The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDEISS Petition under Articte 226 of theConstitution of tndia praying tnlltn. circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus/ a. Declaring the Order ROC.No.30/2025-85pL., dated 21 .05.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 as arbitrary, contrary to the material available on record, being contrary to the Order daled 30.12.2021 in W.P.No.8588 of 2021 as well as the Orders of the Respondent No.1 in ROC No.1 2421 201 4- Vigilance Cell dated 26.02.2022 and ROC. No.B 1 1 12021 -B.S?L., dated 02.08.2022 and thereby set aside the same, b. Direct the Respondent No.1 to consider the Petitioner for the promotions to the cadre of District Judges (Entry Level) from the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior division) under 65 percent quota for the year 2025 as notified under Order R.O.C.No.30/2025-8.SPL dated J TTIE HO!{OURABLE SRI JLISTICE P.SAMI KOSIIY ANI) THE HO]\OURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSINC RzI.o NANDIKONDA I{_RIT PETITION No.t6794 of 202i ORDER, (oc ll tt'hle Sri Justice p.Sam Koshyl Heard 'rlr.M.Surender Rao, leamed Serior- C,,runsel representinrq \lr.l)harmesh D K Jaiswal, leamed c:un:;el I,rr the petitioner,'!4r'.[larender Pershad, learned Serrror (_r,unsel representintl \4'.r\.Naren Rudra, learned Standing cc,unr;el f,tr the High Cour. :rppearing for respondent No. I and lr{s.ll.SIralini, leamed Goi ernnrent Pleader for Ser-v.ices-ll agrpcarinl. for respondent \,t..1. Perused the record.

2. The in.tant u,rit petition has been fited being age,rier:d of the action ot r rlr() paft of the l'1 respondent in r,:<cludin 1 the petitioner ficrn;tarlicipating in the promotion pr.ocess tc, the )adre of District .fudge (Entry Level) from the cadre ol rli.,,il Jr dges (Senior divir;i,rr ) r nder the 65%o quota for the year 201)5.

3. lt apperrr: trat the petitioner was lelt out fror-r the list of eligible candidat,:; on the sole ground that the pcritionet has 2 actually not worked for the minimum required period of five years as a Civil Judge (Senior division)' 4. However, through the present writ petition' the leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the noticeoftheBenchthatatonepointoftime,thepetitionerwas subjected to a disciplinary proceedings and which resulted in the exoneration by the inquiry ofhcer' The disciplinary authority differedfromthefindingsgivenbytheinquiryofficerandhad proceeded and inflicted a major punishment for stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect with effect from

13.10.2016'Thesaidorderwassubjectedtochallengein W.P.No.8588 of 2011 , the Division Bench of this High Court' vide its judgment, dated 30'12'202i' has allowed the said writ petition and while allowing the said writ petition' the Division Bench of this Court had made the following observations: h the light of the aloresaid judgment' this Court is of the opinion that as the charges have not been proved based upon the evidence adduced during departmental enquiry' the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority are Peryerse findings' u l Fi:,;ultantly, the order passed by thr: Flrgh (l l Lrt lated 13.10.2016 is hereby quashe(l. I ht: p(:tili(,n(rr shall be entitled fbr al I ' hc c(rn ie,l uential benefits flowing out of this c,r'de,r . '[ lrt: writ petition is accordingly allov,,,:d. The nr srcellaneous applications pending, il any. shall r;land closed. There shall be no ordcr as ro CC S]S.

5. Pur;uar:t io the allowing of the writ petition rvhich ,,,as not further challe,rrl;ed before any other higher lorurn. hc It respondent mpl:mented the said order by setting rrsicl: tht rnajor penalty proceer ings, dated 13.10.2016, vide itr; c,rcler. dated

26.02.202), r,r terein the 1't respondent made the fb lowinq rrder: \\'h ile so, having taken into considr.r.ation thtr ,) 1.ler, dated 30.12.2021 passer in W P.Nc.8588 of 2017 of the Hon'ble Courr. rtre Higlr (lcurt hereby set aside the major pe nalty proc::eCirgs, dated 13.10.2016 withholdirg .rf twt inr:t't:ments with cumulative effect. 6 Pursurrnt t,r the order, d,ated 26.02.2022, the l" r.esp,rndent further pass.rd iur order giving effect to the settinr, aside of the 4 1 ( punishment order, vide order, dated 02'08'2022' The order of the 1" respondent, dated 02'08'2022 reads as under: Having considered the representatrons submitted by (1) Smt'A'sreedevi, Secretary' District Legal Services Authority' Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and (2) Mrs'RAdhika Jaiswal, Secretary, Metropolitan Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, requesting to restore their seniority in the category of Senior Civit Judges' the High Court decided to restore the seniority of the officers as was in the category of Junior Civil Judges. AccordinglY, the senioritYof (1) Smt.A.Sreedevi, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, is restored in t-[e category of Senior Civil Judges in between at L'B'Nagar' is restored in the category of Senior Civit Judges in between Ms.Sheetal D.B. and Sri C'Vikam and (2)Ms.Radhika Jaiswal, Secretary' Metropolitan Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad is restored in the category of Senior Civit Judges in between Sri K.Jayaram Reddy and Sri G'Praveen Kumar, with all consequential benefits' if any' 5 7 . The p lai : :eading of the order passed by the :{ilgl-r (l rufl in W.P.No.S-(8t 'tf 2017, decided on 30.12-2021 an(l subsecuently the conseqrLerrrial orders passed by the 1" rt:sp'onde nt on

26.02.202.. rLnrl ()2.08.2022, Ieaves the Bench with no tlor-rtt as to the restora-ion o1'the status of the petitioner, so far rts the se riority and other lrenefrls are concerned. That for all practi':al [rurp rses, it has to be ici:ep,r:d that the order of punistrment anrl its ligr'r does not remain i I a ):istence any more.

8. In the ligl,t of the aforesaid developments, ttre sc-nic'rity of the petitioner frcrn the date she was initially promolod irr th':cadre of the C v il .l:rdge (Senior division) i.e.., wittr e lf-ec t f}om

02.03.202 , h;s r.o be counted. g. Lr th,: ri,ien factual backdrop, she has ft,,' a I Pr actical purposes lra i r:,)'npleted the requisite five years or' service at the Civil Judge iSe rrior division). As a result she has .,r b,: treated at par with tLLo.;e ri ho have been promoted on the post of t- ivi Judge (Senior di'zir;ic r r along with her with effect from 2: }c,t .201 ) .

10. Lea-ned 'lenior Counsel appearing for th: rcsptndents conlended hiLt since the promotion process u hich is being 6 ( considered by the I't respondent is ofthe level ofDistrict Judge (Entry Level), the l't respondent was of the view that the petitioner infact should have physically worked at the Civil Judge (Senior division) for the required five years ofperiod so as to gain sufficient experience to take on the responsibitity at the Senior Ievel and it was for this reason that her name was excluded from the list ofeligible candidates.

11. The said contention of the leamed Senior Counsel cannot be accepted or sustainable for the simple reason that if we look into the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8588 of 2017, decided on 30.12'2021 and the consequential orders passed, the only inference that can be drawn is that the punishment order itself was totally uncalled tbr' Further that the petitioner was not responsible for having committed any misconduct entailing penalty. Once when the order of punishment gets wiped off and there being specihc order for grant of all consequential relief and which has been accepted and given by the l't respondent. It cannot be said that the petitioner has not put in five years of service as Civil Judge (Senior division)' 7

12. We :rr,: of the considered opinion that, if at all if the petitioner lra: not physically worked AS Civil Judge 'Senior division) b f i.r,: years, she is not to be blamed fo: the sar re. The fact thar ;irrc: she is not be fbund fault with, for hav ng not worked tirr llvt: 2vears, at the Senior Level Civ I Judg: post, therefore. sl e al,ro cannot be penalized for the samr: b1. exr luding her name lir,nt }re candidates for the next promotiolal ltost If this is permittt,d tl,t:n, in the process, juniors to the pt::itioner would march ahearl o i her in the career.which may har.: a cas;ading t ellect all tlrr,,rr.rl-,hcr service careeJ.

13. Fol ail rhe aforesaid reasons, we are inclinerl t,r allow the present writ p:tition and direct the l.t respondent to for.hrvith include tht ra, r. ol- the petitioner also in the list of :ar.r<ridates eligible for prrr icipating in the promotional process lbr rhe 1,ost of District Jurlp:: rl:,try Level) under the 65%o quota r.orr tlie Civil Judge (Sen o' dir ision).

14. It ha:; l,et:rr informed that the process has alrea,ly [egr- n and therefore, the l '' "espondent is expected to take prornpt act on in ensuring th,r ranr,r of the petitioner also stands inclrrded ard her l I \ claim also stands considered along w.ith others who have been found suitable.

15. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA S ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Registrar (Vig]lance), Honble High Court For T Hyderabad, High Court Buildings, Hyterabad, Tela h n State Of Te gana State -5 langana At 00066.

2. The Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad,state Of Telangana, Telangana State.

3. One CC to SRt DHARMESH D K.JAISWAL, Advocate. tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRI A.NAREN RUDRA, SC FOR Hiqh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OPUC]

5. Two ccs to GP FoR SERVTCES il, High court for the State of rerangana.

6. Two CD Copies.(r BSK BS f\ F I]C TODAY ( c) [* 'r' $fi + $ HIGH COUR'r DATED:2610tit2021 ORDER WP.No.16794 of 2O2S ALLOWING T,HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 9A- 25 6