High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court nay be preased to suspend the impugnerJ r\rremos dated 24107/202i and the consequentiar [\,4emos and Government Orders/ proceedings issued by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI J.SUDHEER 9gyl._"1follhe Respondents No.1to3 : LEARNED ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondents No.4&5 : SRI p.V.RAMANA The Court made the following: OROeR HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIONNo.2 1586 0F 202r o RDER:

24.07.2021 and Petitioners aPProached this Court aggrieved bY the action of the Stale Government in issuing Memo No'73 dated Memo No- 1356 dateci 24 07 '2021 and in 5 thereof, b1' q'hich the Government particular Para contemplated a review of promotions granted after 02'06'2014' Uncler Memo No 73 dated 24 07 '2021" revien' was directed in respect of the categories of Aclditional Secretary to Government' to Government, DePutY Secretary to Joint Secretary Assistant Secretary ro (iovernment' whiie Government and under Memo No' 1356 dated 24.07 .2021 , revicw Pertained to of Section Officcrs effected after to the category The purported basis for this cxercise was the Division Bench judgment of this Court clated 1 I ' 12 20 i 8 in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2o16; hor,t,er,er, pctitioners contend that the impugned action, rnstead of being a taithful implcmentation of that judgment, is in clear violarion of constitutional provisions' the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 ol the Constitution of India' and the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases as well as by this Court'

02.06.2014. promotlons ./ v 2

1.1. Pursuant to the impugned memos, conscquential proceerlings u'ere issued on 27 .O8.2021, wherebv the objectior-rs submittecl try pctitioners 1to 3 vr.ere rejected wiLhout due application cf mind and without consideration c,f the specific contenl.ions raised. These rejection orders, along r,i.i th Lhe consequentii:ll Government Orders and steps taken by thc respondents to give effect to the revised panels, have confirmed the illegal procedure adopted and caused grave prcjudice and severe injustice to petitioners, whose settled promotions and consequential seniority stand disturbed rvithout larvful justifical.ion. Tl'rey contend that the impugned aclion is illegal, arbitrarl', violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the law laid down bv Lhe Hon,blc Supremc Court.

2. I)etitioners are members of the Scheciuled Tribe communit]. r:mployed in the Secretariat of the Government o[ Telangana. The 1"t petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Secretarv to Governmen t, petitioners 2 and 3 r,r,erc promoted to the cadre of Section Officer, and [he 4n petitioner is sen,ing as an Assistant Scction Officer. They have renderecl continuous service in their respective cadres and their promotions \{.cre affccted in a<:cordance rn,ith the prevailing serwice rules and tlte J policy of the State embodied in G'O'Ms'No"5 dated t4.02.2003 and G.O.Ms'No'26 dated 20'O2 2OOg ' which provided reservation in promotion with consequential scniority in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe s' Petitioners assert that Lheir promotions were validly 2.1 . dated 14 O2'2OO3 and granted under G'O Ms'No 5 both o[ rvhich Provided for G.O.Ms.No 26 dated 20'O2'2OO9' reservation in promotion with consequential senioritv in lavour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribcs' consistenl- \t'ith the enabling provision in Article 16(4A) of the (lonstitution' According to them' the subsequent review undertaken by the has the effect o[ Government through the impugned memos of consequentiai nullifying the constitutional guarantee seniority and amounts to a reintroduction of the "catch-up" rule which the Parliament expressly abrogate d by the 85th Amendment to the Constitution Petitioners stated that rheir promotions were 14.O2.2OO3 and affected under G'O'Ms'No'S dated G.o.Ms.No.26 dated 20 02'2o09 which providc for reservatton with consequential senioritY These Government in Promotron subject to chalienge and a Division Bench of this dated 1 l-12'2OlA in Writ Petttton No Orders were Court, bY its judgment -- .1 4415 of 2016 and batch, upheld their validity but direcred that cadre-r,r'ise exercises must be undertaken in accordance u,ith [he larr declarcd by the Hon,blc Supreme Court in M. Nagarcrj a, Union of India and subsequent cases. 2.3. pursuant [here[o, the State issued Circular Memo dated 24.1O.2019 and constituted the Rahul Bojja Committec ro collect <.ad re u ise data. The Committee submitted its report and the Chief Secretary filed affidavits in contempr proccedir.rgs affirming colnpliance. yet, the Government issued the impugncd mcmoranda on 24.07 .2021 , called for objections and after considering pL.[itioners' representations, rejected them b_v cryptic orders dated 2T .Og.2O2l without assigning reasons. Revised pancls were publishcd and supernumerary posts \,.erc created thr.ough G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 2g.Og.2O2l ancl G.O.Ms.Nos.U64 and 266 dated 31.O8.2O2t 3. Sri J. Sudheer, learned Se,rio. Coun"el appeared on behalf of pclitioners and argued that the impugned action reintroduccs the ,,catch_up" principle which was nullified by the 85t11 Amcndnlcn t, that their representations dated July August 2O2l were re.ected without reasons and that their vested right to i cpnsecluential seniority cannot be withdrawn by executivr: 5 Learned counsel draws attention of t his Court to 3. 1 . the constitutional background and case law' He contends that this Court in its order dated' l1 '12'2O 18 in Writ Petition No' 4415 of 2016 upheld G O'Ms'No' 26' daLed 20 O2'2OO9 \'ith regard to consequentlal seniority to the individual who got promoted under Rule of Reservalion ln the said judgment' it was advised to review the promotions which were considered carlier in the State. According to learned counsel, thc intention of this Court is to review the matter whcre consequentizrl considered, but the State Governme nt had senioritY is not the senioritY status that 1f the misinterPreted and revised particular cadre, the Promotions' adequate i" tai56d in the should be considered based on the initial category senionty which is quash against the above said order' Promotions which were considered earher degrades the SC/ST candidates against the constitutional amendment and verdict of the Supreme Court of lndia. Learned counsel accuses that the Law Department and Finance Department have not followed the said procedure and they have followed the consequential senioriry' Learned counsel further argued that lixing or 3.2. revision of seniority up to O 1'06'2O 14 has to be done by the unilted Andhra Pradesh but not by Telangana' so the revision of 6 - senioritv done tn the various cadres in the Telangana is null and void. Revis on o[ scniority based on the order till O 1.06.20 14 has to be done b-1, the Government of Andhra pradcsh as per the A.P. Reorganisation AcL. Accordingly, from 02.06.2014, the seniority should bc done by Government of Telangana, but in violatiol-l of the said Act, Telangana has reviewed and revised the seniority o1- the Sccretariat stalf since 19gg to2O21 which is irregular and not tenable in law. 3.3. Learned counsel relied upon binding judgments of the Suprenrc court. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Indra Sanahneg v. tlnion of Indtat held that reservation under Article 16(4) was confined to initial appointments and did not extend to promotiorrs. It was this judgment that prompt( )d the Z|ttt Constitutiona Amendment introducing Article 16(4A), thereby constitution al,v r:nabling reservation in promotions tor SCs and J 1S.

3.4. The Apex Court in M. Nagaraj a. tlnton oJ Indiaz upheld thc va lidity of Lhe 7Zh anci the gSfr Constitutional Amendmcnrs lvhich introduced Articles 16(4A) and 16(48). How.ever, the Conslitution Bench laid down three conditions: the State lnusl collcct quantifiablc data showrng inadequacy of ' I992 Supp f3) SCC 2 17 12006r I sac )r , 7 representatlon of the class in public service, it must establish the class, and it must ensure that the backu'ardness of efhciency of adminislratron under Article 335 is not impaired AI para lO2, the Court declared: The State is not bou matters of Promotions However' and make such Provision' the showing backwardness of the cl that class in Public emPloYmen nd to make reservations for SCs/STs in if they wish to exercise their discretton State has to collect quantiflable data ass and inadequacy of representation o[ t, in addition to compliance $'ith Article " \n Jantail singh v' Lr.chhmi No,roin Guptd3 Lt,e a ::t Hon,ble Supreme Court clarified the ruling ii Na,go'"aj,s cdse (supra). lt held that the requirement of proving backwardne ss afresh in the case of SCs and STs was conrary to the ninc- Juclge Bench in Indra Sawhneg. At para 17, the Rench held: We make it clear that quantifiable data shall be collected by the State to show ittu'a"qtt^ty of representation of SCs and STs' and STs have However, we hold that the tonclusion in Nagaraj t*::* * contrary to t::^:]"::'"Oge Bench in to prove backrvardness "*" lndra Sawhney ft'tt"fott"' we hold that the State is not requirecl to collect data on the backwardness of SCs ald STs " " Thus' after Jarnoril Stngh's case' the State s obligation is confined to data on inadequacy of represcntation and consideration of efhciencY' '(20'18,1"i o SCC 396 8 -

3.6. I n B.K. pqvitra u. (Jnion of Indiaa, the Honble Supreme Corrrt gave lurther clarity. Upholding a Karna[aka Iaw granting conseqllential se niority to SC/ ST promotees, the Court held that consequential seniority is not merely a statutory benefit but a constitutional incident of promotion flowing from Article 16(4,4r. At para I 25, the Court held: '' (tonsequcntial scniorrtv is an incident of prornotion_ [t is a constituLiona. riqhr t hiclr florr.s lrom Article l6(44) as amended. The Stale, orrce it lras carried out the exercisc mandated by Ndgarq.j, carrrrot thereafter r,r ithdra$. thc bcnefit of consequential seniority by adminisLrativc instr-uctions. At para 133, the Court observed " T,r dr:prive SCs ancl STs of consequential seniority after they have been granted promotion in accordance u.ith the roster, rs to deny them the frll benefit of promotion. Such denial would rei,troduce the catch-up rule s,hich parliament in its nisdom has expressly done a\v2y with by the 85Lrr .\mendmenr"

3.7. These principles are directly attracted to th" gr.," o, the present casc. The Governmenr of Telangana had already carried out thr: cxercise in Nagraj,s corse (supra) thr.ough Rahul Bojja committee and the chief Secretary placed an afrrdavit before this Court affirming compliance. Once such an exercise u,as undertaken, consequential seniority is vested in the petitioners as a constitutional incident of promotior:. The State '(20I9) t6 scct I29 9 could not thereafter' unsetLle those promoLions by issurng [hat once adequacy 1s memos which, at Para S(ii)' direct be governed bY generai achieved, further Promotlons seniority. This dircctron' in substance' revives the catch-up rule which has been legislatively abrogated' On lhe other hand' learned Additional Advocate as u'ell as learned counsel for impieaded respondents . Ramana relied upon the judgments in Suraj Bhan (''P' Pouer Corporation Ltd' a. State of Rrrirrsthrrns '

4. General Sri P.V Meena shKuman6,S.PafleerSelaanlu.StoLteofTamilNaduT oJ ttttarakhcnd8 ' These a. Raie and Mukesh Kumar rt' State decisions are distinguishable ' In Suraj Bhan Meena's case (suPra), reservatlon 1n 5. promotions was struck down because the State had failed to carry out Nagataiexerclse at al1' Similarly' in Paneer Selucn's case (supra), deficiency was that the exercise undertaken was perfunclory and did not satisfy constitutional requirements the Hon'ble Mukes, Kumals case(suPra)' an enabling reiterated that Article 16(4A) is case arose in the context of a State which had 6 In Supreme Court provision, but the '{2OLI) I scc467 " irzorzt z scc rl -1)ors1 io scc 292 l2o'2ol 3 scc I - l0 chosen n,lt to provide reservalion in promotlon. [n contradistinction, the State of Tclangana has exercised its power under Article t6(4A), issued G.O.Ms.No.S ancl 26, conductecl the cadre lrisc exercise through Rahul Bojja Committee, and afhrmed co;npliance before this Court. Once the,se steps were [aken, the present situation falls squarely withrn the ratio of B.K. Pavitra, and not within the line of cases relred on bv the responden ts.

7. The rejection order dated 27 .Og.2O2l whereby petitioners' representations \^rere disposed of also sulfer from incurable illegality. petitioners had submitted detailed objections demonstrating tliat their promotions were lawful, that the constitutional scheme entitled them to r:onsequential seniority, and that the State had already unriertaken the mandated exerr:ise_ yet, thejr objections u,ere rejected u,ithout reasons. The orders merely state tha t the representations were "considered" and ,,rejected,, nithout disclosing why. The Supreme Court rn Krd.nti,4ssocfotes a. Mq.sood. Ahmed Khans held that reasons arc the heartbeat of without reasons the decision is lifeless he re fall foul of this principle and cannot be sustaincd every conclusion and The reje,:tion orders ' (2010) 9 scc ,+!)6 1t The attempt of the State to mitigate hardship by 8. creating supernumerary posts under G'O Ms No 94 dated 28.O8.2O21 and G.O'Ms Nos'264 and 266' dated 3l'Oa'2O21 does not save the rmpugned action supernumerary posts are an administrative device to prevent immediate rlislocation but they do not cure the lundamentat illegality of unsettling vested rights to consequential seniority- Upon a holistic consideration' this Court finds that g. petitioners' promotions' effected under valid Government Orders after the mandated Nagaraj exercise' could not be disturbed by to reintroduce the the impugned memoranda' The attempt catch-up principlc is contrary to the 85th Court. Rejection of law laid dolr'n by the Hon'ble Supreme petitioners' rePresentatlons without reasons renders the actlon arbitrary and violative o[ Article 14' The precedents relied on by the respondents are distinguishable' while those relied on by petitioners apply directly and bind this Court under Article 141 Amendment and the of the Consti[ut1on' Accordingly' the Writ Petition is 10. Government Memo No 73 dated' 24 07 '2O2 1' Government Memo 24 .O7 -2021, and the No.1356 dated consequential ailowed rejection/ finalization orders dated 27 'Oa '2021 are quashed to the extent ,_hey disturb or seek to disturb the promotlons of petitioncrs. Promotions of petitioners shall stand restorecl \r,ith all consequential benefits including consequential senroritv. It is clarified ..trylLthi" order will not preclude thc S[ate from rnrtrating spt:cific proceedings against any individuar promotion, if justiiied try cogent material, and conducted rn accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing. No costs. i 1. Oonsequently, Miscellaneous Applicarions, if any shall stand c losed. To, //TRUE COPY' SD .A H.S. cowRt SHANKAR REGISTRAR lSISTANT SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad. gana, Secretariat, Telangana Secretarrat, HVOeribJ.- State of Tetangana, Sdcretariat. ff yOerJOai "'" ' '" 1 The Chief Secretary to Government. State of Tel 2 The Principar secretarv to.Government, Generar Administration Department, 3. The Secretarv to Goverlslsnt, Schedule Caste Developrnent Department, 4. One CC to SRt J.SUDHEER, Advocate. tOpUCl 5. One CC to SRI p.V.RAMNA Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CCs to Gp FOR SERVICES il, High Court for the State of Telangana. 7. Two CD Copies. - * BSK BS b. t+. TAs 3o T t 1 01 IT z .C) * i. o c HIGH COURT DATED:07 t10t2025 ORDER WP.No.21586 ot 2021 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0,,I t7 l\ L, l0