The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent in not cohsidering the case of petitioner for promotion to the Post of Assistant Secretary on Honble Acquittal on par with his junior as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Article 14 and '16 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary, from the date his junior was promoted (3rd Respondent) with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, seniority and promotion to next higher categories in the interest of justice. I I I i! I lA NO: 1 oF 2018 Petition under section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for the post of Assistant secretary forthwith in existing of future vacancy pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES lll The Court made the following: ORDER I ,//7 I I TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA \ITRIT PETITION NO .3OO9 of 2018 ORDER: Petitioner-Vangala Nagarjuna, while working as Assistant Market, Supervisor, of the respondent-Agricultural Marketing Committee, was placed under Suspension, uide Order dated 2S.Og.2Ol2bytheChairman,AgriculturalMarketCommittee' Thorrur, on the ground that on O5.O9 '2012, the petitioner while returning from Checkpost duties at Pedda Nagaram, stopped some lorries carrying Agricultural Commodities, and illegally and forcibly collected money from them, and a case in Crime No' 177 of 2Ol2 of Police Station Thormr was registered for the offence punishable under Section 384 IPC' The Police, Thorrur after due investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioner-Al arrd A2' before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Thorrur' and the sarne was taken on fi1e as C.C.No.56B of 2OL2 for the offence punishable under Section 384 IPC. 2- The trial Court, after considering the oral evidence of PWs' 1 to 7 adduced on behalf of the prosecution, and the documents Exs.P-l to P-11, and the Material Object MO-1, found the petitioner/Al , and A2, not guilty of the offence alleged' and thereby acquitted them by Judgment dated 21'03'2013' -. - ---'-- 2 wp 3009_2018 NBK, J

3. Petitioner states that subsequent to his acquittat, he was promoted as Supervisor on O 1 .07.20 13 by ordering that the promotion would be effective 14.12.2012. It is his grievance that the 3rd respondent who is his junior was promoted as Assistant Secretary, however, the petitioner, in spite of his acquittal, was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretar5r on par with 3.a respondent. 4 . Heard k.arned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill. I

5. At the hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter is covered by the Common Order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Hon,ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.3O671, and 32960 of 201S, and therefore similar order may br: passed in this writ petition also. Learned Government Pl:ader does not dispute the submission made by the learned coulsel for petitioner.

6. It may be noted that W.P.Nos.3O67 I and,32960 of 2015 were fi.led by the Unofficial Respondents therein challenging the order passed by the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The I :il ,,1 3 wp_30o9_2016 NBK, J Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the writ petitions, .observed as follows: "11. Though tlrc learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a settled senioitg cannot be unsettled, the case cannot be seen as a dispute uith regard to seniontg. A person, tuho is denied promotion at the appropriate time, eitler on account of pendencg of proceedings or on account of eueru a penalty imposed upon him, h'e is entitled to get back his oiginal posts, if tLrc disciptinary proceedings end in his fauour' Let's take for instance, the case of a person dismissed from seruice pursuant to disciplinary proceedings' If the dismissal order is set aside and all tLrc benefits gets restored' he goes back to his original position. A person getting back to his oiginal position does not tantamount to alteration of senioritg afier long pertod of time' Therefore' the Tribunal u.tas ight in passing tLe order and we see no justification to interfere u'tith the same." I I It is pertinent to note that, in the instant case, the petitioner

7. was suspended from service under Disciplinar5r proceedings' upon the Department receiving information that a case in Crime No' 177 of 2Ol2 has been registered in Thorrur Police Station' However' after filing of charge sheet in the said case, the trial Court' after due trial in C.C.No.568 of 2OL2 acquitted the petitioner' B. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing therecord,thisCourtisoftheviewthattherationaleinthe 4 wp_30o9 2018 NB(, J Common Orcler passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.Nos.3O671 and 32960 of 2015 is applicable to the facts of the present case.

9. Accordingl_v, the writ petition is disposed of u.ith a direction to respondent-authorities to consider the case of petitioner for promotion as Assistant Secretary on par with his junior; with all consequential benefits, by restoring his seniority position, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs;. MiscellarLeous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYil SD/- P. GOWRI SHAUKAR ASSISTANT REGIPfRAR SECnoN6FFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner and Director of Marketing, Govemment of Telangana, Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES Ill, High Court for the State of Telangana.

5. Two CD Copies BSK N/-- HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 ORDER WP.No.3009 of 2018 ( f, o 1$e 9TAr€ I 7 \ ,l 2 7 tE0 ?[25 .tr? DE.SPATC DISPOS!NG ,OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I !