants. The seniority of respondents 3 and 4 and petitioner was fixed as per the initial date of appointment in the parent department and petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 187 /b, Jra respondent at Sl. No. 187/a and 4tn respondent at Sl. No. 185. later, they got promotion as senior assistants vide proceedings dated 25. 08. 2003, as per which, they were given 15 days time to join in the promotional post in the panel year 2OO2-O3. Accordingly, tl're pelitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have joined as Senior Assistant on 26. 08. 2003, 29. 08. 2003 and O 1. 09.

2OO3 respectively within the prescribed time limit of 15 days. 18. It is relevant to note that during the year 2008, petitioner and unofficial respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were absorbed into APWP and in their absorption orders, it is clearly mentioned that their parent department seniority will be protected. Accordingly, provisional seniority list of senior assistants in Zone-Y was prepared and the sarne was communicated to all of them vide Rc. No. 3699/G 1l2}ll, dated 27. O9. 2O11 and in the provision seniority list, petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 -attJ /a L;\'A,J tt'P No 18959 ol2017 & C. C No 1946 of 2017 t6 were placed at s1. no. 287, 286 and 284, respectively, as per their prrrent department seniority 19. Crn perusal of record, it appears that petitioner and unofficial respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have joined in the promotional post of senior assistant on 26. 08. 2OO3, 29. 08. 2003 and Ot. O9. 2OO3 respectively.

The 2nd respondent issued provisional seniority list in the cadre of senior assistalts on 26. 03. 2)11 calling for objections if any. After considering the objectio es, 2"d respondent issued hnal seniority list vide proceed ngs dated Oa. l2. 2}ll, as per which, petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were shown at sl. nos. 9, 1O and 1 1, respecti'rely. Ttre procegdings dated 08. 12. 2011 pima facie indicater; that the seniority was fixed, basing on the joining date of petiticner and unoflicial respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the promotic,nal post of senior assistant, which is per se contrary to ,' the ruler; of fixing the seniority, as per which, the date of hrst appointnrent has to be taken into consideration. 20. WtLen there is no dispute with regard to date of initial appointnrent as Junlor assistant, petitioner cannot take advantage of fortuitous circumstance of joining date in . ,promotio 1al posts, which is erroneously/mistakenly taken in I. N,1. l w P. No. 18959 of 201 7 & C. C. No.

l946 oI20l7 l7 fixing the seniority in the said cadre by the competent authority. While absorbing the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 into APWP (TWP) during rhe year 20O8, it was mentioned in their absorption orders that their parent department seniority will be protected. 21. Admittedly, petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as Junior Assistant on O9. 11. 1993, 03. 10. 1993 and 06. 1O. 1993 respectively and thus, the petitioner is junior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Rule 33 of Telangana State & Subordinate Service Rules deals with determination of seniority. According to proviso (a) to Rule 33 of the Rules, seniority is to be determined with reference to the date of first appointment to a service, class or category or grade. 22. It is also not in dispute that petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted as Senior Assistants as per the proceedings dated 25. O8.

2OO3 and as per which, they were given 15 days time to join in the promotional post in the panel year 2OO2-O3. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have joined tlre promotional post on 26. 08. 20C3, D. Oa. 2OO3 and, O 1. 09. 2003 respectively. [t is relevant ro note that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 joined in promotional post on Ll\,1. J :; w P No. t8959 ol20t7 & C C. No t946 oI z0l ? l8 29. Oa. 2OO3 and O 1. 09. 2OO3 respectively, which is subsequent to joiniog date of petitioner i. e. , 26. 08. 2003. However, as per Rule 3 3(a) only, the date of first appointment has to be considered for seniority and, therefore, the date of joining in promotion post would not alter their seniority- 23. A perusal of seniority list dated O8. l2. 2ol l, it appears that the date of joining in promotional post by the petitioner and the resl)ondent Nos. 3 and 4 was considered for finalizing the senioriq' list for the post of Office Superintendent (which is evident lrom column no. 6, at Sl.

Nos'9 to l1), which is contrary to Rule ,33(a), as per which, the first date of appointment has to be considered for determination of seniority. In fact, in column no. S of s eniority list dated OA. n. 2Ol l, date of first appointment of petitic,ner, respondent Nos'3 and 4 is also mentioned, as per which, r,:spondent Nos. 4 and 3 and petitioner have been placed at Sl. Nos . 9, lO and 1 1, respectively. 24. It is contended by the petiLioner that final seniority list was issued on O8. 12. 2O11, which has become linal, however, the same is now sought to be revised by way of impugned show cause n<rtice dated 2O. O1. 2O17 and it is further case of the petitione:' that respondent authorities intend to revise the \. \ LY P. No 18959 of20l7 & C. C. No. l946 oJ 2017 t9 seniority list after lapse of six years in contravention of Rules 232 and 263 and also settled principle of law that settled seniority cannot be unsettled after lapse of tlree years. . 25.

On the other hand, the 2nd respondent contended that seniority list dated 08. f 2. 2O11 is neither finalized nor approved and subsequently, provisional seniorit5r list was prepared in the year 2Ol3 and in the light of contention raised by the respondents 3 and 4, seniority list was not hnalized. There is considerable force in the contention of the petitioner that hnal seniority list cannot be unsettled as is held by Hon'ble Apex Court in B. S. Bajwa (supra). However, this Court cannot ignore the mistake committed by the respondents in finalizing the seniority list on tJ:e basis of date of joining in promotional post of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 3 and 4, in clear , Rule 23: ApF. l, RlylsioE atrd R€vlcs ofordcE ofappolotEclt (iacludtDg ProEotloal to E gbcr Postr: Order can be a6,ised witlrin six oontis by rhe aPP€llate authority on its own motion or on a. pp€al filed by the aggrieved eEploye€. Revision can be made within tluee months on the appeUate authority order.

3 Rulc 26: Appcd sgeLDst acaiorltlr or othcr condltlooa of sarvlcc:_ The app€llate authority for suboittint apPeals against an order fixing s€niority of a Person or altrecting any conditions of service passed by the appointing authority shall be the HoD or t}te State GovernEent. ln other words, the authority to whom an appeal would lie against an order of dismissal passed atainst the meElter of the service. No App€al atainst seoiority or assignment of notional s€niority on par with junior shall be entertained by th€ appellate authority after a period of 90 days from the date on u'hich junior was proooted, Revision p€tition atainst the order of aPpellate authonty may be submitt€d to the Govemment, within 3 tlronths- -i: LIA,J w P No t8959 ol20t7 & C. C No. l916 oJ J0l ) contrav€ ntion of Rule 33(a)a of the Rules' As per which, the date of first itppointment has to be considered for determination of the senioritY. 26. In B. S. Bajwa (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "7.

-... lt is well settled that in service matters the question of ser iority should not be reop€ned in such situations after the Iapse of a reasonable period because that results in dis-urbing the settled Position which is not justiflable There wa:; inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grit:vance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference un(ter Article 226 to reject the writ Petition'" ^ld 27. In the above decision referred to by the learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioners approached the Hon'ble High Court af-er more than a decade.

Petitioners were treated all along as junior to others, who were promoted at every stage' and the :'ights inter se had crystallized 'and therefore, the Court had com: to conclusion that crystallized position ought not to have been reopened after lapse of such a long period' In the present <:ase, it is represented that no promotions have been affected rursuant to alleged seniority finalized and therefore' the facts of the case do not apply to the present case' . RuIc 33. Scolorityi (al The se[iority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been_reduced to a toweirank as a punishment, be deterdined by the dte of hrs first appoinEEent to such service, class, catetory or grade' LNA,) w P. No 18959 of 2017 & C. C of)017 2t ^o. l9a6 28. It is pertinent to observe that as per provisional seniority list prepared vide proceedings Rc. No. 3699 /ct /20l t, dated 27 . O9. 2O71 , the petitioner, tJle respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were placed at Sl. Nos.

l2, ll and lO, respectively. However, in the final seniorit5r list, the respondent nos. 4, 3 and the petitioner were placed at Sl. Nos. 9, 10 and 11, respectively, which is per se improper and contrary to Rule 33(a) of the Rules. I 29. Apparently, there is a mistake, error on the part of the I ofhcial respondents in considering the date of joining of t I promotion post as basis for Ftnalizing the seniorigr list and therefore, for the mistake, error on t. I:e part of the official respondents, the unofficial respondents/employees cannot be made to suffer. Conclusion: 30. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Writ Petition is disposed of directing the oflicial respondents to finaJizc the seniorit5r list in accordance with Rule 33(a) of the Rules i. e. , date of first appointment, by duly issuing notices to the petitioner, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the alfected parties, if any. The oflicial respondents are directed to complete the ) t+. P No. 18959 of20l7 & C C. No.

l916 oI20l7 above exercise within a period of three months from the date of granted on receipt of copy of this order' Interim order vacated' 13. O6. 2C 17 stands Writ Petition' the Contempt 31. In view of the disPosal of the closed' Case No. 1946 of 2Ol7 is petitions, if any, pending in the writ Miscellaneous petition irnd contempt case shall stand closed' SD'-T. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ &/ SECTION OFFICER To, and Family Welfare Department' 1 The Princ pal Secretary, Health Medical 2 ilr!? E. -Ert? 11i3n". ,,, [3tl$;11Jl;]g#iiil1{. Ys[f 3 il:iff ifi 4 5 6 xffi? t1ffi$"ry';,J-rwP. PUc 7 lltrtr',i'ffi '' (:opies I \flo CD BM LS HlGlr{ COURT DA IhlD:0tll01tZ024 v ---c tLa 2[24 L, o 24 * t.. 1. ,) D C CG|\IMON TCRDER E WF. t{o. 18959 of 2017& C. C. No. 1946 OF ZOLT DISFOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON AND CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WTTHOUTCOSTS \\ \)4 \4

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.