High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be ...RESPONDENTS 7 pleased to issue.l Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, more )articularly one infiiei nature ot Writ of lrlarrdamus declaring the Order issued b, re frrst respondent in Memo No. 73lCabinellA1l2019-7 dated 27.8.2021 revertir .; the petitioners. from the post of Joint Secretary to Asst. Secretary and Dep L ty Se(tretary to Asst. Secretary respect vely while rejecting the objections under t re quise of revision of panel instead of revrew and the consequential notification de G O Ms No. 247, General Administration (Cabinet) Department dated 27.8." 021 of the approved revised panel to the extent of the petitioners, as bad, arbit': ry, vic,lative of Art. 16 (4-A ) of the Constitution of lndia and also the verdict ot the Honble Supreme Court in Nagaraj case (2006 (8) SCC p 212) and subsec rent G O [,/ s No 26 daled 20.2.2009 and also offends fundamental rights gr-aranteed under Art.16 and 21 ot Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the (:i'cumstances stated in the affidavit frled rn support of the petition, the High Corrrt may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to disturb the position of I etrtiorrers from their respeclive cadres, pending disposal of the above Writ Petit r .r lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crl rumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Corrr may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order issued by firsl respr ndent in l\,4emo No. 73lCabinet/ 4112019 7 dated 27 .8.2021 and the consequer)' al notification vide G O t\il s No. 247, General Administration (Cabinet) Departmor i dated 2Z.B.2021 oI the approved revis,:d panel to the extent of the petitioners Counsel for the Petitioner : M.VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondents No.'lto5: GP FOR SERVICE:; I Counsel for the Respondents No.6&7 : SRI P.V.RAMANA The Court made the following: ORDER t HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETI TION NO.2l7ll oF 2o2L OR DER: Petitioners approached this Court aggricvcd by the action of the State Government in issuing Memo No'73 dated 24.O7 .2021 and the consequential procecdings dated 27.O8.2O21 culminating in G O'Ms No 247' u'hereby rcvised panels werc drawn up disturbing thc promotions c[fectcd after 02.06.2014 in the cadres o[ Joint Sccrctary and Deputy Sccretary to Government They contencl th:rt this action' purportedly taken in obedience to thc Division Bench judgment dated 1 l.l2.2OB in Writ Petition No'44 l5 oi 2016 and batch' is, in substance, not a review but a wholesale revision ' unsettling vested rights and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 o[ the Constitution of India' Petitioners state that they betong to Schedulcd 2. Tribe category and were validly promoted to the posts o[ Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary in the Secrctariat in accordance ed in G O Ms No 5 clated 14 02'2003 and with the PolicY 'einbodi G.o.Ms.No.26 dated 20'O2'2o09' which provide for rescrvation senioriLY. Their grlevance 1S in promotron Memo stiPulates that once with consequential - \ of the imPugned that Para 5.2 ,1 trdeqllacv of rcl)resentation is achieved, further p: motic,ns shall bc madc o rh on the basis of general senioritr. ::,ckoned from thr' lccrlt'r r':rrlrc, thereby nullifying the benefit ol . onsequential senioritr anrl rcviving the "catch up" princrp I r,r,hich u'as Jcgislativr:lr :rbrogated by the 85m Constitution I Arnc tdment. Thcy iurth,rr contend that their objections to 1 c provisional revrcrv pancls u,crc rcjected by cryptic orders da,r rl 27 .O8.2O21 r.r'ithor-rt lrssigrirng reasons, contrary to law.

2.l . l)t'titioncrs rely on settled -onstitutional jurisprrrricncc . ln Ind.ra. Sanohneg o. IJflio'l. ,>.,i Indial, the llon'[rl<. Suprt rnr: Court held that reservation und€ -Artic:lc l6(4) rvas conllnr:cl to initial appointments and not:, prornoLions, rvhrch lt'rl l{) tlrc 77rr, Amendment introducing Art t:le 16(zlA). In M. Nagaraj u. Union of India2, the Constitution lench upheld thc valirlilr ol lhe 77'h and 85,h Amendments 1ut mirndated that b<:lort' providing reservation in pro; totior u.ith conseclut:ntrirl scrrroritr', thc State must collect qLir ltifiai)le data on rnadcc;Lrrrcr ol rcpresentation, establish backr trclness, and cnst-lrc cffi,.'i<'rrc_v of administration under Ar t r:le !;35. In Jarnail Singh u. Lachhrzl.i Nqratn Gupta3, thc Hon'ble l9()2 Sut)p {,") S(lC 217 (2006) SSL]C 2r.l (2018) lo sc,.' :r,)() t Supremc Court clarified that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes need not prove backwardness afresh' though the requirement of coltecting quantihable da[a on inadequacy remains.|nB.K.PoLl,itrdu.(JnionoJlndiaa,it\,t,asheldthat conscquential seniority is not a mere statulory bencfit but a Constitutionalincidento[promotionflowingiromArticle16(4A), and once the exercise as stipulated tn Nagrai's case (supra) is completed, consequential senioriqy cannot be u'irhdrawn by cxccuLive insLructions, as that would amount to reintroducing the catch-up principle abrogated by the 85ti' Amendmcnt' Pctitioners also place reliance on Krdnti Associdtes u' Masood Ahrned Rhans, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reasonsaretheheartbeatofeveryconclusionandanyorder aflccting civit rights without reasons is arbitrary' The State, in its counter' contends that its ac[ion is 3. striclly in compliance with the Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No.44 15 of 2016 and batch lt is stated that the Government constltuted a Six-Member Committec to rcview the panels post-2o 14, in line with the mandate o[ Nagarai and Jarnail Stngh's ccse, and on that basis' revised panels wcre drawn and notified' lt is contended that consequential seniority '(2019)\u... ,2, ' (20 to) 9 scc 496 I t-l 13 + of rePresentatlorl is reached; can be ertcndcd onlv till adequacy oncc adcquacr of general se lliorltv rs zrchtcvcd ' Promotions must revcl l tO the rule . The Statc statcs that supernull erary posts prcvent reversions' and henc( no actual wcre createcl lrr preludice has becn caused to petitioners' imPte aded ResPondents 6 and 7 4. bcnehciaries o[ thc rcviscd pancls' opposed the and sought clisn'rissal 'lher contend that Writ I\ from non-jclrldcr of necessary parties since they affccte cl, \\1]r( not initialll' implcaded They furt-t petitioncrs had becn promotcd without the requir cxercise rnart-rclatecl in Nagarai's cdse' lea c represcntzttiotr ol Schcduled Castes and Sch' therebl dcpriVing other czrtcgories of their riS Rcspcrncle rts 6 and 7 rclv on Virpal Singh Chd oJ India6, Ajit Singh Januja o' State oJ Pu Singh (II) v' Stctte of Puniabt to contend 1 promotec s c:ln not cla i m r:o nseque ntial seniorit" rcliance 'rn Suraj BncLn Nleend u' Sta:te o:J Rq rest:n,ation in promotions was struck down irr who are vVrit Petition titiot'r sulfcrs reing directll' rr assert that cd cadre-wisc ino 1o OVef du1eC. Tribes, rtful chances' l,han o. Union njabT arrd Aiit -rat accelerated TheY also Place ,dsthane, wherc the exercise rn i ) " 19()5 (6) llcc 68'1 legb {21 SC (' ; i 5 ' lgqa l7l s( a 2OL) '(2olrlt s(c 167 , l Nagraj's case (supra) had not been under[aken; U.p. pouter Corporation u. Rajesh Kumarlo, where consequential seniorit] n as invalidated for want of quantifiable data; and S. paneer Selaan u. State of Tamil Nadutt, where it was hcld that roster point promotees cannot claim seniority over general candidates unless promoted on general seniority. Fina y, they rely crn Mukesh Kum.ar a. Stl:,te o;f tlttarakhand t2, to argue that Article l6(aA) is merely enabling and does not confer a fundamental right to reservation in promoLions.

5. lleard Smt. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for petitioncrs. She draws attention of this Court to the constitutional background and case law. He contends that this Court in its order dated 11.12.2018 in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2016 upheld G.O.Ms.No. 26, daLed 2O.O2.2OO9 wirh regard ro consequential seniority to the individual who got promoted under Rule of Reservation. In the said judgment, it was advised to review the promotions which were considered earlier in the State- According to learned counsel, the intenlion of this Court is to rcview the matter where consequential seniority is not considered, but the State Government had misinterprctcd and " (2o 12) tscc r " (2o15) 1o scc 292 '' 1zozol a scc t I I ( '-\ - .- ,t (: revised thc scniority slatus that if the adequate i:. raiscd in the particular cadre, thc promotions' should be consiri ,red L'ased on the initi:il ( atcgon' senioritv rvhich is quash agi i rst thc above said order. Promotions rr'hich u,ere considered ea -lier cegrades the SC/51' c;rndidatcs against thc constitutiona amcndment and verdict ol the Supreme Collrt ol India. Lt.i rncd counsel accuses thrrt thc Lzr\| Dcpartmcnt and Finanr:r Doparlment have not follorlccl t hc s:rid proccclure and they har lollou,ed the consequerltr :ll seniori tr'.

5.1. Lr':rrncd counsel fr-rrther argued 1l irt li;<ing or revision of scnionrY up to 0 l.O6.2014 has to b:r clone by the unihed Andrra Pradesh but not by Telangana, so I te rerision of seniority do re in the vzrrious cadrcs in the Telangrl lr is rLull and void. Rcvision of senioritv bascd on the order lill OI.t)6.2O14 has to bc dont bv thc Govcrnmcnt ofAndhra Pracr sh zLs per the A.P. Reorganisation Act. Accordingly, from O2. t6.2O'.4, the senioriry shculd be done by Govcrnment of Telar.:iana, but in viola[ion of thc said Act, Tclangana has reviewed ar rl revised the seniority of thc Secrctari:rt stafl since 1988 to j ( I1 u,hich is irregular anrl not tenable in lan,. t \ I 7

6. Hcard learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of State and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for Respondents 6 and 7.

7. Upon a careful consideration, this Court finds that the constitutional framework has alrcady been delineated by the Hon'blc Suprcme Court. The elfect of judgment in Nagaraj,s ccrse (supra), as clarified in Jarnail Stngh's case (supra), is that rvhile qLrantiliable data on inadequacy is mandatory, backu'ardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes need not be rc-cstablished. In the present case, the State of Telangana hacl, by its ori,,n admission, constituted a Committee to undertake the cadre wise exercise and the Chief Secretary afhrmcd such compliance in proceedings before this Court. Once such an cxcrcise was undertaken, the principle laid down in B.K. Pavitra's ccse becomes directly applicable, namely that consequential senioriqr is a constitutional incident of promotion and cannot thereafter, be denied by reviving the catch-up rule. Para 5.2 o[ thc Memo dated 24.07.2O2 I does precisely that and is therefore ultra uires.

8. The reliance placed by the impleaded petitioners on Virpat Singh, Ajit Singh, Suraj Bhan Meena, Rajesh Kum.ar, Paneer Seluan and Mukesh Kttnto.r's cases is distinguishabte. > Those decisions applied in contexts r.r.hcrc the Sti, e harl eithcr ftriled to undertake the exercisc stipulate(l rn Iagraj's case (supra) or hacl declincd to provide reservatic-rn 11 pr(rmoti()n altogether. [n contrast, thc State of Telanganz hacl already exercised its discrction under Article 1r)( +A), issued G.O.Ms.Nos.5 and 26, and carried out the mzrnl rred cxercise through thc Sr-x Member Committee. Once thcl;r steps wcre taken, thc situation firlls squarely within t le rirtio of B.K. Pauitra's case, and not u-ithin thc linc ol :,ses cited by respondents.

9. Further, rcjection of pctitioncrs' r r jec:[i< ns by ordcrs datecl 27.O8.2021 without reasons oflcncls -he principle laid down in Kranti Associates's case. Subseqlrcr L creurtion of supernumer,lry posts nnder C).O.Ms.No.94, clerLe cr 28.08.202 I and G.O.Ms Nos.264 :ind 266, datecl 3l .O8.2O21 mar. 1;revcnt immediate tlislocation but does not cure the unclamental illegality of unsettling vestcd consequcnti:rl scniori - .

10. On an overall irnalysis, this Court tLr lds that the actir;n crl respondents in issuing Memo No.73 datei 24.Oi'.2O21, ' rejecting petitioners' objcctions bv order dated 2r. )8.20:2 I and finalising revised panels through G-O.Ms.ti.'c 247 datcd

27.O8.2O21 , is arbitrarv, violativc of Articles 14 .L Ld 16 of the 9 Constitutionandcontrarytothebindingprecedentsofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingll'', the Wril Petition is allowed Memo 1 1. No.73 dated 24.07 .2021 , rcjection orders dated 27 'O8'2O21 and G.O.Ms.No.247 datccl 27 -O8'2O21 are quashed to the extent they disturb or seek to disturb promotions and consequential seniority of petitioners Petitioners' promotions shall stand restored with all conscquential bcnefits including consequential seniority. It is ctarified, howevcr, that this judgment sha11 not preclude the State from initiating specific proceedings against any individual promotion, if v"'arranted by cogent material' provided such procecdings are undertaken strictly in accordancewithlawandafteralfordingdueopportunity.No costs. l2 Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications' if any shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// D/ K.BHAVANI SWAMY TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ 1i l,l To,

1. The Chief Secietary to Government' Department of General Administration at strati o n ( S e rvi c e s Bhavan' Hyderabad 2 r h e S p e ci a I cI i e f qejrr\afl 3"3;#l:[ EH^?"J f; :x,1: fr x] 3. r h e s p e-c i a I c h i e f s-e c ret a y"l:,:,?J-:'Jfi',:$ r?: i3 f 1r1I ;|.t ; :: "o'' "o Secretariat, State ot '"''igl"l and Cabinet) DePartmen 'B-ilkR Castes DeveloPment' aI (Services and cabinet) Department " 4 The Principal Secretary to Government 9-"lg*lldtinistration 5;;i;;;;i BHKHan'u'n' Hvderabad 5 The Principal Secretary to Government' Scheduled'Castes Development ' #;;'t'#Ii'ut 6"i''ti'iJtIeRkR ehavan' Hvderabad 6 7 8 I One CC to I\,4.VIDYAVATHI, Advocate. IOPUC] Two CCs tc, GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for th<: ltate of Telangana louTl One CC to SRI P.V.RA[\,4ANA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies. BSK GJP ry/ l: &!t:, ./.> 'OR Ti+i s itt t ( i i tjii ?!;5 1). .i ,(,, () t) 1'),ii \t\ ,. t\,\ HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 ORDER WP.No.21711 of 2021 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ rr{ \+ 1) {0