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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS to declare the action of respondents in not granting Notional seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of senior Assistant on par with unofficial respondents by preparing the seniority list in the cadre of senior Assistant duly taking into consideration of merit obtained by him in selection process to the post of village Revenue officer in terms of Rule 33 (b) of state anrj subordinate service Rules 1996 is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional consequenfly direct the respondents to grant the Notional seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of senior Assistant w. e.f .06.04.2017 on par with unofficial respondents duly taking into consideration of merit obtained by him in selection process to the post of village Revenue offrcer by preparing the seniority list in the cadre of senior Assistant in terms of Rule 33 (b) of State and subordinate service Rules 1996, by following the larv laid down by the Honble Apex court in case of Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 5 scc 604 with all ,:onsequential benefits including mcnetary benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 15,l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may 5e pleased to direct the respondents to grant the Notional seniority to the pelitioner in the cadre of senior Assistant w.e.f. 06.04.2011 on par with unofficial respondents duly taking into consideration of merit obtained by him in selection process to the post of Village Revr:nue officer by preparing the seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistant in t,3rms of Rule 33 (b) of state and Subordinate {:iervice Rules 1996, by following the law raid down by the Hon'bre Apex court in case of Bimlesh ranwar vs. state of Haryana reported in (2003) s scc 60,4 forthwith in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAyAKAWADT RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: Gp FOR SERVICES_II The Court made the following: ORDER I ! ! t. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLT NANDA w IT PETITI ON No.7 951 ()F 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri N. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services - If, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The Detitioner aDD roached the Court seekino Draver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the action of respondents in not granting Notional seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Assistant on par with unofficial reSpondents by preparing the seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistant duly taking into consideration of merit obtained by him in selection process to the post of Village Revenue Offr'cer in terms of Rule 33 (b) of State & Subordinate Service Rules 1996 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiona I consequenfly, direct the respondents to grant the Notional seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 06.04.2017 on par with unofficial respondents duly taking into consideration of _t 2 sN,l w.P.No.7951 of 2023 merit obtained by him in selection process to the post of Village Revenue Officer by preparing the seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistant in terms of Rule 33 (b) of State & Subordinate Service Rules 1996, by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 5 SCC 604 with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances oF the case."

3. The r:ase of the petitioner. in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Village Revenue Officer (VRO) in the year 2012 through direct recruitment conducted by the Telangana S;tate Public Service Commission (TSPSC). After serving as VRO for nearly five years, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the year 2017' However, despite having higher merit in the selection process for VRO, the petitioner was placed below his juniors in the seniority list. The respondents failed to prepare the seniority list as per Rule 33(b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Aggrieved by the same, the petltioner filed the prosent writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the respondent authorities without preparing 3 sN,t w.P.No.7951 of 2023 I the seniority list in the cadre of Village Revenue Officers, effected promotions vide Proceedings No.A2l2009-2014-2 dated 25.02.20t7 to the post of Senior Assistant on the basis. of tentative eligible list of Village Revenue Officers service particulars working in Karimnagar District by taking into consideration of their date of birth in terms of G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 11.01.2008 and according to the said list, the petitioner's name is placed at serial No'504, whereas the unofficial respondents were shown at serial Nos.479, 4A5,489 and 516 respectively.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that so far as marks secured by the petitioner are concerned, the petitioner secured 83 marks with 24th rank' The petitioner is fully eligible for the promotion for the post of Senior Assistant since the petitioner passed all the required departmental tests as prescribed under the Rules'

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that on earlier occasion, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the writ petition i'e'' W.P.No.17445 of 2Ot7 seeking a direction to consider the e'< 4 SN,' w,P.No.7951 of 2023 petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant ir existing vacancies with all consequential benefits. While the said writ petition was pending adjudication, respondent authorities issued endorsement No.A2/2773/2017 dated 22.09.2017 wherein it is stated that the petitioner's claim would be considered in l'uture promotions as per seniority and eligibility by followinq rule of reservation, however, respondent authorities considered petitioner's plea and promoted the petitioner to the p)st of Senior Assistant in existing vacancies vide proceedings No.A2/ 2OO9 / 20 14 dated 28.12.2017, whereas petitirrner's juniors who are less meritorious in the cadre of \/illage Revenue Cfficers were promoted without issuing final seniority lis;t vide proceedings No'A2/2009/2014-2 dated

06.04.2017.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the petitioner secured 83 marks as per the merit list and stood at 24th rank in selection process to the post of Village Revenue Officer as per selection list published by the TSPSC and though the unofficial respondents have secured less marks than the petitioner 5 sN--l W.P.No.795t of 2Oi3 i.e., 82, 79, 73, % 26, 32, 113 in the selection Process, however, the said unofficial respondents had been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant despite having less merit vide proceedings dated O6.04.2017 . PERUSED THE RECORD n r VI a f ed onb n n N 3 n s n h a tc ar u d I "4). In reply to the averments made at para_3 of the petitioner,s affidavit, it is submitted that, according to the instructions contained in D. O. Lr. No. 1 2 540 / 146/ A4 / SMpC_r/ 20 t, dt.26.05.2011 of the Finance (SMpC) Dept., the 2nd respondent was requested to take necessary action for filling up of (LL72) posts of Village Revenub Officers in Revenue Department in Telangana State and the Government vide Memo No.49877/VA.I/2OLL-3 of Revenue (VA) Department dt. 15.06.2011, have indicated district-wise breakup of the above mentioned vacancies and requested the 2nd respondent to take necessary action as per the advice of the Finance Department dt.26.05.2011. 5 SN,J W.P.No.7951 of :2O23 Government vide Subsequently, the (Cabinet) DePt'' G.O.Rt.Nc.3379-GA instructions to all the dl.2g.O7 2}l:r, issued issue notifications inviting District r:ollectors to applicatir:ns from the eligible candidates for filling up of the vacant posts of Village Revenue Officers to the extent indicated and informed the 2nd respond'ent to issue necessary guidelines in this regard :;o as to complete the entire process of selectiorl and appointment to all the notified posts in accordance with the Service Rules enacted vide G.o,Ms No.3g-Revenue (VA) DePt'' dt.11.01.2008 as amended from time to time based <ln the marks secured in a Written Test of objective TYPe' According to the i nstructions by the 2n' issued bY the Government as well as respondent, notification for erstwhile district was issued by the 3'd respond recruitment of Village Revenue Officers ref . No, A4l 3802120t7, dl'O7'12'201 1 and durinq the written examination' short list of candidates based on merit basis according to the mark:; obtained in the written examination and selection of the candidates for appointment as Village Revenue Officer, based on the merit marks was made according to the Roster enacted under Rule-33(b) of State & Subordinate Service Rules- 1996 in which the petitioner and respondents Ka rim naga t ent, for th<: vidr:r 7 SN,J vv-P.No.7951 of 2023 No.5 to 9 Village Revenue Officer as under: were setected for appointment AS Marks secured Selection Rank st.N o Name of the person 1 2 3 4 5 T. Kumar (BC-D) M. Padma(OC) M. Laxman (BC- D B. Vinay Kumar BC-B B. Saraswathi BC-B Status -- Respondent No.7 Respondent No.8 Respondent No.6 Writ Petitioner Respondent No.9 a2 7B 83 B3 73 Selection made at Roster 43-BC- D G 50-oc-w 51-OC-G 60-BC- B(G) 32 113 26 to4 81-BC-B-W According to the above selection, the appointment orders were issued to all the candidates selected as Village Revenue Officers (including the present writ petitioner and (4) respondents herein) vide proc. NI.A4/3802/2OLL, dt.31.O4.2OI2 of the 3.d respondent and they have reported to duty as Village Revenue Officer on 01.05.2012. 5). In reply to the averments made at para_4 of the petitioner's alfidavit, it is submitted that, during the year 2017, promotion to the qualified Village Revenue Officers were considered as Senior Assistants, keeping in view the seniority and passing of departmental tests etc., in respect of the respondents No.6 to 9 herein by the 3.d respondent vide Ref. No. A2l2009/20t4-2, dt.06.04.2017. The writ petitioner aggrieved by non-consideration of his 8 st"r w.P.No.7951 of 2023 name f cr promotion as Sr' Asst' ' made il representation on 03.05'2017 and while the matter was und,:r examination, he filed WP No'17445/20l''7 before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court where under this Hon'ble Court passed an order, on 02.06-2017, directed the 3rd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representatio n 61.93.45,.2017 within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and communicate decision to the petitioner' Accordingly' the case of the writ petitioner was examined and e r n t. ref o.A2 .o 20 7 ,,7 e 2 7 n t h e e h co nsidered in future o writD etitioner wl lb Dromot ionsas Der s nloriW and elioibil itv e f llowin his na me was co sid red for Drom on as t4 e t u ior As t n N A t7 e o e h r r 2 7). In reply to the averments made at para-6 to 9 of the rretitioner's affidavit, it is submitted that as; submitted above, the names of the writ petitioner and respondents No.6 to 9 were placed in roster point under Rules-1996 as shown below: r- 9 SN,J W.P.No.79St of 2023 BF.t'l.,.!..- ..r'- sl.N o. Name of the penson Status Marks secured Selection Rank 1 2 3 4 5 T. Kumar (BC-D) M. Padma(OC) M. Laxman (BC- D B. Vinay Kumar BC-B B. Saraswathi BC.B Respondent No.7 Respondent No.8 Respondent No.6 Writ Petitioner Respondent No.9 a2 7A 83 83 Selection made at Roster 43-BC- D G 50-oc-w 51-OC-G 60-BC- B G 113 26 23 LO4 81-BC-8-W As submitted above, the promotion to the respondents No.6 to 9 was considered as Senior Assistant vide proc. No. A2/2OOg/20t4_2, dt.O6.O4.2Ol7 and the promotion to the writ petitioner was considered as Senior Assistant vide Proc.No. A2/20O9/20L4, dt.zB.t2.2OU by the 3.d respondent herein keeping in view the seniority and eligibility." DTSCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

9. A barei perusal of the averments made at paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 7 in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, clearly indicate that admittedly the petitioner secured more marks than unofficial respondents herein, however, the petitioner was considered for promotion as Senior Assistant vide proceedings IU SN,J W.P.No.7951 of 2023 No.A2l2009/14 dated 2A.12'2017 by the respondent No'3, whereas respondent Nos.6 to 9 were promoted duly considering their cases for promotion as Senior Assistant vide proceedings No.A2/2OO9l2O74l2 dated 06'04'20L7 much earlier to the promotion of the petitioner herein though the petitioner as borne on record secured 83 rnarks and obtainr:d 23th rank in the selection process for appointment to the post of Village Revenue Officer (referred to and extracted above).

10. Rule 33 (b) of State &Su rdi na eSe ice Rul 199 6 isextracted ereun er: "33. Seniorlty:- (b) The appointing authority may', at the :ime of passing an order appointing two c'r more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any other reason the order of preference among them; and where rsuch order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it. Provided further that the order of merit or order of preferenc:e indicated in a list of selected candidates prepared by th,3 Public Service Commission or other selecting authority, shall not be disturbed inter se 77 SN,J W.P.No.7951 of 2023 with referenceitd+re larditt?tEs*position in such list or panel while determining the seniority in accordance with this rule and notional dates of commencement of probation to the extent necessary, shall be assigned to the persons concerned, with reference to the order of merit or order of preference assigned to them in the said list."

11. A bare perusal of the above Rule position clearly indicates that the same had not been followed in the present case, and giving a go_by to the said procedure as provided for Under Rule 33 (b) an the present case without preparing the seniority list, the respondent authorities effected the promotions to the next levet in clear violation of the legal provision, referred to and extracted above. u A x U 2 3 T w V a" in c t] r a h o observed as under: "52. In this case also, although there does not exist any statutory rule but the practice of 72 sN,J w.P,No.795t of 2023 s deterrrrining inter se seniority on the basis of tht: merit list has been evolved on interpretation ol the rules. A select list is prepared keeping in view the respective merit of the candidates. Not onlY aooointmen t are re ul red to be ma de on m rit li to be determined on that basis as it is exDected that he ca ndidates shou td he almost at the ioinin q their resoective Do same time. Yet again, in Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank v. Ananda Chandra Das, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 3O1:1994 SCC (L & S) 1384: (1994) 28 ATC 293, this Court held: (SCC pr. 301, para 2) r "It is settled law that if more than one ar(,) selected, the seniority is as per ranking of th(-' direct recruits subject to the adjustment of th(:) candidates selected on applying the rule of reserv,ation and the roster. By 'mere fortuitours chancel of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the Selection Board and tht,: arranged one as per roster. The Hioh Court is. therefo re, whollv wrono in its co nclusion that th senioriW shal! be determined on the basis of the ioininq reoorts oiven bv the candidates selected for aooointment bv 13 SN,J W.P.No.7951 of 2023 sis."

13. This Court. vi eitsi domen t dated o4.o2 .2023. Dassed orders tn identical s uation ndino a rticula r, at Da rao raoh No.8 of the said order observ .P.No. 6O8 of 202(J ealino as un der: "8. It is not in dispute that the selection of the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent was done in one notification. There is also no dispute with regard to the merit of the petitioner and the fourth respondent. In the case on hand, the petitioner secured 48.16 marks whereas the 4th respondent secured only 42.6 marks. It is not in dispute that in the list of selected candidates, the name of the petitioner was shown above the fourth respondent in view of her merit. Since the fourth respondent joined the service before the petitioner the respondents are contending that the fourth respondent is senior to the petitioner, which, in the light of the above judgment, is not ioinino of dutv of a candidate correct. Me before anoth r candidate who marks and stood abovern the merit list, senror itv basino o candid te to o date." not entitle th the ioini n 14 sN., W.P.No.7951 of 2023 L4. This Court ooines that th senioriw list should be based on merat and not on roster points while followino rul 33(b) of the Rules as oer the ratio laid Court in the u m n t and extracted above), since the order of merit 'or order of oreference indic ted in a list of selected candidates oreoared bv the TSPSC or the aDoointino auth ritv shall not be disturbed inter se with reference to the candidates oosition in such list. 15, Takino into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-Il, appearing on behalf of the respondents, 15 SN,J W.P.No-7951 of 2023 E c) The averments made at paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 7 in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 (referred to and extracted above), d) Rute 33 (b) of State & Subordinate Service Rules, 199G (referred to and extracted above) and, e) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above), The writ petition is attowed and the respondents are directed to consider the specific plea of the petationer for grant of notional seniority for promotaon in the cadre of Senior Assistant with effect from 06.04.2017 on par with the unofficial respondents Nos.6 to t herein duly taking into consideration the merit obtained by the petitioner. in the selection process to the post of Village Revenue Officer by preparing the seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistant in terms of Rule 33 (b) of State & Subordinate Service Rutes, 199G duly following the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and pass 16 SN.J W.P.No.7951 of 2023 appropriate orders in accordance to law within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, il' any, pending in l:he Writ Petition shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDi. P. PADMANABH ASSISTANT RE Nh Grs EDDY TRAR SECTIO Norr,"r* To, 1

2. 3 4 5 6 7 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' Secretarii'tt Building' Hyderabad, state of Telangana' The Commissioner of Land Administration' State of Telangana' H'yderabad' The District Coll':ctor, Karimnagar District' The District Collector, Peddapalli District' The District Collector, Siddipet District' One CC to SRI \AYAKAWADI RAMESH' Advocate IOPIJC] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Couit for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 8 BSR GJP Two CD CoPies {w : l HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 CC TODAY ,tL4 C) llJ c .9 * $\ $ L! ,(J ORDER WP.No.7951 of 2023 J HgrH + ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS fA- 1) lrt3