Vishnuvardan v. Secretariat Building, HYderabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 ot 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 iUnruOnfrlUS to declare action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion in the category of Senior Assistant and Naib Tahsildar is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional with a consequential direction, to the respondentJ to consider the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion in the category of senior Assistant and Naib Tahsildar in view of dropping of disciplinary proceedings with all consequential benefits. IANO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion in thecategoryofSeniorAssistantandNaibThasildharbydisposingofhis representation dated 23.01 .2025 forthwith Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Gourt made the following:
ORDER -
7 o 1 THE HON'BL s I EN AVA URA JESTL'/I/ BrBA0 @rs ORDER: With the,:onsent of both the parties, this Writ petition is disposed of irt the admission stage itself.
Heard Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned :ounsr:l for the petitioner, tnd learned Government pleader for tservices_I, appearing fc r rerspondent Nos.1 to 3. perused :he material on record. 3' The care.f the pertioner is that he was initie ily aplrointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds on 17.09.2006 and allotted to thi: Revenue Department, where he has been:serving to the satisfacti( n of higher authorities. However, he was pla,:ed under suspension vtCe F,roceedings No.A3l1583/2OOB, dated 19.03.2008, due to alle(laticns oF negligence in processinJ Apadbhandu proposals, arrd 'r'/as reinstated into service vide proceedings No.A3l1583/200U, dated 06.04.2008. A charge memo wi:s issued on 05.11.2003 fcr the aforementioned allegations, but after an enquiry, the c rarges were dropped, and his suspens; ion perriod was treated as on duty as per proceedings No.A3l15g3/2008, dated 21.08.2010. Despite this, the District Collector, Karirnnagar, issued Proceedings No.A2l/6953/2008, dated 11.03.2010, promoting his 2 juniors to the post of Senior Assistant, while ignoring the petitioner's claim. His probation was declared on 14.09.2008, vide Proceedings No.A2/4762/2010, dated 24.11.2010, and he was later promoted to the post of Senior Assistant vide Proceedings No.A2l 497 l2O1 1, dated L2.09.2017.
In a provisional seniority list issued vide Proceedings No.A2/324L/2021, dated 27.04.20t3, the petitioner's name was placed at Sl.No.139 instead of Sl.No.95. On 31.08.2018, vide Proceedings No.A1l5005/2016, he was promoted to the post of Naib Thasildhar on an adhoc basis. After the formation of the State of Telangana, the petitioner was allotted to Jagtial District, and his name was placed at Sl.No.20 in the final seniority list dated
27.07.2023, vide Proceedings No.A2/872/2023, whereas his batchmate's name was placed at Sl.No.14. Based on this, the panel for Naib Thasildhar for the period 2017-LB lo 2023-24 was approved on 04.10.2023, vide CCLA Proceedings No.Ser.II(2)/2166759-1I12023, where the petitioner's name was placed at Sl.No.88, and his juniors were placed at Sl.No.21. Despite submitting several representation s, including one on 23.O1.2025 to respondent No.2, requesting consideration for notional promotion, no response has been received. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. ,l .l 3
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be p rssed in this Writ Petition, directing tl e respondents to consider tl e representation submitted by the petitioner on
23.0L.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Learncd Government Pleader for Services:I, appearing for the respondents, aiJ not dispute the said submissicns made by the learned cou rsel for the petitioner. 7, Takinrt into consideration the submissions ma, Je by the learned counsel for the respective parties, withorjt goirrg into the merits of the :ase, this Writ Petition is dispo; ed o'', directing respondent No,,l to consider the petitioner's representation dated
23.07.2025, anrl pass appropriate orders in acccrdancr: with law, as expediticusly as possible, preferably, within a periocl of six (6) weeks fronr the date of receipt of a copy of l:his order. There shall lle n,r order as to costs. As a s:que:|, miscellaneous applications pend ng, if any, in this Writ Petitior, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// The PrinciJ,al Sr..cretary, Revenue Department, Secreta Hyderabac , State of Telangana The Chief ,)omrnissioner of Land Administration, Hyder The Distric Collector, Nizamabad District. _ One CC to SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH, Advocate [OI Two CCs tr GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the S Hyderabad. IOIJT] Two CD Copies SI)/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI ?EPUTY REGISTRAR j SEcrioN oFFreER- I' I't riat Building, abad, T-elangana. ,UC] ,tate of Telangana, at To 1 2 3 4 5 6 PSK. BS HIGH GOURT DATED:19[0312025 ORDER WP.No.8189 of 2025 it\E il 4t 6 Y o 0 I AP; 2025 t Sr,A?ar. rE-o * ( r a A +-i DISPOSINCi OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO.STS 1
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.