Secretariat Building, Hyderabad' V.Naveen Kumar Naik, S/o late v. Bhanu, age-d about

Petition Under Section 15'1 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 Proceedings Rc.No.2196/GAD-l\42-llt2O24, dated 24.06.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent herein, pending disposal of the writ petition. |.A.NO:2 OF 2025 Between: 1- The Director of Public Health and Family welfare, state of relangana, sultan Bazar Koti, Hyderabad. AndFami|yWelfareDepartmeniSecretariatBuilding,Hyderabad.

2. The State of Te1_angana, Rep. by its Secretary to Government Health, Medical , - . ;- ..r. ..'ii Gandhi Medical c"li;U"5;;;nJerauio' Hvderabad' TG' Superintendent, cl;r";;.ili rvrl"diiuiCbir.g", Sangireddv District, TG

1. P. Suresh Babu, Sio Prabhaker' 4gt. tP years' office Superintendent' Aoe 59 vears' Office 2. M. Venkateswarlu, i/o U' Venkat ^Ramaiah' , Br;*;1;#ft ,,;JB,"y1 "Yf;';3i*.09i".1r', 4. K. Yadilal, S/o Late K Nagojl {q9 i]-f:"t Office Superintendent' Government Maternity Hospital' Sultan Bazar' Koii' Hyderabad' TG' suoerrntel;n u B*Lil*,S;, Bl?"Si #lJ,?jl .lfl 8,.31./B?,ti;*,"S* 6. G. Gnanendra Babu, S/o Late G'.fo1fal Rao' Aqe 50 years' office suoerintendent, riii&J' "r;uitii HeattrcnJ Familv Welfare' Zone-Vl J3?LI, ?3"" S upe ri ntend ent' Rd, Hyderabad, TG' .....RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 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 vacate the interim order dated 30 06 2025 in WP'No 1833412025' l.A.NO :4 oF 2025 Between

2. P.Eshwar, S/o Jagannadh"' "SJ a. sri. x.'rtrrtiiula, W/o D'Venkateshwarlu' aged about 52 vears' office

1. V.Naveen Kumar Naik, S/o late V' Bhanu' aged about 39 yeas' Office Suoerintendent,olo rvr"oic"'iSuperintendentl.covernment General Hospital #fi\HH;;rr"i" rta'r''o'oiagar (seriat-No' 58 in senioritv list) about 60 years' Ofiice Superintendent' o/oDistrict Medical u"o H""rin 6'm""i' n""g' ileddy district' (serial No' 14 in senioritY list) Suoerintendent,olo p'inii"p"i6t""r."rn"itt ilIedical College' Suryapet (Serial No. 1'1 in senioritY list) o/oDistrict Medical ,"d H;;i'h &;JiVituo[''a' Vikarabad district (Serial No '16 in senioritY list) MuniPrasad,S/olate.ChandhraNarayana,aged..about50years,office suoerintendent o/oDistrict #;i;;i;;; H";tthbfficer' Jogulamba' Gadwal diiirict, (Seriat No.46 in seniority list)

4. M. Narsimulu' S/o Buchaiah, aged about 60 years,.-office Superintendent 5 .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND l.P,SureshBabu,S/oPrabhaker,Age48years,officeSuperintendent, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad' Hyderabad' TG' 2. M. Venkateswarlu, s/""il'"'v";[;i namaian' Aoe 59 vears' office Superintendent, cou"rn'"ni rt/"-Ji"ut' Cott"gu' Sangireddv District' TG' "years' Office Superintendent' 3. M. Srinivas, S/o M. V""t'i'n'" nS" S2 Government Medical c"["g"' S;"S'reody oistrict' tG' -nge Si V""-p,. bii"" Superintendent' a Government Maternitv u"'il:il!'i'iX" ri"'"' x"ii' Eii;#5' iG: 4. K. yadilal, S/o Late f.-fi"'goii, ";W'64

5. R. Lalitha, Dio R. Mohan, 6. G. Gnanendra Babu, S/o 39 years, Office Superintendent, Government General Hospital, SangaredOy Oistrict, TG. -Late C. t<ondat Rao,'Age 50 years, Offlce Superintendent, Director of public Health and iamity Wefare, Zone_Vf RD, Hyderabad, TG. -Age .....PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

7.The Director of public Health and Family Welfare, State of Tetangana, Sultan Bazar Koti, Hyderabad. B.The State of Telangana, Re_;r by its Secretary to Government Health, Medicat And Famity Wetfare d"pirtr""i"s"c?eiariai eridi;g, Hyi;,iiiilo. ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim order dated 30-06-2025 passed in w.p.No. 18334 of 2o2s in l.A.No.1 of 2025 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI p.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.I & 2 : Gp FOR SERVICES _l Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 7 : SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN The Court made the following ORDER ':.. r THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITIO N No.1833 4 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constilution of India, is hled seeking the following relief "...to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly' one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the Proceedings Rc.No.2196/GAD IMZ-II|2O24, dated.24.062025 issued bv the 1"t Respondent hereir-r as highly arbitrary, - illegal,- -violating Article 14, 16 & ,21- of the -discriminatory' -"fka., unconsLitutional, corr"tit iio., of India, apart from contrary to Rules 13 & 15 of AP (TS) fti"i"t".i"f Serrice Rui"s, 1998, apart from violation principles of natural justice and set-aside the satne and consequently' issue directions directing the 1"t Respondent to issue revised provisional list in teims of Rule 13 & 15 of the AP (TS) Ministerial "enio.ity Scrvice Rulcs, 1998 after reviewing the promotions to the. post of Oin.e Srrpe.ir-,te.dents in terms of Rule 13 of the Ministerial Service fl"i"", fdSa and tlten only, affect the promotions to the post of Adrninistrative Ofhcers in Multi Zone-ll and pass"'"

2. Heard Sri P.V. Iirishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Govcrnment Pleader for Serviccs-I, on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2, ancl Sri V. Ravichaldran, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners

3. were initially appointed as Junior Assistants, which rvas a District Cadre Post under the ea.rlier Presidential Order, 1975, in their respective districts in erstwhile ilorre -YI, and \'/ere subsequently 2 PK, J W.P.No.18334 of 2025 promoted as Senior Assistants in the erslwhile Zone_yl, which was a Zonal Cadre Post. It is furthcr submittcd that pursuant to the ncw Presidenlial Order, 2018, the erstwhile Zones-V and VI were divided into (7) Zones, and the petitioners, working as Senior Assistants in erstwhile Zone-Yl, were allotted to present Zonc_VI, i.e., Charminar Zone, based on their seniority and options exercised by them. Further, although many juniors to the petitioners opted for Zone_VI, they were allotted to different Zones such as Zone-IV and Zone-V. Thereafter, in vicw of the availability of vacancies in the cadre of ofrrce Superintendent, which is also a Zonal Cadre post, the juniors of the petitioners allotted to Zone-IV and Zone-V were promoted as Ofhce Superintendents in their respective posts. However, despite being seniors to them, the petitioners, who were ailotted to Zonc_VI, had to wait for promotions, until the vacancies arose in Zone-yl, and they had only secured promotion as Ofhce Superintendents belatedly. As such, the juniors of the petitioners in erstwhile Zone_VI were promoted earlier to the petitioners and have become seniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Office Superintendent. It is further submitted that had the respondents treated the post of Office Superintendent as a Multi-Zonal Post, instead of Zonal Cadre post, the senior Assistants would have been promoted as per their senioritv 3 PK, J W.P.No.18334 of 2O25 in erstwhile Zone-Vl and then, the petitioners wouid not have been subjected to aly injustice. However, clue to the treatment of post of Ofhce Superintendent as a Zonal Cadre Post, the juniors of the petitioner secured a promotion prior to them, whereby, affecting the scope of the petitio[ers being promoted to the next post, i.e., Administrative Office, which is a Multi-Zonal Post.

4. It is further submitted that respondent No. t has taken a decision to effect promotions to the post of Administrative Ofhcers in Multi Zone-II, based on an integrated seniority list of Ofltce Superintendents in Multi Zone-Il, which consists of three Zones. It is further submitted that due to thc prolnotions to the post of Office Snperintendent in Zone-lV and Zone-Y, the juniors of the petitioners in erstwhile Zor,e-Yl, have now become seniors to the petitioners, and they are now likely to be promoted as Adrninistrative OfIicers, and the petitioners, u,ho are thcir seniors, '"\rould ha'/e to work under their juniors, rvhich is wholly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitution:,i, mala fide, arrcl in total violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the authorities may have affected

5. promotions to the post of Office Supe rintendents in Zone-IV and 4 PK, J \7.P.No.18334 of 2025 Zone-Y, o-,.ving to thc adrninistrative cxigencies, but thc said plomotions are not in accorCance with law, inasmucl-r as, Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradcsh Ministei-ial Scrviccs Rules, 199g, clearly postulates the unit of appointrnent for. the purpose of promotions, direct rec:-uitment and seniorlty in rcspective zones unricr the earicr Prcsidential Order, 1975. Flowcver., unless and until responclent No.2, who is the competent authority, amends the Andra pradcsh Ministerial Services Rules, 1998, (adopted by Telangana State), the authorities could not have treated the post of ofhce Superintendent as a Zonal Caclre Post under t-he new presidential Ordcr., 201g, and they ought to have affected promotions based on the seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistalts irr thc crstwhile Zone_VI only. As such, preparation of the present provisional integratcd scniority list of Olhcc Superintendents for Multi Zone-II, instead of preparing a seniority list of Office Superintendents based on the seniority in the erstwhile Zone-Vl, is wholiy arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, mala fide, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 a,d 21 of the Constitution of India, and also contrar5z to Rule 13 of the Andhra pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1998.

6. It is further submitted that rcspondent No. 1 issued the present impugned provisiona_l seniority list dated 24.06.2025, and usually, 5 PK, J W.P.No.18334 of 2025 the affected parties must be given at least four weeks of time to submit their objections to the provisional seniority list However, without affording any such reasonable period of time to submit objections, respondent No.1 has instructed the individuals to submit their objections within two days only, i.e., by 05:OO PM on

26.06.2025, which is not only strange and unusual, but also contrary to the Rules and the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions. As such, the present impugned seniority list dated 24.06.2025 is highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 2l of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to Rules 13 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules,

1998. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court'

7. Per contra, learncd Government Pleader for Services-I, on ltling of counter alfidavit, su bmits that after the formation of Teialgana State, the President has issued orders in G.S.R.320 (E) in the year 2018, ofhcially being titled as 'the Telalgana Pr-rblic Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018. Since then, the Presidential Order, 2O18, has been in operation, in suppression of the earlier Presidential. Order iu G.S.R.524(E) dated 18.10.1975. As such, the petitioners do not fall : .:' 6 . PK, J W.P.No.18334 of 2025 undcr the old Presidential Order, 1975. It is furthcr submitted that as pe. Part-vIII, secrion 77 (21 of the Andhra pradesh Re-orga,ization lrct, 2Ol4, emplo5,qss cf local, district, zonal and.. multi_zor-ral caclrcs that fall en[irely in one of the successor states, shall be deemed to be allotted to that successor state. It is submitted that as on thc date of bifurcation of the State, two zones were in existence in the present State of Telangana, i.e., Warangal Zone (Zone-yl ald Flyderabad Zonc (Zone-VI). Ho\\,ever, the Government issucd G.O.Ms.No. 124 dated 30.08.2018, dividing the erstwhile two zones into Multi Zone_I and Mnlti Zone-II, consisting of seven new zones. Thcreafter, as a part of the Presidential Order, 2018, the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.3l7 dated 06.12.2021, issued guidelines for re-allotment of employees to thc newly created zoncs. pursuant to the same, as per the options exercised by the petitioners, they were allotted to said Zone_yl (Charminar Zone), based on their seniority ald preferences, vide proceedings datcd 3O.12.2021 and O9.O1.2022. However, the petitioners never submitted any representations nor raised any objections against their allocation orders.

8. It is furthcr submitted that once the employees were allocated to the newly formed zones, separate cadre strength and separate seniorities, in respect of aJ.l, zonalcadre posts, has been prepared arld 7 PK, J w.P.No.18334 of 2025 maintainedintermsofRule13oftheMinisterialserviceRules,l99S. Further, in accord'ance with the provisions under Pafagraph 3 of the Presidential Or<ter, 2O 18, the Government has considered and approved the scheme for otganizatton of local cadres in the Department of Public Health arrd Family Welfare, and necessa4r orders were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.176 dated 04 'OA'2O21' whereby' the posts of Senior Assistant and Office Superintendent q'ere organized into zonal cadre posts and thc post of Administrative Ofhcer was organized into multi-zonal cadre post' Therefore' promotions to the posts of Senior Assistant art'J Offrce Superir-rtendent were supposed strictly made within the rcspective zones based on the availability of vacartcies and seniority' As snch, after hnalization of the zonal seriority list of Senior AssisLant in a-11 the newly cleated seven zones, promotions were a.ffcclecl, rvherein, the petitioners were also duly pr-olnote<l as Offrce Supelintendents in Zone-VI in the year 2023. However, even at that point of time, the petitioners have never submitted anJ' representations/objections' It is furttrer submitted that the Government adopted t'he g. Andl'rra Pradesh Ministeria-i Service P-ule:;, 1998, \rith certain modihcations, vicle G.()'Ails.No' 195 datcd 28'05 20 16 As sttch' Lhe contcntion of the petitioners that the said Rulcs'r'rere not amended is 8 PK, J \V.P.No.18334 cf 2025 false and baselcss. Further, the petitioners were awarded prolnotio:ts to the post of Ofhcc Superintendent in accordance ,,i,ith these Ruics only in 2023, e,nd now, they are questioning the validity of these Rules, which is against the principles of natural justicc. It is furthcr submitted that thc post of Admi;ristreitivc Officer is a mtilti_zoaal post, under the ncrv Prcsidential Order, 2O1g, and thcrefore, to affect promotions to the said post, the seniority list of Oflice Supe.intendents in Zones-lV, V and VI have been hna_lized, and a provisional integrated selicriLy list of Ofhce Superintendents pertaining to Multi Zonc-Il has bcen prepared and published vidc Rc. No. 2 1 96 / G AD -MZ-II / 2024 datc<l 24.06.2025, calling for obj ections from the individuals, by giving two-days, time. It is submittecl that the employces at Sl.Nos.1 to .15 in the provisional integrated scniority list were due to retire from service on 30.06.2025. As such, considering these facts and a means of accelerated communication, two-days' time has been prescribed for submission of objections. Further, therc is no specific provision in the Rules for prescribing a time limit for submission of objections on the seniority list. However, the petitionels submitted thcir objections and without waiting for a reply, have hastily approached this court and filed the present writ petition. 9 PK' J W.P.No.18334 of 2025

10. It is further submitted that in the event of a revision of the said list, vitalty all the affected parties must necessarily be impleaded in the writ petition. However, in the present case' the petitioners have not specified the details of the employees who were shown as seniors to them in the provisional integrated seniority list' nor arrayed any individuals against whom seniority is sought' rvhich is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabodh Verma & Others u' State oI uttar Prodesh 8t Othersl ' It is further submitted that the post of Administrative Ofhcer has been organized into multi-zonal post as per the orders issued in G O'Ms'No '124 dated 30'08'2018 under paragraph 3 of the Presidential Order' However' the petitioners did not choose to challenge the same' It is further submitted that as paragraph 1 1 of the new Presidential Orcler' 201ti' makes it ciear that it has an overriding effect/primacy over any statute As such' the previous Presidential Order, 19-l5, has pales to insignifrcance' Therefore, the new Presidential Order, 2O 18' being issued Article 371- D of the Constitution of India, has primacy in larv and overrides any statutory provisions. Thus, any provision macle contrary to the Prcsidential orcler is nugatoly alld otiose. Hence, the relialce placed upon by the petitioners on Rule 13(d)(i) & (ii) of the Ministerial Senzice r AIR 1985 SC 167 i 10 PK, J W.P.No.18334 of 2025 Rules cannot be accepted. has issued G.O,Ms.No.43 It is further submitted the Government dated 19.O3.2O22, duly making arl amendment to the l.elalgana State ald Subordinate Service Ruies, 1996, so as to align the unit of appointment with the presidential Order, 2018. Thcrefore, the contention of the petitioners that the service Rulcs arc not amended is baseless. 11- It is further submitted that Rule 34 of the Telangana State ancl Subordinate Servicc Rules, 1996, states that when an integrated or comrnon seniority list of a particular class or category or grade in arry service belonging to different units of appointment has to be prepared for the purpose of promotion or appointment by transfer, such al integrated or common seniority list shall be prcpared with reference to the provision of Rure 33(a) of the State and Subordinatc Service Ru1es, provided that the said seniority list of the persons inter_se belonging to thc same units shall not be disturbed. As such, in accordalce with the said Rule 34 and the new presidential Order, 2018, the present integrated provisional seniority list of Offrce different zones in Multi Zone_II has been prepared, duly taking into consideration the date of promotion and without disturbing the unit seniority. As such, there is no illegality or violation of any Rules in preparing the present integrated Superintendents beionging to l)

1.1 PK, J W.P.No.18334 oJ 2025 provisional seniority list. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

12. Reliance has becn placed on a the decisions of the Hon'b1e Apex Court in Stcrte of Ro,jastho;n u. Ilcchah Lal Chhanutal2, ard a decision of the Division Bench of this Court it B' Nagesudrd' Rd'o and Others u. Goaertment oJ Andhta Pradesh dnd othcr€ '

13. On the other hald, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7, while drawing the attention of this Court to Lhe dates of appointment and promotion as Senior Assisl ants and Ofhce Superintendents of the unofficial respondents as well as of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are themseh'es juniors to respondentNos.4to6inthecadreofSeniorAssjstantandthatallthe petitioners are juniot.s to all the unofficial respondents in th.e cadre of Ofhce Superintendent' As such, the petitioners cannot clairr seniority or promotion over and above the unofhcial respondents' It is further submitted tllat the present writ petition has been hled against a provisional integrated seniority list, calling for objectiorls regarding the placement of the individueils in the seniority list arrd the petitioners have submitted their objections. Thus, a provisional 2 (20141 | SCC 1.+4 3 2006 (4) ALD 649 12 PK, J lY.P.No.1833,+ of 2025 seniority list would not give rise to any cause of action, the writ petition is not maintainable. Further, since nonc of thc aftected parties, u'hosc seniority is likely to be affccted/ altered, have not been arrayed as respondents, the present ',vrit pctition is also liable to be dismissecl in limine due to non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further sublnitted that the unofficial respondcnts ate prcscntly working as Ofhce Superintendents in Multi Zone-Il and are fully qualified arrd cligiblc for p'omotion as Administrative officers, being scniors to the petitioner.s in the fceder catcgory. As such, the balance of convenience also would lie in thcir favour.

14. It is furthcr submitted that the contentions of the petitioners that tl-re respondcnts ought to have treated the post of Ofhcer Superintendent as a Multi Zonal post. ilstead of a Zonal post; that only due to non-availab ity of vacancies in their unit of appointment, i.e ., Zonc-Vl, they could secure a promotion belatedly; and that the respondents cannot affect promotions without amending thc provisions of Rule 13 of the Ministerial Service Rules, are unsustainable. It is submitted that averment of the petitioners that they are not aware whether the earlier presidential Orcier, 1975, has been repealed or not, is also untenable, as the new presidential Order, 2018, came into operation, w.e.f., 30.O9.2O1g, only in supersession of 1 13 PK, J W.P.No.18334 of 2025 the earlier Presidential order, 1975, and the organization of cadres have been affected in accordance with the new Presidential Order'

2018.Itisfurthersubmittedthatconsequentuponthecreationof new units, the petitioners themselves have opted fot Zorle-Yl with an intention to stay within Hyderabad and nearby places' secured promotion as Office Superintendents and are working as such As such,itw'ouldnotbeopenforthemtoapprobateandreprobate'

15. It is further submitted that all the allotments have been made strictly in tune with the provisions contained in Paragraph 4 of the Presidential Order, 2018, and the petitioners never challenged their allotment. Further, as per Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order' 2O18, each unit of appointment is distinct and different' as it stipulates that eactr part of the Statc' for rvhich a local cadre has been organized in respect of any category of posts' shall be a separate unit for lhe purpose of recruitment, appointment' discharge' etc' As such' once the petitioners have opted for and accepted their allotment to Zone-Yl, they cannot have any grievancc against other individuals working in different units of appointment' It is submitted that the present provisional integrated seniority list has been prepared in accordance rvith Rule 34 of the Telanana State and Subordiuate I I I 74 PK, J W.P.No.18334 of 2O2S Service Rules, 1996, without disturbing the inter_se seniority within zones. As sr-lch, thc impugned seniority list is lcgally justifiable.

16. It is further submitted that in view of amendment to Rule 7 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the unit of appointment for posts organized as district, zonal ald multi-zonal cadres under the provisions of thc pr.esidential Order, 2O 1g, sha_I be the district, zone and multi-zonc respectively. As such, in vicw of the non-obstantc contained in Rule 7, the provisions of the said RuIe would prevail over the provisions of Rule l3 of the Ministerial Servicc Rules. As such, the heavy reliancc placed upon by the petitioners on Rule 13 of the Ministerial Service Rules, is misplaced. Even if the plea of the petitioners would have to be accepted, then their very promotions as Ofhce Superintendents, effected under the new Presidential Order, 2O 1g, framework, would bc rendered illegal. It is submitted that thc prea of the petitioners to follow the crstwhile Zone_ Vi seniority for the purpose of affecting promotions to the posts of Ofhce Superintendents and Administrative Ofhcers is also irrational, inasmuch as, the local cadres have already been organized and the allotments and promotions rvere also given elfect to. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present r.vrit petition. a\ 15 PK, J W.P.No.18334 of 2025

17. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in T. Ganaganna u. GooernfiBnt of Andhra Pradesha

18. This Court has taken note of the rival subr4issions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties'

19. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioners have approached this Court, assailing the provisional integrated seniority list of Ofhce Superintendents in Multi Zooe-ll (Zones-IV, V and VI) issued in proceedings Rc.No.2196/G AD-MZ-II/2024 dated

24.06.2025, whereby, objections were called for from the individuals' As can be seen from the record, petitioner Nos'2,3,5 ald 6 submitted their objections to the said list on 25'06'2025 and 26.06.2025. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they were placed belorv their juniors in the said list, owing to their clelayed promotions in Zoo.e-Yl due to non-availability of rracancies in the caclre of Ofhce Superintendents in their Zone.

20. Aclmittedly, whiie the petitioners and unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 were working as Senior Assistants, a'fter the formation of thestateofTelangana,insupersessionoftheearlierPresidential order, 1975, the new Telarrgana Public EmploSzment (orgalization of 4 2Or1 (21 ALD 502 (DB) :.: ,. 16 PK, J W.P.No.18J34 of 2O2S Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 201g, Local Cadres and (Presidential Order, 2018) came into operation w_e.f. ,30.08.20i3. Government had . issucd Pursuant thercto, orders in C.O.Ms.No.317, General Administration (SpF_I) Department, dated 0'o.72.2021, re-organizing the local cadres into Multi Zone_I and Multi Zone-II, ivhich consists of seven Zones. Accordingly, thc petitioners were allottcd to Zooe_VI (Charminar Zonel, as per their seniority and the options exercised, while the unofhcial respondents were allotted to other zones, i. e., Zones-V and VIi, all falling rvithin Muiti Zone_II. Thereafter, pctitioncr Nos. 1,4,5 and 6 were promoted as Office superintendents on 22.07.2023, and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were promoted as such on 02.O5.2O23, while the unofhcial respondents were promoted as Office Superintendents on 06. 1 2.20 22, 23.Og .2O2O, 30.05.2020, 25.O1.2021 and 06.12.2022, respectively. The specific contention of the petitioners is that in view of the allocations to new local cadres, their juniors allotted to different Zones secured as Office Superintendents prior to their promotions, which was delayed due to lack of vacancies in Zone-vl. It is trite law that arr individual belonging to one zone cannot question the seniority of an individua-l belonging to a different zone. In T. Ganganna (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held as under: I I I 'I i I ..' / ',a ' i I I I t7 PK, J W-P.N1.18334 of 2025 ^';;".;- u'" '10. Be that as it may, in this particular. "1:"' .,"iruo.t..-"opticant is questioning the seniority and ,r, i"aiuia"a who belongs to not onlv a ;;;;;;;1; ["t J*o different multi-zone rhe question 5if;;;;;.;;, ,; intra-zona-l seniority is no-longer res integro- ;lil;a;J *.u settled that an individual beionging to one ii-j" "-"? qrr."tiott the seniority of an individual ;;; b" called fortuitous belonging to a different zone' It "'rrt'ot i..-'?'-[edi-ric point of vierv in view of the mandatory ".""iJ""-".aer Article 371-D of the Constitution of India order, 1975' which -was .a direct LJ' ,t special provisions under the said Article ;;";;;i1tre i7i-o-"i ,rr" Constitution or tttai"' Therefore' the Tribunal .iot tt*, dis-is*ed the O.A observing that the.applicart did of action u"d h' has also not placed ;5;;iJ;;';;;ause ;;;;i";AGed on which his rclief can be granted " "'"p."sJenrial 2l.Themdncontentionofthepetitionersisthattherespondents have treated the post of Offrce Superintendent as a Zonal Post' insteadofaMultiZonalPost.Here,itistobenotedthatthein pursuance of the new Presidential Orcler' 2018' the local cadres were re-organized vide orders issued by the Government in G'O Ms'No'317 and G.O.Ms.No. 176 datecl 04 OA'2O21' whereby' Superintendent has been re-orgalized as zonal this connection, the petitioners assert that the cadre Post. In promotions ought to have been effected duly taking into consideration in the feeder catcgory, i e', Senior Assistant' the ncw zonal allotments, ur:less and until the the post of Ofltce thcir senioritY dated 06.12.2021 irrespective of MinisterialserviceRlrlesareamendedbytherrutlrorities' Reliance 13 PK, J V/.P.No.18334 of 2O2S has been hcavily placcd upon Rule 13(d)(i) ancl (ii) of thc Ministerial Scrcce llulcs, ivhich is extractccl hcrcundcr:

13. Unrt of Appointmcnt u'".no.*. and re-appointllsnt: ". -T " ] i: *'.: :;,:i,i";:fl " "'" iI ro a scrvrce and such othcr inatlers "- -.r tttc 5late Govcrnment, a Dopartnrenlal Depai.tmcntal Unit, recruitn I-ol. purposes of direct ,.".,,",., :;tim ",i.*T r;", as :n,ry bc "p".i;";";;";: unir slrall -aun,_- (d) in thc case of posts whiclr tn" pLrrvierv or rhr Andhra Predesh pubric d;;i;;;:;l 7^"-l^iLf"' Rcsu ra tion'r oi*.,'n"'.,,1i.#J-jifj:i:'ilr:r Locar cad res .a nd (i) oacn department in cach I or rhe oisirict in"to';;;;'J,,:'::::: :' 1-g.oup or officcs in a parr sevc'al offices in a District in rhar Dcparr mcnr -";; Deparrment i.",i.o -i-,1, iriJl-ll^ L1 '-td:t of the Head of rhe catcsories or po"i! 11.,;'"'ii;,:ll-t'1 of the Government for rhc cquivalent ,, ;;"1"""';#"1'fl'l 9' thc scalc of pa1 *hi.h i" Lne mrnlmum of tlrc scalc or pay ol Junior Assistant",-" ;;;;J: -riuu" [ii) each Department in each z in thc seconcl schedule to t.hc Andhra P;;;i, ;;fj::r''ned Cadrcs and R"g"t;i;; 'r;;;-^tr^m provment (organisation of Locat u"" Jlft.I":tu;t-enl ) ordcr. rr75 or a group of ,on""J ," ordor under 'til ';;i'i "'':l^:"'l''l ]T 1t'" cou"n-"n' bv 'n aqmrnrsrrative o.rl, ". ,,-,.- ?oil,id p_rd9r, 1975: or an calcgories or po.,",-tn1 ;;li.i, : o.c.,spccilled in a zone for aJl the scale of pav or rhe posr of Junior Assisrant", b;;';;:1T tr e H ead o r t hc Deparl me n t *r i n 1i.'rpli""#"; l;.T.i.".X.j #. 22. In this regard, it is aiso relevant to refer Order, 201g, more particularly, paragraph 1 I of th deals with the order having the over_riding effect. -or, to the presidential e said order, which ;ffi i",,ystatuii:".;';il:T:"1::T"H,-,ff rhe provisions orrhis :ff ;::,L:: |., , 19 PK' J W.P.No.18334 of 2025 made before or aJter the commencement of this Order is ;;;;"4 of direct recruitment to posts under the State Government or any local authority "

23. From the above, it is unequivocally clear that a1i the provisions ofthesaidPresidentialorder,2018,haveanabsoluteprimacyover any statute, ordinalce, law, rule or regulation' irrespective of whether such a provision is madc beforc or after the nevr Presidential Order' 2018. Hence, in view of the over-riding provision granted in Paragraph 11 of the Presidential Order, 2018, it can be inferred that an amendment to the Ministeria-l Service Rules' 1998' vrould not hal'e any effect. As such, the reliance placed upon by the petitioners on the earlier Presidentia.l order, 1975, in wlrolly misplaced and their contention that the promotions ought to have been effecte<i only after the amendment of Ministerial Service Rules also stands no merit'

24. Further, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners never challenged the organization of local cadres at any point of time' In fact, the petitioners thcmselves optecl for allotment to Zone-VI' and they readily acceptecl their allotment to the saicl Zone' and subsequently, secured the promotion to the post of Office Superintenclent, which was also never challenge<l' Horvever' the petitioners are now clisputing the re-organization of loca1 cadres and 20 PK, J w.P.No.18334 of 2O2S t,,,, categoricalll. hslfl thc promoticirs granted thercaftcr, which, in tirc considci.cd opinion of this Court, is impcrraissiblc ac it attracts thc principle of approbate and reprobate. Apex Court In a catcna of cases, tl-re Hon,ble that a party, having accepted the bencht of a pa-rticulal. ol der or arrangcment IS estoppcd from subsequcntly questioning or challenging thc said or.der. Thc Honl:le Apex Court, in Rajasthan Sto:te Industrial Deaelopmcnt q.nd. Inuestment qnother u. Diamond & Gem Deaelopment c;notheF, partrcularly acldressed the relevaat portion of the said decision Carporatioiz Limtted doctrine of cstoppel. Carpordtion q.nd q.nd. The cxtracted hcrcunder: "1. Approbate and. reprobq.te 15. A party cannot be permitted to "blorv hot-blow cold, , "fast and loos--" or "approbate and reprobate" r t ncr o conscier-rce. t lv tde Nagubai Ammctl v. B. Shqma Rao R 1956 SC s93l CIT v V. MR. P- Firm Muar IAIR 1965 SC 1216l , Ramesh lAr Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement I(2OO8) 14 scc s8 scc (L&S) 706 : AIR 2009 sc 7131 Pradeep Oil Corpn. v. MCD (2Oo9) 1 120 11) 5 SCC 27O : (2o1t) 2 scc (civ) 712: ArR 201 1 SC 1869 Cauuery Coffee Trqders v. Homor Resources (Intemationat) Co. Ltd. l(20 ) 6851 and r. Chandrclsekaran Administrqtiue Officer I 12) 12 SCC 133 (20 (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136: JT (2012) g sc 2601 .l (2O12) 3 scc (Civ 11) 10 scc 42O V. s (2013) s scc 470 (Emphasis supplied) 2L PK' J W.P-No.18334 oJ 2025

25. Further, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the provisional seniority list dated 24'06'2025' However' the petitioners failed to array any indivirluals as palty respondents' whose senioril-y is likely to be affected or who have been wrongly placed over and above the petitioners. The Hon'lc1c Apex Court' in Prabodh Verma & Ors. u. State oJ tlttar Pradesh & Ors'6' held as under: "A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under iri"l8 zzo of thJ Constitution without tl.e persons whr-r .r."iJ U vitally affected by its judg-ment being before it as ;;";;;;;"1" oi at least bv some of them being before it as numbcr is .""i""J""t" in a representative capacity if .their ,rrd, th.r"fo,", the Allahabacl High court ought i;;';;;; ;; i;i;;p;;ceeded to hear ancl disposed of the sangh's without insisting upon the reserve pool -.it t.o.h.rs being made respondents to that writ peLition'.or at "of them being rnade respondents in a i;;;a-;-. ,Lp.esentatiue capacity, anci had thc petitioners rcfused to dlsmissed that petition for non-joinder il=;;41 io r,'n " of necessar5r Parties." --p"titf"i

26. Further, tn' tlcchah La-t Chhqnwat (supra)' the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: " !4. \n the caie at hancl the disprrte relates Lo -promotlon which will have impact on inter se seniority' Thc lcarned ;;;-""1 ro. ttt. rc-sponclents assiduously endeavoured to u'ith resard to their promolion and ii has nothing to do with the ""."1t"" them who ha<l been promolt:d Despite ;?";;:;;i;.io agit:rting the griev-ance us that tir"y "." . 6 AIR 1985 SC 167 .:,: ...,,t* ...c ..r.l.li l PK, J W.P.No. t8334 of 2O2S the indcfaligable effort. we aforcsaid p-r"p"" "..'",ir.*'f arc nol pcrsuadcd to acceDt the p omored, 'ii,J;;;i;;.","i:. f,T rs: ;:""ffii:,,;*fl: ffi : f *T"#:J:J'::" Jl I " p rom ot ionai'ili.", -l to the lis' a,, adversc orcler "v ca,,iot be ;.;;;;;"tLies that would go against the Dasrc tcnet of the princiDlr^lm.1s naturar justicc on Ihis singurar c.";;i;"";;J;:ti:: "1 lssucd by the writ court as wcll as th_c Oirti." glr..f1.,ol1s to sran t of DromoLion to the .cspo.d.;;;;" ;;';,o"ttailring conclusion ;a;; il;"3:n"9 1' claboratc, as rar as the rclating to the circular is co:lccrncd' it is uncxccoti.,)5' ,nablc and wc ccncur.rqi[]r Lhe sajrc.., a', r,

27. In rricw of thc abovc, the instant writ pctition is per-se not maintainabic, in view of lou-joinder of necessary parties by the petitioners. However, it is only after this Court granted an interim ordcr datcd 73.06.2025, clirecting thc r.espondcnts not to hnalize the p'ovisionarl seniority till the filing of counter afrrdavit, the unofrrcial rcspondent themsclves approachcd this Court by way of Iiling a vacate stay petition, along ivith the implead ordered on IO.O9.2O25, duly bringing them responden ts. on record application as party that r.vas

28. Furthcr, as per the nerv presidential Order, 20ig, the post of Administrativc Ofhcer is organized into Multi Zonal cadre post. Hence, in complialce with their obligation, the responclents prepared the present intcgrated seniority list of OfIice Superintendents of all Zones within Multi Zone-II, which cannot be faulted with at this PK, J W.P.No.18334 oJ 2025 stage, more particularly, since the said list is only a provisional seniority list, issued for the purpose of receiving and ltualizing any objections against the said list. It is also a well settled law that a writ petition usually does not lie against a provisional seniority list, as no frnal rights are affected. Moreover, objections may be hled in case of any grievance, which, in .the submitted by the petitioners. present case, have also been duly

29. In B. Anandrr. Rama Rao and Ors. u. Stote oJ Andhra Pradesh and Ors.7, the Division Bench of this Court held as under "7. Further, it is weli settled that in matters of seniority, the Courts would not ordinarily come into the picture at the stage of provisional seniority list. It is for the reason that after preparation of provisional seniority 1ist, objections are ca-lled for from aggrieved parties rvho may bring the grievarce to the notice of the competent authority. These objecLions are considered and hnal seniority list is issued. It is only the frnal seniority list that can be challenged and the provisional seniority list ordinarily cannot bc permitted to be cha1lenged."

30. Simitarly, while dismissing W.P.No.1936O of 2OO9 vide order dated.24.O8.2022, arrotlr.er Division Bench of this Court obsen'ed: "...This Court having noticed thc said fact is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot challenge the provisional seniority tist and at best he can h1e objections and if thc obiections a-re not properly dealt with by the respondents then he can challenge the said seniority list by preferring an appeal under Rule 26 of the 7 (2OOr) 4 ALD 289 , I { 24 PK, J W.P.No.18334 of 2O2S Statc and Subordinate Service Rules or pursue his remedies, in accordaxce with larv."

31. In view of the abovc, this Court is not inclined to interferelvith the inrpugncd provisional integrated seniority list datecl 24.06.2025. Horvever, since the objections of the petitioners are. pending, this court deems it appropriatc to direct the respondents to dispose of the pctitioners, ob.iectio,s datied. 25.06.2025 and 26.06.2025, against tiee provisional intcgrated seniority rist of office Superintendents datecl 24.06.2025, and to hnalize the said list, strictly in accordance rvith 1au,. The cntirc exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (o6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, thc Writ petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, if a,y, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs \ To 1 The Director of Public H Bazar Koti, Hyderabad. SD .S. GOWRI SHANKAR S ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ealth And Family Welfa re, te of Telangana, Sultan SECTION OFFICER

2. The Secretary to Government, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department Secretariat Building, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRt p.V.KRtStiNAtAH, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two ccs to GP FoR SERVTCES-|, High couit for th'e state of rerangana at 5. One CC to SRt V.RAVTCHANDRAN, Advocate (OPUC) 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] W SA BS lr t ,tf si,c 060[T M I (.') I . ..., ''--.,i HIGH COURT DATED:25109t2025 / t ).,) .1.: ORDER WP.No.18334 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ,1 sn1 \o b