The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI JOGRAM TEJAVAT Gounsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents No.4to6 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER / HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 7150 OF 2()25 ORDER: Pctitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the action of the SLate Government in issuing Memo No. 73, dated

24.O7 .2021 and Memo No.1356 daLed 24.07 .202 1 in particular Para 5 thereof, by which thc Clovernment contempiated a review of promotions granted after 02.06.2014. The purported basis for this excrcise u.as the Division Bcnch judgment of this Court dated 11.12.2018 in Writ Petition No. 4415 ol 2016; however, petilioners contend that the impugncd action, instead of being a faithful implementaLion of that judgment, is in clear violation of constitutional provisions, the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia, and the settled principles laid down by lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena c.rf cases as well as by this Court. i. 1. Pursuani- to impugned memo, dated

24.07.20'21, consequenlial proceedings were issued on

27.O8.2O21, whereby the object-ions submltted by petitioners 1 to 3 were rejected w'ithout due apolication of mind and without consideration of the specific contentions raised. These rejection orders, along with the consequeni.ial Government Orders and ..1 steps taken by the respondents to give effect to the revised pane ls, confirmed the illegal Procedure iLdopted and caused gravr: prcjudice and scvere in-justice t0 pctitioners, \ rhosc settle,l promotions and consequential seniority stand disturbed r.r,ithout lawful justilication Thcy contt:nd thal the impugncd trction is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Arricles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrzrry to the lau' laid down b1' the Hon'ble SuPreme Court. It rs the case of pclitioncrs lhat thcir promotions

2. urere ellected under G.O.Ms.No.5 datcd 14.02 2003 aud G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 20.O2.20O9, wl-rich provided [r'r rese rvation in prornotion with consequcntiai seniority Lo members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Thcy assert that aftcr the judgment of this Court in Writ Pe tition No. 44 l5 ol 2O16, the State constituted a Committee, coller:Led caclre u'ise data and affirmed before this Court in contempt proceccLings thal the exercisc prescribed in M. Nagarai v. Ilnion of Indial had been duly unclerta ken.

2.1. ,\ccording to petitioners, once this exercis,' r'r'as completed and promotions were grantecl on that blrsis, the rrght to consequential seniority became a constitutionrll incident of ' (2oQ6) 8 scc 212 t, /., J promotion and could not be unsettled by an executive fiat. They urge that Para 5.2 of Memo No. 1356 dated 24.07.2021, by providing that after adequacy is achieved seniority sha1l revert to the feeder cadre, elfcctivcly revives the "catch up" principle which had been legislativelv abrogated by the 85th Constitutional Amendment. They also contend that their objections to the provisional list werc rejec[cd by order dated

27.O8.2021 without reasons, which vitiertes thc decision making process.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners Sri Jogram Tejavath draws attention of this Courl to the cor-rstitutional background and case [aw. He contends that this Court in its in Writ Pctition No. 44 i5 of 2016 order dated ll.l2.2}la upheld G.O.Ms.No. 26, dated 20.02.2OO9 with regard to consequential seniority to the individual who got promoted under Rule ol Reservation. In thc said judgment, it was advised to review the promotions r.t'hich were considered earlier in the State. According to learned counsel, the intention of this Court is to review the matter wherc consequential seniority is not considered, but the State Government had misinterpreted and revised the seniority status that if the adequate is raised in the particular cadre, the promotions' should be considered based on \// \t \ 4 the initial ca',egory seniorit5r which is quash against the above said order- f'romotions rvhich were considered ear]ier degrades tl-re SC/ST candidates against the constttlltional i.rmendmcut and verdrct c,f tl're Supreme Court of India. Learned counscl accuses thert the Law Department and Finance Departmellt have not follorved the said procedurc ancl they havc follou,ed thc consequcntiaI scnionly.

3.1. Learned counsel furthcr argued tl-rat hxing or revision of sr:niorit5r up to 01.06.20 14 has to be done bv lhe unificd Anclh-a Pradesh but not by Telangana, so rhe reviston of senioritl'don,,'rn the various cadrcs in the Telangana is null and void. Revision of seniority based on the order Lill 0 1 .06.20 14 has to be dore by the Government of Andhra Pradc;h as per the A.P. ReorgarLiszrtion Act. Accordingly, frorn 02.Cr6.2014. the scnioritv shoulcl be done by GovernmenL ol Telanqana, but in violation of tLLe said Act, Telangana has reviewed and revised tl-re senion[r of t-he Secretariat staff since 1988 to2C,2 1 u.hich is irrcguiar and not tenable in law.

3.2. rleliance was placed on the nine .Judge Bench decision rn Indra Sanahneg o. Union of India2, rvherein it rvas held that reservation under Article 16(4) could not extend to e*t OOZ Supp (3) SCC 2 1 7 -) promotions but was confined to initial appointments' This prompted Parliament to enact the 77th Constitutional Amendment introducing Article 16(4A), thereby constitutionally enabling reselvation in promotions for Scheduled Castcs and Scheduled Tribes. Reference \.vas also made to the ConsLitution Bench judgment in M. Nagoraj's case, which upheld the validity of tine 77fr' and the 85th Amendments but requircd the State to collect quantifrable data showing inadcquacy of representation, establish backu'ardness and ensure efficiency undcr Article 335 before granting rese twation in promo[ions rvith consequential senioritY.

3.3. Further reliance u'as placed on Jqrnail Singh u' Llzchhrni Narain Guptas, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarilred that the requirement in Nagarai's case of proving backwardness afresh was erroneous, as backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is presumed; what the State obliged to establish is only inadequacy of representation coupled with consideration of efhciency.

3.4. karned counsel placed strong emphasis on B.K. Paoitrd u. union o;f Indiaa, where the Hon'ble Supremc Court held that consequential seniority is not a mere statutory ' (2018) lo scc 396 o (2olql 16 scc 129 t 6 beneht but a constitutional incident flowing from A;'ticle 16(4A)' lt u.as cat egor-icall1. observed that once the exercise stipulated in M. Ndgraj's case (supra) is undcrtaken and prr nr()tior.ls arc granled rtnclcl the roster, lhe consequential $enioriLy attaches b,"' operzrtion of lau, and cannot be withdrawn by ariministrative inslructlons, fot' that would amount to a rcintroduction of the 'r:zrtch-up" prinr:iple which had been expressly nullificd bv the 85t1' Amendrnent. Finally, reliance was placed on Kranti Associates a, Masood Ahmed Khans, which held that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion and any ordcr that alfects civil rigl'rts but is unaccompanied by reasons is arbitrarl' and unsustainable.

4. [n rcsponse, Iearned Additional Adr,'oczrte General and learnerd counsel for unofltcial respondents argued that rescrvation policy was applied in such a manner lhat in certain cadres, Scht:duled Castes and Scheduled Tribe s candidatcs came to occlrpy far more than their constitu[ionaily-permissrble reprcsentaticn, thereby resulting in reverse discrimination against other categories. It was urged that Arti':le 16(4A) is merely an enabling provision and does not confer a fundamental right to clainr reservation in promotions. Reliance u'as placed on .a t ' (2O 10) 9 SCC +96 7 Surrrj Bhan Meend. o. Stdte of Rajasthan6, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed a notification granting consequential seniority because the State had not carried out the Nagaraj exercise.

4.I. Reliance was also placed on U.P, Pouter Corporation Ltd.. a. Rajesh Kutna-r7, i,r.here an amendment granting consequential seniority was struck down as it was unsupported by quantihable data regarding inadequacy and efficiency. Attention was invited to S. Paneer Seloan u. Sto'te o;f Tarnil Nadu8, in which it was held that n,hcrc promo[ions are not based on general seniority but on roster points, consequential seniority cannot be claimed as of right Finally, the judgment in Mukesh Kumar o. S;to'te oJ Uttarakhande was cited, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that Article 16(4A) is only enabling, that no mandamus can be issued to compel the State to granL reservation in promotion, and that it is for the State to decide whether such reservation is necessary on the basis of quantifiable data.

5. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that the controversl, turns on the question u lzorr; r scc 467 ' (2ot2) 7 scc 1 ' 1zors1 ro scc 292 ' (2020) 3 scc 1 8 :l.l i :l \ \\,hether, after the State has undertaken the cadre-rvise exercisc mandaled i r Na-garaj's case (supra) and alfirmed its cornpliaricc be[ore this Court, can they still issuc exer- utive instrucl ions r-o de prive employees of consequential senioritl'? On this issue, Lhe clecision in B.K. Pauitra's case (sup:a) is binding authoritl'. The Supreme Court therein, after considering Nagaraj's cdse qnd Jarnail Singh's case. held that consequent ia I senionty is a constitutional incident of promotion undcr Artir:L: i6(4A). It categorically observed that once thc State has car ried out the mandated exercise and promotions are granted, cc,nscquential seniority cannot thereafter, bc s'ithdrau'n bl administrativc instructions, for such n,ithdrau,al rvould amourrt to rcintroducing the catch up princiole abrogatecl lry lhe 85t]t Amendment.

6. Thc reliance placed by respondents or: Suraj Bhan Meeno's ca.se q.nd. Rajesh Kuntor's ccrse is distinguishabJe. In both those c:rscs, rcservation in promotion with <:onscquential scniority u as srruck down because Lhe State had entireiy failed to undertakc thc exercise in Nagraj's case (strpra) or had atlempled t,) do so without supporting data. Similarly, 1n ) Pane$r Selvan's corse (supra), the inhrmity was that the State l-rad sought to grant seniority on the basis of a general rulc even /{./ 9 though promotions were granted out of turn by virtue of roster points. The judgment in Mukesh Kumar's ccse also does not assist respondents, as that decision arose in the context of a State that had consciously chosen not to provide reservation in promotion and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 16(4A) does not compel the State to make such provision.

7. The present case stands on a differenl looting because thc State of Telangana has already excrcised its discretion to provide reserwation in promotion through G.O.Ms.Nos.S and 26, has carried out the cadre-u ise exercise mandated by Nagaraj's case, and has cven affirmed compliance before this Court in contempt proceedings. Having done so, it cannot now turn around and unsettle the promolions already effcctcd.

8. This Court aiso finds considerable merit in the submission that rejection of petitioners' objections by orders dated 27.08.2021 without reasons vitiates the decision. As held in Kranti Associates's case, reasons are indispensablc to sustain the validity of any decision affecting rights. A cryptic order merely recording that objections were considered rejected does not satisfy this requirement and renders action arbitrary. 10 g . -ht: attcmpt of respondents to justify the impugned action bv reft:rrtng to creation of supernumerary posts through Cl.O.Ms.No.9'l and allied orders is equally nlisconceived Supcrnumerzrry posts mav prevent immediate reverslon or clislocation, bul they cannot cure the underlying; itlegality of depriving prorlotces of their constitutional entitlement to consequr:nlial seniori[y. This Court is therelore, ol the considcred vie',t' that the impugnecl Memo No.1356 dated 24.O7 .2021. rc-jection orders dated 27 .O8 2027, and G.O.Ms.No.2.16 clatcd 27.O8.2021, to the extent they disturb promotions and consequcntial seniority of petitioners, are unsustainablc in law. Thcy offend Articles 14 and 16 of tl-re Constiturion. arc contrary to the constitutional mlrndate under Article 16('1F.), and run contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Srrp-,1sl1s Court in B.K, Pauitra's ccse and allied j udgmen t s. 1O- ,\cr:ordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Memo No. 1 355 dalecl '21 .O7 .2O2 1 , rejection orders datecl 27 -OA -2027 ' and G.O.Ms.No.246 dated 27.Oa.2O2L are quashed to the extent thcy distr-tr b or seek to disturb the protnotions and consequential selriority of petitioners. Promotions of petitioners sLall stand restored u,ith al1 consequential benehts including I i I I I I I I u i I I I l consequential seniority. It is, however, clarihed that this order shall not preclude the State from initiating specific procecdings against any individual promotion, if justified by cogent material, provided such proceedings are undertaken strictllr in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing. No cosls. 1 1 . Consequently, Miscellancous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chief Secretary, State of Telangana' Dr'BR Ambedkar Bhavan' Secretariat, HYderabad

2. The Special Chief Secretary to Government' General Administration ' "'5"'g'""']ijt-3n nmbeot<ar Bhavan' Secretariat' Department, State ot Hyderabad.

3. The Principle Secretary, Schedule Castes Development Department' State of Telangana, Dr. B n nmoeJ[a;G[";n' Secreta riat' Hyd erabad

4. One CC to SRI JOGRAIVI TEJAVAT' Advocate lOPUCl 5. Two CCs to ADDL' ADVOCATE GENERAL' High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll' High Court for the State of Telangana o

7. Two CD CoPies BSK PVL \qr i i; i: i l i t i I l HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 .-i .,:,' - :r. _) .;,, i..'7r 't. . * '\\ 15 OI:T ffiT ^. ''r" '-' _ ' :' ORDER WP.No.7150 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .@ S*-