High Court · 2025

Petitiqn undqr Article 226 qf the Qonstitution of tndia praying thAt in thq circumotansg$ statqd in the affidavit filed therewith' the HiSh Qourt may hF ptp4r"Otto iqrlr" u writ, qrder gr direction pqrticularly one in ihe nature 9f Writ of ManO"mr. io'Qet aside the orders of the third respondent R9 No 1i84/20201M2- f, (S.O,No, ?Al2O21lM2-A) daled 1207'2021 abrul:tly cancelling ltrq promotlgps given to thq petitioners on 17 11'2020 as Deputy Range Officers and reverting in"- u, Fqrgst Section Officers without following the groced'* lid,'i.'-Ll^O' dgclarilg trq'said qrders as arbitrary' vindictive' illegal' violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Rules 23 and 24 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 199Q and violation of Articles 14' 16 and 21 oJ the Constitutiqn of lndia, to direct the, respondents to continue the petitioners ar,; Deputy Range Officers. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 1S1 CpC praying that in the cirlu.nstances stated In the affidavrt fi ed in support of the petition, the High Court rrzry be pleased tq .:.lung the impugred orders of the third rpspondent Rc.No .l 1A4/2OZOIM?_A, (S.O No. 26t2021fiA2-A) dated 12 07 Ze21 and direct trr: ,espondents- to coll:nuQ thg petitiorlr:rs es Dgpu1y Range officers, pending !is6rosal ortne writ ccynsgl foq {re Pqtitione(i SEI S.SglgHNA SHARMA OoqnsgJ fo1 lbe Resoorldgntsl Gp EgR sEFIllcES_l Thq Cqqrt 41{e t[re foilowing; ORDER THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK oNN o. 2o3 35 of 202L ORDER: This Writ Petitron , under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is frled seeking the following relief: '"to issue a writt ora1'1'o-r;"^"::: eTi':H"i!:J'i-$: l:}rn*+l**..;$':e*+im#'.,,m= a''d rures' uv o"r^.i''e l1"^ :3,S":Sffi ;""'illl'T#;'; ; *"t"" iiili'"'oLti',.'-'1t'i::t'.",,'1.'"il;-sr"iloi"ut"serviceRules' ii"f,ia zo of Telangana .'-1"" 1I ^-a 2l of the constitudon of iss;La violation of Articres Jl;"iJ i'"i.*; the petitioners as indiar to direct thersrespo;:::l::,:" "- DePutY Range Offrce

2. Heard Sri S' Krishna Sharma' leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners ald learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearing on behalf of tJre resPondents' Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner 3. No.1 was initially appointed in respondent No' 1 Department as a Forest Beat o{Ecer on l8.l2.lgg2 and was later promoted as Forest Section OIIicer on 02.06.2016, and petitioner No'2 was appointed as a Junior Assistalt on 26.02.2013, but the said post was later conveited as Forest Section Ofhcer on 2a.O9.2O16- As such, bot]. the \ 2 PK, J w P.t.o.2a33S of2O21 petitioners wefe shown at SI.Nos.24 atrd 26 respe ttii/ely in the seniority list o I Forest Section Oflicers. It was further ,sutrmi15"6 ,n., since some of :he seniors of the petitioners, including tlros,e placed at Sl.Nos.8 a_nd ,l in the seniorit5r list, were lacing ciisciplinary charges/ACB cases, respondent No.3 had taken up th() case of the petitioners herei:e for promotion to the post of Deputy flar;ge OIficer during the paltl year 2O2O_21, and called for their ACtF,s rzide letter dated 76'10 202c consequently, after considering the c -ecrentia_ls of the petitionel.{r, respondent No.3 issued No. 1 184 / 2O2Ol I\{ 2-A dated lZ. I t.2O2O, promoting I he il( tittoners as Deputy Range Orficers. Thereafter, the petitioners .joine.l in the promoted post ancl their pay was fixed under FR 22 (B), an1t,1ey were also shown at Sj..Vos.65 and 66 respectively in the serriorirv list of Deputy Range Off r:ers. pr, )ceedings

4. It was furtler submitted that while the things s,ocd thus, respondent No.3 issued the impugned orders vide p rot eedings Rc.No. 1184/2A2Ot\12-4 dated 12.07.2021 (served on the cet itioners on O6.O8.2O21), ztrruptly cancelling tJle promotions givt-'r t r them, without assignini; any reasons for such cancellation. Fiowever, learned counsel contended that prior to the issualce rlf thLe inlpugned order, no notice 'i as also issued to the petitioners lt rr as further 3 PK, J W.P.No.2O335 of 2021 contended that respondent No.3, who issued the promotion orders dated. 17.11.2O20, himself cannot review his order and cancel the promotions given to the petitioners. As per Rule 33 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the power to review and revise a promotion order lies with an appellate authority' that too' within a period of six months from the date of such promotion order' Therefore, respondent No.3 lacks jurisdiction and authority to issue the impugned orders. Further, since the statutory period/limitation period of six months has elapsed, even the appellate authoriff may not issue the reversion orders. It was further submitted that Rules 24 and25oftheTelangalaStateandSubordinateServiceRules'1996' empowers the State Government to waive the period of six months mentioned in Rule 23 and' review the promotions but it is mandated intheRulesthatanoticeshouldbegiventotheaffectedparties before exercising such a power' However, in the present case' no suchnoticewasissuedandnoorder,waivingtheperiodofsix months, was passed by the Government, before the issuance of the impugned orders of reversion. Therefore, on this ground a-lone' the impugned orders of reversion are untenable ald are liable to be set aside. l 4 I PK, J vt.P. Ya.2o335 oJ 2O21

5. It was f urther submitted that the two Forest S;e( tion Officers *'ho are shou'n at Sl-Nos.8 and 9 in tJ.e Senionty L st of Forest Section rl)ffice rs were facing disciplinary proceedings,/.rtC,:3 cases, and thus, the cas;r: of the petitioners was considered for p romotion as Deputy Rangr: Officers during the panel year 2O2O_i),1. It is a well_ settled propor;; tion of law that if the disciplinar5r pnrce edings/ACB cases are perLtling against a person whose claims ar.e Ceferred for promotion ha\(l to considered during the next palel yr:a: but not by reverting the f)ersons who were already promoted in their places. Therefore, the ection of the respondents in reverting rhe petitioners and promotinll the two Forest section officers, whosr: r raims were earlier def'err:,1 on the ground of pendenr:y cI rlisciplinar5z proceedings, is; unjustifrable ald contrary to the legal p-opositions. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prayecl thts Court to pass appropnate orders in the present wiit petition by setting aside the impugned r-t:version orders dated L2.OZ.2O2l. Relianc,: has been placed on n det:ision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in .ty.I(. Itulga Deoi u. Commissioner oJ Commrlrcial Taxes, Egd.erabad. anti othersr.

6. Per contr-zr, learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents su5mitted that due to a shortage of staff in ttre cadre of ' (1997) 1l scc 91 5 PK' J w.P.No.20335 oJ 2021 Deputy Range Oflicers during the panel year 2O2O-2L, six Forest Section Ofhcers, including the petitioners, were promoted under administrative exigencies, purely on od hoc basis, aJter taking into account a clear vacancy and the flve anticipated vacancies on account of retirement of staff upon attaining the age of superannuation as on

30.Oa.2O2L. Further, the main reason that necessitated the issuance of impugned reversion orders of the petitioners is that out of the five anticipated vacancies, due to retirement, only two vacancies actually arose before the orders of the Government, enhancing the age of retirement on superannuation from 58 years to 61 years' Therefore' there were no possibilities of retirements in the cadre of Deputy Range Offrcers in the panel year 2O2O-2L' Hence, it is not possible to continue/regularize the serrrices of the petitioners in the cadre of Deputy Ralge Offrcers, who were promoted purely on temporary and ad hoc basis. The three individuals who are seniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Forest Section OIIicer, standing at Sl'Nos'7' 9 and 17 in the approved panel year 2O2O-2l, and who were overlooked for promotion during the panel years 2Ol8'L9, 2Ol9-2O and 2O2O-21' due to pendency of disciplinar5r cases in the V&E Department were exonerated from the charges. Therefore, the Government has fu.oJized the V&E cases, and issued orders vide G'O'Rt'No'23 dated 'l 6 PK, J U'. P.,'1o.20335 of 2O2 I

19.O2.2O21, (i.O.Ms.No.53 dated 22.12.2O2O an<i C.O.Ms.No.43 dated 0().12.'.).)20, duly dropping the further action in disciplinary cases and all the three seniors to the petitioners are e:<onerated from the charges. Further, in the approved palel iist o1' 2O,ZO-21, three senior indjvidu als stood at Sl.Nos.7, 9 and lZ respe,:tive,ly, whereas, the petitionerr; herein stood at S1.Nos.24 and 26 only. Ilet.rce, the said three indi'idrLrrls were considered for promotion with r etrospective effect for tlLe panel years, as per the (ioven.trrrent orders communiczrterl by respondent No.2 vide pror.eedrngs dated 06.O2.2O21. '-)rerefore, there is no other objective to tt e iespondents in issuing the impugned reversion orders. It was furthe: submitted that the case ()' the petitioners w r be fairly considered fo;- promotion to the cadre ol )eput5r Range Officer as and when the virczrncies arise, as per their eli gibility.

7. It u'a.s tirrther submitted that Rules 23, 24 and 25 of the Tela,ga,a lstar) and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996,, irrr: related to the promotiorL:; issued on regular basis in regulirr vacancies. However, irL tL c case of the petitioners, their promotions have been elrected purel'z on ad hoc basis in view of the rLdr:einistrative exigencies, an(l in anticipation of retirement vacancie s orrly, as and when the sai I retirement vacarrcies arise, the s,3rvi(:es of the I 7 PK, J W.P.No.20335 of 2o21 petitioners ot ad hnc basis will be regularized. However, due to non- availability of the retirement vacancies, the respondents are justihed in issuing the present impugned reversion orders. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

8. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

9. Admittedly, while working as Forest Section Oflicers, the petitioners, who were at S1.Nos.24 and 26, respectively, along with four other individuals, were promoted to the post of Deputy Range Officer vide proceedings of respondent No.3 vide Rc.No-1184/2O2O d.ated 17.11.2020, with certain conditions, and condition Nos.l to 5 read as under: The above individuals are informed that their appointment by "1. promotion to the cadre of Dy. Range Offrcers is on interim and ad hoc basis, subject to the conditions that they will not be entitled to any right to be placed on promotion etc., and they are liable to be reverted to the category of Forest Section Olficers as and when ttle Dy. Range O{Iicers those who are promoted as Forest Range Oflicers on ad hoc basis reports for duty on reversion as Dy. R.Os. etc. Further they have to abide to be reversion orders, in case of their reversion to the lower cadre i.e., Forest Section Officer and will not make any legal claims- They are directed to submit an undertaking in the forrnat enclosed to this order on non-judicial stamped paper worth Rs.loo/- (Rupees One hundred only) to the concerned District Forest Ollicer/Forest Divisiona-l Offrcer, before tley are relived from the present post, before they join at their place of posting without fail. The promotion order is liable to be cancelled and they are 2. liable for reversion as FSOs at any time without assigring any reasons ald without any prior notice. 8 PKJ W.t'.Nt .20335 of 2021 Tt €t- shall not be regarded as probationers in th,' (:atr::gory of ary reasons for any DreferentilLl claim "t'y

3. iv n".g.. ii:n..rs or entiUed for prcntotiorL- Th:, are informed that, the promotion now ordere<l ls L able for 4. revrerv, revrsion or calcellation at aIIy time withoul an) rotlce and without assLtlning any reasons thereof' Thei are informed that, they shall abide- by anv ri:version to 5. t}r" 1.,*.. cal.e of Forest Section Ofhcers arrd will not me'k') ar-r1'legal complicatio ns/ claims.'

10. From. tL t: above, it is quite evident that the ll€ tit toners were promotecl ,rs l)eputy Ralge Ofhcers, not on a regular or permanent basis, but 01 an ad hoc atd' temporary basis' ouing to the administrative eigencies. It is a well-settled princ pl') of service jurispruclence ".hat promotions aJlected ot ad lD(: or t€ ml)orary basis do not conler a vested right for a regular promotion l\trther' it is not in dispute that the petitioners were never placed urtdtr probation aJter their prc rnolion to t1.e cadre of Deputy Range Office rs Thus' it is clear thal the Department never intended to gr ant regular promotions to :he said cadre.

11. Further, the petitioners, having voluntarily accept( d the above conditions. ncw cannot take a plea that the impu 3n::d reversion orderswere-ssuedwithoutaffordingthemarrypricrrnoticeor opportunily ol- hearing. As such, the decision reliecl on by the petitioners is cf no avail to them. t t 9 PK' J W.P.No.2O335 of 2O21

12. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioners were granted promotions in view of anticipation of vacancies likely to arise due to retirements scheduled during the panel year 2O2O-21' However, due to the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 to 61 years, the expected retirements did not occur' As such' it can be construed that the basis for the temporary promotions is no longer in existence.

13. Admittedly, the case of the petitioners was considered for promotion in view of their seniors facing disciplinary proceedings' In this regard, it is relevant to note that subsequent to the promotion of the petitioners, the charges against four employees of erstwhiie Mahabubnagar District, including Mr' R' Jaidev' who stood at Sl'No'6 in the seniority list of Forest Section Offrcers' were dropped by the Government, vide G.O'Ms'No'S3 dated 24'O2'2O2O' Insofar as the employee at SI.No.9, Mr' J' Bhaskarachary' is concerned' the Government has issued order vide G'O'Rt'No'23 daled' 79'02'2021' dropping further action against the said individual and others' Thereafter, the Government has considered their cases for promotion as per respondent No'2 proceedings Nor'4O-2O21/EE'2l2O2l dated (l6.02.2021, and issued proceedings dated 1O'O8 2O21' promoting them as DePutY Range Ollicers' 1 10 PK' J W.P..vc 2A S of 2021 In vier,"' of 'he above made discussion' this Court rloes not hnd l+. any merit in the present writ petition and the same is; Liallle to be dismissed. 15 AccorclinglT, the Writ Petition is dismissed' Miscellanecus applications, if aly' pending in this vrrit. petition' shall stand closec. No costs //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. C a\ \ I H. NAG,ABHUSHAMBA pEFUl'Y REGISTRAR .. \ SECTION OFFICER To, \

1. One CC to SRI S KRISHNA SHARMA, Advocate tOe UCI 2. fwo CCs to Cf' FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OJT]

3. Two CD CoPie s' BSR BS l: VACAT'ION COURT -'1: i..,r.. / ..>_ iA i li OI' /. i. t \\iI +ril 1 {-\ ,(. c); ,i,. \ HIGH COURT DATED:1410512025 ORDER WP.No.2033$ of 2021 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS (t il4 ,tA I)