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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the constitutron of lndia declaring the proceedings No.N1O8t22 dated 17.07.2024 issued by the 1"r respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide, u nconstitutional and violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 0f the constitution of lndia and further declare the action of the 2"d respondent not revising the final seniority list issued by the 1st respondent by proceedings No.Al10Bl22 dated 17.07.2024 in pursuance of the appeal filed by the petitioner daled 23.07.2024 before the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide, unconstitutional and violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of i I F i I the Constitution of lrrdia and contrary to Note-1 of Rule 3 of Sprrcial Rules read with Rule 3ll of Sta:e and Subordinate Service Rules and issue consequential direction directing the 2nd respondent to issue revised final serriority Iist in the cadre of Assistant l-;rbour Officer, Hyderabad (Twin Cities) in tet ms of Note-1 of Rule 3 of Special tr ules read with Rule 33 of State and Subordinate Service Rules i.e. cycle pres cribed among direct recruitees, ptomotees ,and transferees taking into accounl t1e Iaw laid down by the Honourable Suprenre Court in case of V. Jagannath Rao vs State of A.P. reported 2001(10) SCC 401 as well as K. tvladhav Reddy and <>thers vs. State of A.P. and others reported i't 2014 (6) SCC 537 as well as with':ut taking into account the vacancies arose out of promotion to the post of Assist;rnt Commissioner of Labour (SSS) by disposing the appeal filed by the petitioner daled 23.07.2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circur)stances stated rn the affidavit filed ir suppo( of the petition, the F,ligh Court mav be pleased to direct the 2nd resp ondent to issue revised f inal seniority list rn the cadre of Assistant Labor.rr Ofticer, Hyderabad (Twin Cities) in terms of Note-1 of Rule 3 of Special Rules read rvith Rule 33 of State and Subordinate. Service Rules i.e. cycle prescribed amc,ng direct recruitees, promotees and transferees taking into account the law lai,l down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jagannath Rao vs State of AP. reported 2001(10) SCC 401 as well as K Madhav Reddy and others vs. State of A.P. and others reported in 2014 (6) SCC 537 as well as withotrt taking into account the vacancies arose out of promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour (SSS), by dispo'sing the appeal filed by the petitione- daled 23.07.2024, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. V. KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: ORDER I i I I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JI,STICE NAMA,VARAPU RAJESITWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.14163 of 2o25 OBDEB: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliet "... to issue wit order or direction more particularly one in the nature oJ WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaing the proceedings No.A/ lOa/22 dated 17.07.2024 issued bg the -lst respondent as arbitrary, illegal, disciminatory, malafde unconstitutional and uiolating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further declqre the action of the 2"d respondent not revtsing the final senioitg list issued bA the ls, respondent bg proceedings No.A/ 108/22 dated 1 7. 07.2024 in pursuance of the appecl filed bg the petitioner dated 23.07.2O24 before the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory , malafide unconstitutional and uiolating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution oJ India and contrary to Note-l of ktle 3 of Special Rules read uith Rule 33 of State and Subordinate Seruice Rules and issue consequential direction directing the 2nd respond.ent to issue reuised ftnal senioitA list in the cadre of Assistant l,abour Olficer Hyderabad Twin Cities in tenns of Note- 1 of Rule 3 of Special Rules read with Rule 33 of Stqte and Subordinate Seruice Rules i.e., cgcle prescibed among direct recruitees, promotees and transkrees taking into account the lau laid doun bg the Honourable Supreme Court in case of V.Jagannath Rao us. State of A.P. reported 2OO1 (10) SCC 4Ol as well as K.Madhau Reddg and others us. State of A.P. and others reported in 2014 6 SCC 537 as uell as uithout taking into qccount the uacancies arose out of promotion to the post ojf Assistant Commissioner of l-rtbour SSS by disposing the appeal fiIed bg the petitioner dated 23.07.2024 and pass such order or orders."

2. Heard Mr. P.V.Krishnaiah, Iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing for the respondents, and perused the material available on record. I I 2

3. l.earnec counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. t has iss .: ed a provisional seniority list dated 1 5 .Q2.2O23, vide Proceedings l,lo.A1 / l}a I 2022, inviting objections. T're petitioner submittecl objections to the provisional seniority lisrt b5, way of representati()n dated 20.O2.2023, stating non-compJiance with the prescribe<l rluota and rota system and demonsrrating how respondent I'io.1 favoured promotees, depriving tht' r'ights of the direct recruit r; by not following the statutory rules u'hile preparing the seniorit)'list, as well as the principles of 1aw laid ,Cown by the constitutionzLl courts on the subject. Without consi,.lering these objectjons srrbmitted by the petitioner, respondent No.1 issued the Ilnal s(r niority list dated 17 .O7 .2024, vide Proceedings No.Al lOB l2O')-2. It is further submitted that thr-' h; ral seniority list in the czrrlre of Assistant Labour Officers for tl-rc Hyderabad (Twin Cities) 2ione u,as not prepared in accordance with the Note-1 of Rule 3 of Special Rules read with Rule 33 of th,-' State and Subordinate ilervice Rules. Specifically, the final s.eniori[u list places promc,tees above direct recruits, contrary to thr: prescribed quota ald rott system, which has resulted in the petitioner being placed krwer in the seniority list.

4. Learnerl counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitiorrer lilec. an appe4 oq 23.07.2024 before respondent No.2, 3 who is the Appellate Authority as per the Rules, highlighting all the lapses, irregularities, and illegalities committed by respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned final seniority list dated 17.O7.2024. However, the Appellate Authority has failed to dispose of the appeal as of today, despite eight months having elapsed since its submission, and respondent No. t has not revised the final seniority list dated l7.O7.2O24, despite the clear mandate of Note-I of Rule 3 of the Special Rules read with Rule 33 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules.

5. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 23.O7.2024, in accordance with law'

6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that they have no objection if the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within a prescribed time.

7. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the appeal dated 23.07.2024 filed by the petitioner within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with the provisions of the State and Subordinate I I : u j l , I i 4 Service Rules and the Special Rules governing 116 cadre of Assisl.ant Latrour Ofhcers.

8. With t-re above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as ,o costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pendirrg, if any, in this \lrrit Petir-ion, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.PADMANABHA REDDy DEPUIY REI,ISTRAR ,/ i, , To, F TJ sEC noN @rptceR .Lab_o_ur Hyderabad (Twin Cities.) Zt,ne, State of ii ii "ifi ; "' o""

1. The Joirt Comrr issroner-of ^ I;lugili ?5; 5 i#"?"ffi'.'i,*; ;i i;tff;:+A[s eh ; z. tne Utrector of Labour/ Commissioner of Labour. S ?r"r",to,.. iAks B;; ;; +:ff ru::Al., , H8,5l5jfj]ff;,;.,llt. Government, Labour, Empto-ymenr .l rainins and j il,K,"i,:f,i:l3il1,ouo15"l%' i3F,5%?t 4 0 il c c i; t ; i n,,,, uyoel,6ai ' ,ly;"?"tr:l"roc,j,,o'servrces ti,'Hisi'cii,rt iJ'i tXJAtate o.r era,rsana, at 6 Two CD Coiies ft it x"Fi",:iJ:l: i,133 :" "", "- r", ", "-, "l 'liJI {,r 1 'il L' , i ! t. ! r I ) I tI i F I HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:0210512025 .$) ,$*oI li.. t;e r1,,) ORDER WP.No.14163 of 2025 -, a H I I I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ \9 "/