Learned counsel placed strong emphasis on B.K. Pauitra v. Union of Ind.iaa, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that consequential scniori

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order issued by first respondent in lL4emo No. 'l 356/SU.l/ 4112021, General Administration (SU.l) Department dated 271812021 and the consequential notification vide G O [\,4 s No- 246, General Administration (Cabinet) Department daled 271812021 of the approved revised panel to the extent of the petitioners, pending disposal of Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI JOGRAM TEJAVAT Counsel for the Respondents No.1to5: ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents No.6&7 : SRI P.V.RAMANA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 2 t624 0F 2021 ORDER: Petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by thc actionoftheState(iovernmentinissuingMemoNo.T3dated 24.O7 .2021and Memo No- 1356 d'aLed 24 07 2O2 f in particular Para 5 thereof, by u'hich the Government conte mplated a review of promoticrns granted afler 02 06'2014 Under Memo No 73 datecl 24.07 .2021 , revicu' was directed in respect of the categories of Aclditional Secretary to Government' Joint Secretary to Goi'ernmcr]t, Deputy Secretary to Government and Assistant Secretary to Government, while under Memo No 1356 d,ated. 24.07.2021, review pertained to promotions to the czrtegory of Sectlon Ofhcers effectecl after 02'06'20 14 The purportecl basis for this exercise was the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 1 l'12''2O18 in Writ Petition No' 4415 of 2O 16; however, petitioners contend that the impugned action, instead of being a faithful implementation of that judgment, is in clear violation of the constitutional provisions' mandate of Articles L4 and 16 of the Constitution of India' and thc settled principles laid down by the Hon'blc Supreme Court in alcatena of cases as well as by this Court' ,./ ',.,- I

2. It is tl're casc of petitioners thal theil promotions \\rere effecte,l uncler G.O.Ms.No 5 datecl 14.O2.2OO3 and G.O. Ms. No. 2(r cl artt:cl 20.O2.2009, rvhich provided lcr reservation in promction r.,,iLh consequential scnioritv to r.r-rembers of Scheduled Cirstes and Scheduted Tribes. They asserl that after the judgmen of this Court rn Writ Petition No. 4'115 ol 2016, thr: State constitltte.l a Commiltec, collectcd caclrc n'ise dala and afhrmcd beforc this Court in conlempt procecclings that the exercise prers:ribed tn M. Nagaraj u. tlnion of Indial had been duly unclertaken.

2.1. lrccording to petiLionersr once this excrcisc was comple ted atLcl promolions were granlcd on that btrsis, thc right to consequelrtial scniority became a constilutional incident of promotion ancl could not be unseLtled by an execulive fiat. Thel' urge thirt P.rrer 5.2 o[ Memo No 1356 dated 24 07 -2027 , by provicling thrrt afLer adequacy ts achieved senioritv shal1 revert to the fe etle:- ca<lrc, effectivcl5r revives the ' catch 'up" principle which had been legislativcly abrogated by the 85tl' Constitutional Amendment. They also conLen'l that their objections to the provisional list rvere rejccted bY order dated

27.O8.2021 \tlthout reasons, which vitiates the decision making proce6.s:- ' {2006) 8 scc 2 12 € i I l i I i i I J

3. Learned counsel for petitioners Sri Jogram Tejavath draws attention of this Court to the constitutional background and case law. He dra$'s attention of this Court to the constitutional background and case law. It is contended that this Court in its order dated I l.l2.2Ol8 in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2O16 upheld G.O.Ms.No. 26, dated 2O.O2.2OO9 with rcgard to conscquential seniority to the individual who got promoted under Rule of Reservation. tn the said judgment, it was advised to revie"l' the promotions which were considered earlicr in Lhc St.Lte. According to learned counsel, the intenlion of this Court is to revicw the matter where consequential seniority is not considered, but [he State Government had misinterpreted and revised the seniority status that if the adequatc is raiscd 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 verdicL 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 followed the consequential seniority.

3.1. Learned counscl lurther argued that fixing or I revi$on of seniorlty up to 01-06.2O14 has to be done by the ,. .t' -t 4 unified Anclhra Pradesh but not by Telangana, so t:-rc revision of senioritv donr ir-r the various cadres in the Telangana is null and void. Revision o[ scnioritl- l>ased on the order till 01.06.20 14 has to bc dorLc b1, the Government of Andhra Pradesh as pcr the A.P. Reorgarrisation Act. Accordinglv, from 02.06.2014, the se niorily should be donc b1' Governmcnt of Telan gana, but in violation of ltre said Act, Te langana has revier'i'cd and revised the seniority of [hc Sccretariat slaff since 1988 to'2o21 rvhich is irrcgular and not tenablc in larv.

3.2. Reliance was placed on the ninc-.lr-rdge Bench decision in Indra Sauhneg u. Union of India2, uherein it rvas held that re servation under Articlc 16(4) could not cxlend to promotions but was confined to initial appoinlmenLs. This prompted f]arliameut to enact the 77tr\ Oonstitu[ional Amendment introducing Article 16(4A), thereby conslitutionallv cnabling reservation in promotions for Schedule<] Castes and Scheduled Tlrbes. Reference rvas also madc to Lhe Constitution Bench judgrnent in M. Nagaraj's ccse, r,r'hich upheld the validity of the 77h and the 85u' Amendments bu1 required the State to collect quantihable data showing ir adequacy of representation, establish backwardness and ensure efficiency ' i!+2, s.,pp (3) scc 217 ?* .t :i ) under Article 335 before granting rcservation in promotions with consequential seniority.

3.3. Further reliance was placed ot Jarnail Singh u. Lachhmi Narain Gupta3, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarilred that the requirement in Nagaraj's case of proving backwardness afrcsh was erroncous, as backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Schcduled Tribes is prcsumed; what the State obliged to establish is only inadequacy of representation coupled with consideration of efficicncy.

3.4. Learned counsel placed strong emphasis on B.K. Pauitra v. Union of Ind.iaa, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that consequential scniority is not a mere statutory benefit but a constitutional incident flowing from Article 16(4,4.). It was categorically obseruerl that once thc cxercise stipulated in M. Nagraj's case (supra) is undertaken and promotions are granted under the roster, the conscquential seniority attaches by operation of law and cannot be withdrarvn by administrative instructions, for that would amount to a reintroduction of the "catch-up" principle which had been expressly nullified by the 85th Amendment- Finally, reliance was placed on Kranti Associates o. Masood Ahmed Khans, which held that reasons ' 1zo rs; 1P eCc aoo o (2079) 16 scc 129 ' 1zo to1 o scc 496 l 6 are the hear,beat of cvery conclusion and any ordcr that affects civil rights trut is unaccompanied by reasons is arbitrary and unsustarnable.

4. In response, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri P V. Ramana, learned counsel fcrr imple adcd respondcnts argued that reservation policy u':rs appliecl iu such a manner thal in certain cadres, Scheduled Castcs and Scheduled rribes candidates came to occuplr far rnorc tha.r their constitutionirlh.-permissible representation, thercL't' resulting in reverse discrimination against other categorics. It u'as urgccl lhat Articlc 16(4A) is merely an enabling provision and does not confer a fundamental right to claim reservation il promoLions. Rcliance rvirs placed on Srzraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan6, u,here the Hon'ble Supre me Court quashed a notihcation grunting consequential seniority because the Statc had not carriecl out the Nagaraj exercise.

4.1. Reliance was also placed on U.P. Pouer Corporation Ltd. rt. Rajesh KumarT, where al amendment granting conscquential senioriQr was struck don'n as it rT'as unsupported by quantifiable data regarding in:rdequacy and efficiency. Attention was invited Lo S. Paneer Seluo,n u. St@te \ \ ' (201 t) 1 scc ,167 ' (20 i2) 7 SCC I \,r l' t : 7 of Tamil Nadug, in u,hich it was held that wherc promotions 'are not based on gencral seniority but on roster points, consequential seniori[y cannot be claimed as of right Finally, the judgment in Mukesh Kumar u. Stdte oJ tlttarakhande was cited, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that Article 16(4A) is only enabling, that ncr mandarnus can be issued to compel the Statc to grant rescrvation in promolion, and that it is for the State to decide q,hether such reservation is necessary on the basis of quantihablc data.

5. Having considcred the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that the controversy turns on Lhe question whether, after the State has undertaken the cadre wise exercise mandated in Nagaraj's c(rse (supra) and affirmed its compliance beforc this Court, can thc5, still issue executive instructions to deprive employees of conse quential seniority? On this issue, the decision in B.K. Pdvitrd's casc (supra) is binding authority. The Supreme Courl therein, after considering Nagaraj's cq.se and Jdrnail Singh's cclse, held that consequential seniority is a conslituLional incidcnt of promotron under Article 16(4A). It categorically observed that once the State has carried out the mandated exercise and promotions are granted, consequential seniority cannot thereafter, be ' 1zo rs1 to scc 292 n 1zozo1 3 scc 1 .ti.:;:_. ''., \ 8 u'ithdrawn bv administrative instructions, fcrr such withdraural rvould amount 1o rcintroducing the catch up prtnci;le abrogated by the 85ttl Amendmerrt.

6. Ihe reliance placed by rcspondenrs on Suraj Bhdn Meena's case and. Rajesh Kumar's case is distingr.rishable- In both those cascs, reservation in promotion u'ith c:onsequcntial seniority lr,as sl ruck down because thc State had r:ntirely failed lo undcrtakr: rhe exercise in Nagraj's case (supra) or had attemptcd to clo so without supporting data. Similarly, in Pd.neer Seluan's case (supra), the infirmity u'as that the State had sought t,) grant seniority on the basis of a gent:ral rulc cvcn though promotions were granted out of turn bl,r'irtue of rosler points. 1'hc juclement in Mukesh Kumar's case itlso does not assist resporLdents, as that decision arose in the conlexL of a Statc th.rl had consciously chosen not to prorrrde rcservatron in promotion ar-rd the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 16(4A) does rroL compel the State to make such provision_

7. 'Ihe prescnt case stands on a diffr:rent footing because the State of Telangana has alreadv r:xercised its discretion tl provide reservation in promotion lhrough G.O.Ms.Nos.i) and 26, has carried out the cadre-,^'ise excrcisc mandated by Nagaraj's case, and has even alfirmed '-cgmpliance before this Courti in con[empt proceedings. I-laving 9 done so, it cannot now turn around and unsettle the prornotions : 1 already effected.

8. This Court also linds considerable merit in thc submission that rejection of petitioners' objections by orders dated 27.08.2021 without reasons vitiatcs the decision. As heid rn l{ranti Associortes's ccse, reasons are indispensable to sustain the validity of any decision affecting rights. A c[.ptic order merely recording that objections were considcred and rejected does not satisly this requircment and renders lhc action arbitrary. 9 . The attempt ol respondents to justify thc impugned action by referring to creation of supernumerary posts through G.O.Ms.No.94 and allied ordcrs is equally misconceived. Supernumerary posts may prcvcnt immediate reversion or dislocation, but they cannot cure the undcrlying illegality of depriving promotees of their constitutional entitlement to consequential seniority. This Court is therefore, of the \ considered view that lhe impugned Memo No. 1356 dated

24.07.2021, rejection orders dated 27.O8.2O21, and G.O.Ms.No.246 dated 27.Oa.2O21, to the extent thcy disturb promotions and consequential seniority of petitioners, are unsustainable in law. They offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are contrary to the consLitutional mandate under ,/ I 10 Article 16(44), and run contrary to the 1a'*' lard don'n by the llon'ble Suprcrne Court in B.K- Pauitra's cdse and allicd juclgmen ts. 1O. Accordingly, rhe Writ Petition is allorved Memo No.1356 dat:d 24.O7.2021, rejection orders dated 27.Oa-2O21, and G.O.Ms.No.246 dated 27.O8.2021 are quashed to thc extent t hcr. dist,-rrb or seek to disturb the prornotions and consecluentr:rl seniority of petitioners. Promotions of petitioners shall sl:rncl resLored rvith all consequential bcnetlts including conseclue n t,iai scniority. It is, however, clarified that this order shall nor prt clude Lhc State from initiating spccifir: proceedings against anl r'rdividual promotion, if justified by col3ent material, provided s,.r.ch proceedings are undertakcn strictly in accordirnce rvir-h law and after aflbrding due o pportunity ol hearing. No ,:osts. I 1. Sonscquen[ly, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand t:losed SD/. A. S ASS ,tiiNYEt,EFRRX ,/TRUE COPY// sEcrrJfloFFlcER i To, Ad m i n i st rati o n at ' ::: 3g:f B?:?:'# +""ff J:UTE ["kR"d#U : :Li: 3':[:'f ':XESBEffi iiJ:"J,'-"f :'i,'XS"*"':W:f aUkR'J':K:i:ilt:[*T(services :lj"R"*fff $jil}."'schedured 'U:,:03:i1,.:H:i'',+5""'3g-lt':""ilR'il8f; ( s e rvice s and 4 rhe p ri n ci p" . :",:y l, iJ.:UUl AH^fi"Sf; :X,1: fl J] :|..S'JJ Cabinet) DePartment ar l'

5. The principal Secretar oepartmenllts;"iEil'la, j"e&"il", jnT,"#:r.r"J:?:H:TCastesDeveropment

6. One CC to SRI JOGRAM TEJAVAT, Advocate. [OPUC] ' IH:"39'r.ti.0?it ADVOCATE GENERAL, Hish court ror the State or B. TworCCs to Gp FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of Tetangana. 9. One CC ro SRI p.V.RA|VANA, 10. Two CD Copies. Advocate. tOpUCl BSK PVL \q1 t ::, 1E [[T ?pt ,..-)_ \. :7,, ;.---' HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 ORDER WP.No.21624 of 2021 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t*-* 1rl 9,,^c 4eY