Balavanthaiah v. consequentially direct the

Petition under 3ection 151 CPC praying that in the circr-rmsti Lnces stated in the affidavit filed in sr- pport of the petition, the High court may be pl,:ased to direct the respondents to [)t omote the petitioner as Deputy Superinten cent of Police (civil) on ad-hoc ba:ris pending inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the promotion list made vide proceedings D.O. No. 672912023, No - & OlE2l447- 212014- 2023 issued vide reference Rc. No. 3571G312021 dated - I2- 06- 2023 0f Director General of P rlice, TS., Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petilioner: SRt PAPPU NAGESHWAR RAO' SENI()R COUNSEL Counsel for the Resllondents: Government Pleader for Services iHome) REP M/s. NAGA DEEPIKA.P, ADV W.P.NO: 15753 OF 2t)24 Between: Balavantaiah, l;/o Late Sri Basappa, Occ. Presently working as lnspector of Police, CCS Vikarabad. Fl/o. H. No. 1-64, tvlogalmadka villag<, Damaragidda It4andal, Naray rnapet District. Telangana. Pin Code 5091136 AND ...PETITIONER

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Gov':rnment, Home Department, S,::retariat, T.S, Hyderabad. _

2. Thi: Directoi Ganeral of Police, ielangana State, Saifabad, Hyierabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of Ihe Constitution of lndia pral ing that in the circumstances state,l in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction mon3 pa ticularly one in the nature of writ of ,, N,4andamus declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered ;lnd be promoted to the post of DSP without reference to V, P.S.Anti-Corruption 3ureau, Range Reddy Range in terms of o'ders issued in G.O. Ms. No.66 dated 30-01-1991 and the Judgments reported it2017 (4) ALT 225 and 2013 (4):SCC 161, duly holding the action 01'th€ 1st and 2nd Respondents in not ()()nsidering and further denying promotion to the Petitioner to the post of DSP on :he ground of pendency of FIR No. 01/RCT-C R212020 dated 09-01-2O2O, P.S. Anti-Corruption Bureau, Range Reddy Range, as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust contrary to the orders issued in G.O. Ir/s. No.66 dated 30-1-1991 and the law laid down in the above referred Judgments and in violation of Articles '14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15'1 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 1st and 2nd Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of police without reference to FIR No. C1IRCf -CR212020 dated O9-01-2O2O, P.S. Anti-Corruption Bureau, Range Reddy Range on the analogy of Orders passed in similar cases and Judgment reported in 2017- -ALI -225, pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home 2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Saifabad, Hyderabad. Department, Secretariat, T.S, Hyderabad. AND Balavanthaiah, S/o Late Sri Basappa, Age 51 years, Occ presenfly working qs lnspector of Police, CCS Vikarabad. R/o. H. No. 1-64, I\rlogalmadka villagel Damaragidda l/andal, Narayanapet District. Telangana. pin dode 509336 " ...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS i ...PETITIONERY RESPONDENT 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 be pleased to vacate the interim orders issued in lA.No. 1 of 2024 in W.p.NO.15753 of 2024 dated 2510612024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAPPU NAGESHWAR RAO, SENTOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services (Home) REP M/s. NAGA DEEPIKA.P, ADV The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER -:'5apr''-=7 ,/ i , i i t I I I I I

1. i I ! THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTH]IK lVRl:T PETITION Nos.25774 and 15753 of 2024 COMMON ()RDER: Srnce t.he issue raised in both these Writ Pctition s is inter se connected w th each other, they are taken up togerther, heard and disposed of t v this common order 2l Heard :Sri Pappu Nageshwar Rao, learned sen or counsel, representing iv{/s. Naga Deepika, learned counsel for th: petitioner, and learned (iovernment Pleader for Services (HorrLe) a >pearing for the responde rrts. 3) Lcarnecl senior counsei for the petitioner submits that the petitioner u.zLr; initially appointed as Sub-lnspectol of ']olice (Civil) in the year 1!)99 and aliotted to Hyderabad Region dur.ng the year 2OOO. Later, he was promoted as Inspector of Police (Civil) in the year 2013 arrl thereby completed ten years ol servicc n the cadre of Inspector. Further, while he was working as Ins;pecl or of Police, CCS, Vjkara:ad District, one trap case was rcgistercd by the Anti Corruption lJureau (ACB) authorities vide FIR \o.01/RCT- CR2/2O2O, rlated O9.O1.2020, against the petitioner zLnd another and as on dzrr-e no charge sheet is hled by the InvesLige ting Agency in the said c zrse. Neither Final Report is sent to Govc rnment nor sanction is zLccorded for Prosecution, till date. Th:refore, the petitiqner is fu11y eligible and qualified for promotion t< the post of 2 DSP. On coming to know that the respondents are taking steps to effect promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of police (DSP) and his case is not being considered for the same, he approached this Court and filed W.p.No. 15753 ol 2024 wherein this Court uid-e interrm order dated 25.O6.2l24.has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deput5r Superintendent of Police (DSP) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66, General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 30.O1.1991. Despite the same, the respondents while effecting promotions to the post of DSP oa 22.06.2023 on adhoc basis, have overlooked the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 2O.O8.2O24 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of DSP, on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner uide FIR No.O1/RCT-CR2l2O2O, dated 09.0i.2O20, which is contrary to the Rules. Learned senior counsel has further contended that since the name of the petitioner is not figured in the integrated seniority list of Inspector of Police issued vide Memo RC.No.260 lBl l2Ol4, dated 13.04.2022, promotion was not given to the petitioner even though his batchmates were promoted. Hence, the learned senior counsel prayed this Court to allow the writ petitions and set aside the rejection order vide RC No.540/Estt.9l IMZ-II/2O24, dated

20.o8.2024. {,WTd-V -J - 4\ Per cortra, the learned Government Pleader hal, contended that as per tlre orders of this Court in W.P.No.14039 of 2020, dated 3O.12.2O2O, permission was accorded by the C;over nment and accordirrgly oChoc prornotions were given to eligible car rdidates i.e. to those rnd viduals whose names were found in d-rc t eniority list vide Merno in Rc.No.260/E1 12024, dated 13.O1.2022, and G.O.Ms.No.15,3, Home Department, dated 05.1O.2C)18. Further, as per the Genr'r'al Rules, the criteria for promotion to an1 category is seniority in th.e feeder category and since the name of tlLe petitioner is not figure<l in lhe seniority list in feeder category i.e. lnspector of Police (C). the case of the petitioner is not consider,:d fcr promotion to the post c l DSP and none of the juniors of Lhc petit ioner in the cadre of Insp,6q1s1 of Police were promoted as DSP ( 3ivil). It is further subr-ritted that Sri C.Giri Prasad Babu rnd Sri P. Venkateshwirrlu were juniors to the petitioner in tl-re crLdre of Sub- Inspector of Police but not in the category of Inspect;r of Police. Mr. Venkatr:r;hwarlu was promoted as Inspector o Police on

30.12.2010, on which date, the petitioner vvas nc,t co-rsidered for promotron as Inspector of Police on par with Ven kate shwarlu, as the petitioner was under currency of punishment ,:f Pc stponement of Incremen t for one year without effect vide proc :edings RO No.478l2OLt), dated 31.07.2010. Further, at thzrt pc int of time, the name of Sri P.Giri Prasad was also not consirlererl as he was dismissed frc m service in view of his involvement ir ACB case. l'] 1 -4 But, after his acquittal in ACB case, he was assigned notional seniority in the cadre of Inspector of Police w.e.f.O1.09.2010 i.e. on par with P.Venkateshwarlu. Therefore, the said individuals became seniors to the petitioner in the rank of Inspector of Police (Civil) as the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police on O2.O4.2073. Further, no juniors to the petitioner in the rank of Inspector of Police were promoted as DSP as contended by the petitioner. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner was considered and rightly rejected by the authorities uide impugned order dated 20.Oa.2024. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petitions and prayed to dismiss the same. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record. 6) A perusal of the record discloses that in W.P.No. 15753 of 2024, this Court passed interim order dated 25.06.2024 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendenl of Police, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66, General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 30.01 . 199 1, as and when promotions are effected. 7) While passing the said interim order, this Court was of the view that FIR No.O 1/RCT-CR2 /2O2O, dated O9.O1.2O2O, registered by the ACB authorities, Ranga Reddy District, was pending against 5 the petitioner irnd as on 25.06.2024 i.e. the date o{ pas sing of the interim ordet, no charge sheet was filed by the tn vestigating Agency. In r:ompliance thereof, respondents have l rassed the impugned order vide Rc.No.54OlESH-gl IMZ-ll l20 24' dated 2o.o8.2o21, .trjecting the case of the petitioner on th: following grounds: "5. Frtrther, it is to informed that promotions {'crr ) effected to the elig.ble Inspectors of Police (Civi1) whose l-rames al e figured in the hnal integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Polict (Civi1) of 3 Rang,:r-s of Telangana, issued vidc C'O Memo Rc.No.26C 7 E7 l2Ol4, Dated: 13.04'2022 to G O'Ms No 1 >3' Home (Ser-l) De'rt., Dated: 05.10.2018. The name o[ the indir idual did not hgurei in the above seniority list, and as per tbe lltate and SubordiniLt.e Sen ice Rules, 1996, promotions car'rnot be given ignoring t,re senioritY.

6. Thus. rL:-rti1 and unless inclusion of name in the abovt seniority list of lnspectors of Police (Civil) the case of Sri I{. 13alar artharah' Inspector ,lf Police (Civi1) cannot be considerccl fol p:o notion as DSP (Civi.)," Insofa: as the contention of the petitioner that though his 8) batchmates 'riz., C.Girr Prasad Babu and Venkalcsl warlu were promoted as DSP, the respondents have overlooked thr: case of the a I leging that ACB case 1s pending agai lst him, is petitioner I I concerned, as can be seen from the C.Giri Pras ad Babu and Venkateshwarlu u'ere jur iors to the petitioner ir the cadre of Sub-lnspector of Police, but admittedly, material o.n re :ord though , I r 6- C both were subsequently promoted as Inspectors of police and were assigned notional seniority from 01.09.2010. The record further reveals that as the petitioner was under currency of punishment of 'postponement of increment for one year without effect, vide proceedings Rc.No.478/2010, dated 30.07.2010,'his case was not considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of police on par with the above individuals and he was subsequently promoted as Inspector of Police ot O2.O4.2013. 9) Therefore, this Court does not see any error in the impugned order dated 20.O8.2024 and there are no merits in Wp No.25744 of 2024 and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10) Accordingly, W.P. No.25744 of 2024 is dismissed. 11) Further, in view of passing of rejection order dated

20.O8.2024 in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court on 25.06.2024, the cause in W.P.No.15753 of 2024 has rendered infructuous. Therefore, W.P. No. i5753 of 2024 is dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to co x i To

1. One CC to M/s. NA 2. Two CCs to GP FO Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD CoPies 3 PSK. GJP //TRUE COPY// S D/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASS STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER GA DEEPIKA.P, Advocate [OP RH btMf , Hlgn Court for the State of Telangana, at HIGH COURT i DATED:24101t2025 COMMON OR.DER WP.Nos.25774 AND 15753 of 2024 , ,)I I t ). \rl''\]r DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT CC)STS t e ST4re ? B Apfr ?015 ? l ^ .l:1 -.! I r,rr rr't' \:_:_.__- ^a t+ ),c,