D.Lalitha Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned Memo No.73lCabinetrAl / 2O1g-14 daled 27.08.2021 issued by the first respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.SATYAM REDDY, rep., M/s.K.V.RAJASREE Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : SRI P.V.RAMANA The Court made the following: ORDER -) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 2077t Or 2021 ORDER: . The present Writ Petition is filed under Articlc 226 of the Constitution of lndia chatlenging the vatidity of Memo No.73lCabineL/ All2otg-14 dated 27.08.202 1, whereby rhe objections of petitioner to Memo No.1356/SU.I /Al l2O2I dated

24.07.2021 were rejected, and the consequential Govcrnment Order in G.O.Ms.No.248 dated 27 .O8.2O21, by rvhich revised pancls were finalised unsettling the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Assistant Secretary.

2. The grievance of petitioner is thal the impugned proceedings, though justified by the State as a "review" undertaken in compliance with the Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2016 dated 1 1.12.2018, are in truth a wholesale revision of panels which disturb vestcd promotions and consequential seniority, and are therefore, unconstitutional.

2.1. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and entered service in 2OO2 as Typist cum-Assistant under reserved category recruitment by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. She thereafter, earned promotions as Assistant Section Ofhcer, Section Officer and ultimatcly in 2O16 as Assistant Secretary. These promotions r'r'ere effected under \ the poticlz laid clown in G.O.Ms.No.S dated 14.O2.2OO3 ar,d G.O.Ms.No.2(r dated 20.O2.2OO9, which provided for reservation in promotions s,ith consequential seniority. It is her contention that Para 5 .2 of Memo No. 1356 dated 24 .O7 .2027 , which stipulates that once adequacy of representation is achieved, promotions shall be governed only by general seniority from the leeder cadre, cffcctively deprives Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe promotees of consequential seniority and revivcs the 'catch-up" principle which had been annulled by the 85th Amenclment to the Constitution.

2.2. Petitioner relies on settled constitutional jurisprudence. In Indrd Sauhneg a, Union of .Indial, the nine- Judge Bench hetd that Article 16(4) did not permit resen ation in promotions but only in initial appointments. This led to insertion of Article 16(4A) through the 77ttt Constifutional Amendment Act, 1995, which enabled the State to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Subsequently, the glst Constitutional Amendment Act, 2OOO inserted Article l6(48) to permit the State to carry forward unfilled reservecl vacancies to subsequent years without affecting the fifly per cent ceiling. The 85th Constitutional Amcndment Act, 20O I further amended ! 1992 Supp (3) SCC 2 t 7 l Article 16(4A) to include the words "with consequential seniority," thereby legislatively nullifying the "catch-up" principle that had been recognised in the judgment in Virpal Singh Chauhan v. Union of India2, Ajit Singh Januja u. Sta.tc of Punja8 ar.d Ajit Stngh (14 a. Stdtc oJ PuniaU. Later, the 117tr' Constitutional Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament to insert Article 16(4A) in a broader form, clarifying that reservation in promotions with consequential seniority is a constitutional right; though it lapsed with the dissolution of tht: Isth Lok Sabha, its very introduction reflected the legislative intent to reinforce the constitutional validity of reservation in promotions.

2.3. In hI. Nagatai v- tln;ion of Indias, the Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the 77t1" 81st and 85th Amendments but made it clear that the State must collect quantiflable data on inadequacy of representation' demonstrate backwardness, and ensure that efficiency in administration under Articlc 335 is not compromised' While holding that Article 16(aA) is only enabling, the Court observed that once the State decides to exercise the enabling power' the conditions must be fulhllcd. '(1b95) 6 scc 684 ' ro\o 121 scc 7is ' 1999 (7) scc 2o9 ' (2006) 8 scc 212 + >

2.4. Io Jarnall Singh u. La.chhrni Narain Gupta6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clari{ied that the requirement in Nagaraj's case of proving backwardness afresh was contrary to the nine-Juclge Bench in Indra Sanohneg's case. [t was held that backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduted Tribes is constitutionallv presumed, and the State is only required to collect quantifiable data on inadequacy of represent:rtion and to consider thc' impact on efficiency.

2.5. [n B.K. Pavltra u. Union of IndlaT, the Hon'ble Supreme Oourt emphasised that consequential senioritv is a constil rrtiona I incidcnt of promotion under Arti<:ie 16(44,) as amended by the 85th Amendment. It held that once the State has carried out the effected promodons, excrcise in Nagraj's case (supra) and the benefit of consequential senioril5z cannot bc u'ithdrawn by executive instruction, lirr that would amouilt to a revival of the catch up principle which parliament deliberaterly abotished by the gS& Amendment. 2.6. [,etitioner also placcs reliance Associates u. Masood. Ahmed Khqn8, wherein the Supreme Court declared that reasons are the heartlteat of every on Kranti 6 (20 I 8) t o SCC 39r: ' (20191 t6 scc t2q - (2O10) 9 SCC 496 / r' j conclusion and that any order affecting civil rights without reasons is arbitrary and unsustainable.

3. The State, on the other hand, put forward its case that action was taken pursuant to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2016, which directed review of promotions made after 02.06.2014. It is urged that a Six-Member Committee was constituted, cadre-wise data was collected and revised panels were prepared. It is contended that Article 16(4A) is e nabling and not mandatory, and that once adequacy of representation is reached, promotions must revert to the rule of general seniority. The State further asserts that no prejudice is caused since supernumerary posts were created under G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 28.08.2021 and G.O.Ms.Nos.264 and 266 dated 31.08.2021 to protect the incumbents from immediate reversion.

4. The implead respondents, who have benefitted under the revised panels, state that Writ Petition suffers from non joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. They contend that petitioner's promotion in 20 16 was itself irregular as it was granted despite adequacy of ST re presentation. They rely on Virpal Singh Chauholn's case' Ajit Singh flJ case and Aiit Singh (II)'s case to argue that roster\point promotees cannot claim consequential seniority' \ (r They also relv on Suraj Bhan Meenq a. Sta'te of Raidsthane and U.P. Power Corporation a. RaJesh Kumarlo, where reservation in promotions was struck down for want of .quantifiable data, and on S. Paneer Seluan a. State of Tamil Nadu,l, where it was held that consequential seniority cannot be claimed unless promotions are based on generill seniority. They finally rely on Mukesh Runror v. Sta,te of tlttarakhandr2, to argue that Article 16(44) is enabling and the State is not obliged to provide reservation in promorions.

5. Heard Sri K. Satyam Reddy, learned Scnior Counsel on behalf of Smt- K.V. Rajasree. He draws attention of this Court to the constitutional background and case law. He contends that this Court in its order dated 1 I .12.2018 in Writ Petition No. 44 15 ot 2016 upheld G.O.Ms.No. 26, d,ated 20.O2.2OO9 with regard to consequential seniorit5r to the individual who got promoted under Rule of Reservation. In the said judgment, it was advised to review the promotions u,hich were considered earlier in the State. According to learned counsel, the intention of this Court is to review the matter where consequential seniority is not considered, but the State Goyernm(,nl had misin ter preted and revised the senioritv status ' (2o1 l) I scc 467 . (20 12) 7 scc ;-', ,,(2015, lo sc. 2o,) '- (2O2Ol 3 scc I I z 7 that il the adequate is raised in the particular cadre, the promotions' should be considered based on the initial category seniority which is quash against the above said order. Promotions which were considered earlier degrades the SC/ST candidates against the constitutional amendment and verdict of the Supreme Court of India. Learned counsel accuses that the Law Department and Finance Department have not followed the said procedure and they have follor.r,ed the consequential seniority.

5.1. l,earned counsel further argued that fixing or revision of seniority up to O1.06.2O14 has to be done by the unified Andhra Pradesh but not by Telangana, so the revision of seniority done in the various cadres in the Telangana is null and void. Revision of seniority based on the order till 01.06.2014 has to be done by the Government ofAndhra Pradesh as per the A.P. Reorganisation Act. Accordingly, from 02.06.2014, the seniority should be done by Government of Telangana, but in violation of the said Act, Telangana has reviewed and revised the seniority of the Secretariat staff since 1988 to2O2l which is irregular and not tenable in law. /

6. Fieard learned Additional Advocate G<:neral on behalf of the State and Sri P.V. Ramana, Iearned c ()unsel for impleaded respondents.

7. This Court, having carefully considered the rival submissions. finds that insertion of Articles l6(aA) and I 6(aR) through the 77tr and the 8l"t Amendments, and insertion of consequential seniority through the 85m Amendmen t, represent a conscious constitutional choice by Parliament lo overcome judicial decisions such as Virpal Singht ccse and, Ajit Stngh's ccse, which had imposed catch-up rule. T'l-re lar.r, as it now stands, particularly after .B..K. Pauitra's case, is that once the exercise in M. Nagrqj's ccse is undertaken anrl promotions are granted, consequential seniority is a constittrtional right that attaches to such promotions. The stipulation in Para 5.2 of Memo No. I356, which requires that after adcquacv is achieved seniority shall revert to the feeder cadre, directly reintroduces catch-up principlc and is therefore, ultra vires the Oonstitution.

8. Reliance placed by the impleaded respondents on the judgnrents in Vtrpal Singh, Ajtt Stnglr" Suraj Bhan Meena, Rajesh Kuma.r, Paneer Seluan and Mukesh Kumar's \ casls is rnisplaced. Those cascs arose in contexts wherc either no exercise in M. Nagarajt core (supra) had bcr:n carried out, or the State had chosen not to providc reservarion in { 9 promotions at all. In the present case, the State of Telangana admits that a cadre-wise review was undertaken through a duly constituted Committee and that compliance was alhrmed before this Court. Having so acted, the State cannot unsettle vested promotions by exccutive instruction contrary to the constitutional scheme.

9. Equally unsustainable is the rejection of petitioner's objections without reasons, which offends the principles laid down in Kranti Associotes's case. Creation of supernumerary posts may avoid immediate reversion but cannot cure the underlying illegality of depriving promotees of consequential seniority. The plea of non-joinder of necessary parties is also without substance, as the primary challenge is to the validity of the Government Memo and consequential Orders' whichisamatterofconstitutionaladjudication;moreover' affected parties have been impleaded and their arguments considered. on an overall analysis, this Court holds that Memo 10. dated 24.07.2021, re1ection order dated 27 'OA '2021 and G.O.Ms.No.248 dated 27 'Oa'2021' to the extent they disturb or seek to disturb the promotion and consequential seniority of the petitioner, are arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 oJ the \ 'l l0 Lllorved. Memo Constitution and conuary to the law declared by the Hon'ble SuPreme court' Accordingly' the Writ Petition is 2 I 1. dated 27 O8' 2021 alrd G'O'Ms'No'248 dated 27 'O8'2O2\ ate quashed to the extent they disturb or unsettle the promotion and consequential seniority of petitioner' Petitioner s promotion to the post of Assistant Secrehry shall stand res':orecl r'l'ith ali consequenrial beneflts including consequential seniority' lt is ciariiied, however, that this order shall not preclude the State from initiating specific proceedings against any individual promotion, if warranted by cogent material' llrovided such proceedings are undertaken strictly in accordance with 1aw and after affording due opportunity ol hearing' No costs'

12. ConsequentlY, Miscellaneous Appli<:ations, if anY shall stand closed' i/TRUE COPY// A ISWAMY GISTRAR OFFICER To, 1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Hyderabad- 500 029 Bhavah Hyderabad 500 029 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Princip-al Secretary to Govt General Ad mi nistration oepa rtmeni !5i"ji"iui -e-RrR The state of Telangana, Rep by its Secretary to Govt Scheduled Caste D^ewe^lopment Department, (SCDD), Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan. Hyderabad - 500 029 One CC to t\4/s.K.V.RAJASREE, Advocate. tOpUCl I5:3*i%iBft'"4?y3?6JFT"ENERAL, Hish cour ror the state or One CC to SRt p.V.RAMANA, 2 4 5 6 Advocate. IOPUCI 7w Two CD Copies. BSK ..' 4 /YU t\ -i:E: S ., l ai' 1 i [iT 2025 -'.1: I .: -. I '\. 'I,: -1.,.....,.-. -!i_. HIGH COURT DATED:07110t2025 ORDER WP.No.20T71 of 2021 f|'_L.9!vrr'lc rHE WRtr pEflfloN WITHOUT COSTS @nr- 1T tl 25 I