The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2

4. ...PETITIONER IlHlffi "{Jf,'s*?fl?,"rft"jl"ii,i.!r bv its principar secrerary, schoor ilEfr"#f irlSS:jf,ff or["".,,;#j"*oorEducarion,Governmentor The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District. The District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar District. "RESPONDENTS petition under Article ))A ^c t-- '1he n '[ha'[ priate writ' order or

)with' the High court may be ": ?TiT'r'ii:;ff :TTH J, il: ;ffi:;**:;:*;,t'ffiiii::"il:::'"n 'r nda pravns in the nature of writ o respondents in a,,ottins .;#:ffi which is conrrary to nis .,ror^.]:;,:: ^ :" ,TJ".#*1r**]_, ;::1 "ii:: asega,,n j,.t,,,ot,,,J,onn:fi::::lji:l;i:r,t:X:r,:.';,:::rJl; 4 and 16 of the constitution of india and also contrary to the Terangana pubric Employment organization of Local cadres ano R"grtation of Direct Recruitmen order 20.r8 and Guiderines issued in G.o.Ms. ,o a.,, Generar Administratior t (SPF-I) Department Dated rrew Local cadre of Mahabubnagar vide proceed nss no il,l,.un,"'n'

06.12.2021 and consequently set aside the impugned orders, dated 21 .12.2021 and 31-03-2022 by directing the Respondents to allot the Petitioner to the Ranga Reddy as per her option on priority and as per her seniority in accordance with Rules. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 impugned proceedings suspend the operation of ES/ES/MA/MBNR/SEGR/6674 dated 21-12-2021 and further the rejection orders vide Memo.No.Spl/ Secretary Pegil2021-240, dated 31-03-2022 pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel forthe Respondents: qP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO 1 ORDER W.P.No.271OS of 2022 This writ petition is hled seeking the follou,ing relief :- "... -. to issue an appropiate Writ, Order or Direction, more particuLarly one in the nature of Wit of Mand,amus, aggieued bg the impugned. oction of the respond-ents in altotting the petitioner to neu.t Local Cadre of Mahabubnagor, uhich is contrary to her preferential option and senioitg uide proceedings .Iy'o. ES/ ES/ MA/ MBNR/ SDGR/ 6624, dated 21.12.202i and further in passing the rejection orders uide Memo No.Spt/ Secretary Peshi/ 2O21-24O, dated 31.03.2022, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and uiolatiue of Articles 14 and i6 of the Constitution of Ind.ia and. also contrary to the Telangana Pu0lic Employment Organi.zation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment Order 2O l g and_ Guideline s is sued. in G. O.' M s. N o. 3 1 7, Ge ne ral A dmi ni_st ratio n ( S p F - I ) Department, dated O6.12.2021 and consequentlg set aside the impugned orders, dated 2r- j2.2021 and 3r.o3.2022 bg rtirecting the respondents to allot the petitioner to the RrLnga Reddg as per her option on piorita and as per her senioitg in accordance utith Rures 2 Brief facts of the case are as follows :_ (a) The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in pral<asam District on 13. 1 1.2000 through DSC_2000 Notification' Thereafter, under inter-district mutua-l transfers, she was transferred to Mahabubnagar District on 23. 11.2005. The petitioner has been working at Ranga Reddy District (erstwhile Mahabubnagar District) since the date of her inter_district mutua-l transfer till the issuance of impugned proceedings dated 21. 12.2021.The presidential / 2 Order came into force on 28.O8.2O 18 and the same was notified by the 1"t respondent vide G.O.Ms.No. 124, dated 30.08.20 18. (b) To give effect to the Presidential Order, the 1.1 respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021 , in terms of Para 4 of the Presidential Order, 2018, providing detailed guidelines that are required to be followed for preparation 'of the seniority list, seeking options, allotting employees as per their seniority, disability, medical grounds etc. As per guideline No.3 of the Appendix to G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.202I, all departmental heads shall prepare a seniority list of its employees in each erstwhile local cadre and, as per guideline No.5, while considering, for allotment to the nevt' local cadres' preference shall be obtained to the new local cadres lrom employees as per their seniority. As per the seniority list, the petitioner is placed at SI.No.3349. One person, by name Ms'Sk'shaheeda Gilani' who !'lras appointed through DSC 2000, was posted at Prakasham District and later on, by mutual 1'ransfer' he was transferred to Madgul Mandal' Ranga Reddy District (erstwhile Mahabubnagar District)' As per the mutual transfer, his seniority has to be calculated from the date of mutual transfer, i'e', rlated 23'O4'2013' In the hrst two seniority lists' the said Ms'Sk'shaheeda Gilani was placed at S1'No'6O5O' and the petitioner was placed at S1 No 3468' However' in thc hna-I seniority list, the said Ms Sk Shaheda Gilani was placed above the petitioner at S1.No.1028, which is arbitrary f]-'rt^tion^1' /\ 3 , (c) The petitioner's seniority has been calculated from the date of inter-district mutua-l transfer and not from the date of appointment, and as such, she lost her seniority. One Yadagiri Reddy and Jayashree, who were appointed through DSC-2OO1 and who were on inter district transfer in the year 2OO5 to Ranga Reddy District (erstwhile Mahabubnagar) were placed above the petitioner. Mealwhile one C.J.Shaily Hepzibah, was appointed through DSC 2OO0 and placed at S1.No.3304, whereas the petitioner is placed at

3349. The petitioner is aggrieved by the wrong calculation of seniority. There are many other persons whose seniority has been wrongly calculated, and by which the petitioner is made to suffer. The petitioner .was atlotted S1.No.3349 purely on the ground of inter district transfer, still, ironically and irrationally, the other said three persons, namely Mr.Yadagiri Reddy, Mr.Hepzibah and Ms.Jayashree, were placed above the petitioner, purely taking into consideration of their recruitment year of DSC, and the said persons are wrongfully placed above the petitioner. If the corrections in the seniority list are not appropriately rectihed, the petitioner has to suffer, which cannot be compensated. (d) The juniors to the petitioner have been placed above the petitioner in the seniority list, and they have been allotted to Ranga Reddy District. In contrast, the petitioner \,vas allotted to Mahabubnagar District vide impugned proceedings dated 21 .12.2O21. f 4 As the petitionels senior to the said persons, the respondents ought to have allocated the petitioner to Ralga Reddy District. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner hled an appeal before the authorities concerned seeking correction of errors that occurred in the seniority list and allot her to Ranga Reddy District. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner also filed W.P.No.3026 of 2022, and this Court vide interim order dated 24.O1 .2022 directed the respondents therein to dispose of the appeal on or before 21-O3.2022 and communicate the same to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents have rejected the appeal vide order dated 31.O3.'2022, stating that there are eight employees senior to the petitioner; as such, the respondents cannot proceed with her request. The petitioner c6ntends that in the said rejection order, the seniority of the employees has not been appropriateiy calculated and the names of those eight persons, alleged to be seniors to the petitioner, have not been mentioned. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has hled the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the juniors to the petitioner, who were transferred as per inter-district transfer policy, are placed above the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon relevant

4. rule position contarned in G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 02.O2.2022 and Clause-8 of the said I?ule reads as follows :- 5 "Both tle emploAees seeking mutual transfer shall giue on undertaking in the prescribed format that they utould forego tLLeir lien and senioity in tle old local cadres and accept to take the last rank in tlte neut local cadres."

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have prepared the seniority list show-ing the narnes of the juniors above the petitioner and accordingly allotted the petitioner to Mahabubnagar District instead of Ranga Reddy District In case of regular transfers, there is a chance of re-transfer of the petitioner in the future, still since the allocation of the District is on a perpetual basis, once the petitioner is a-Ilocated to Mahabubnagar District, she cannot be re-posted to Ranga Reddy District.

6. On behalf of the respondents, the 2"d respondent filed a counter a-firdavit contending that earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.3O26 of 2022, and this Court passed the interim order in I.A.No. I of 2O2c dated 24.01.2022, which reads as follows :- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Gouerutment Pleader for SeruicesJ appeoing for respondents and perused the record. Petitioner contends that against the allotment order dt.21.12.2021, petitioner had filed an appeal before the appropiote authoity on 23.12.2021 and the said appeal is pending consideration. Since it is admitted that the petitioner has alreadg auaiLed the remedg as prouided under Regulation 27 of guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.317, General Administration (SPF-I) Department, I - 6 dt.O6. 12.202 I . pending further orders, the respondents are directed to dispose of the said appeal on or before 21.O3.2O22 in accordance with laut."

7. Regulation No.27 of allotment of employees to new loca-l cadres Guidelines appended to G.O.Ms.No.317 GAD, dated 06_ 12.2021, reads as follows: "Any ernployee aggieued by an allotment to a local cadre mag submit a representation to tlrc Secretary to the Gouemment of the concernerl Department. The gouentment maA, on receipt of sttch representation, duly consider and dispose of the same as deemed ftt.' 8 The appeal ()l the petitioner was accordingly disposed of vide Memo dated 31.03.2022 as per the above Regulation No.27 of the Guidelines. challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

9. It is further stated that the petitioner is at S1.No.3349 in the seniority list of se<:ondary Grade Teachers. she belongs to General category, and she has given her preference for allotment of new loca-l cadres in the order of Ranga Reddy and Mahabubnagar Districts. She was arlotted to the new local cadre of Mahabubnagar District. The general cut-off serial number for getting allotment to the new local cadre of Ranga Redd-v District is at sl.No.33o3, whereas the petitioner is at S1.No.3430 in the Seniority List. Further, a report was obtained from the District Edr.rcational officer, Mahabubnagar District, as per which the petitioner rvas appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on /\t\ l 7 ^t3.11.2000 in prakasham District, and she was transferred to Mahabubnagar on 23'll.2oO5 on inter-district transfer policy pursuant to her personal request and her date of birth is 25'O4'1975. lo.ItisfurtherStatedthattheseniorityofsevenotherjuniorstothe petitioner was counted from their date of initial appointment instead of their date of joining in Mahabubnagar District al1d allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District' As per the seniority list of District Educational Officer, Mahbubnagar District' three seniors to the petitioner, who have given option to Ranga Reddy District' were allotted to other districts- Thr-ee seniors to the petitioner have given their preference to Ranga $eddy District, and were allotted to Ranga Reddy District in General appeals' ll.ItisfurtherStatedthatifthesenioritylistwasrectifiedandthe juniors of the petitioner were re-allotted to their appropriate new local cadres as per their rectified seniority, the petitioner would get the' chance of being allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District, as she is the senior.

12. It is further stated that while considering the appeal, the entire records pertaining to the seniority of Secondary Grade Teachers are verihed and on verihcation of the seniority list, the above facts came to light. Accordingly, the peLitioner was allotted to the new local cadre of MahabubnagarDistrictand,assuch,theimpugnedproceedingsdated

31.O3.2OO2 rejecting the case of the petitioner for allotment of Ranga 8 \ Reddy District is -just and proper.

13. While reiterating the counter averments, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contends that the respondents have rightly rejected the appeal of the petitioner, and hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the respondents wrongl]' stated that the petitioner is at S1.No.3430, instead of S1.No.3349. The inter district transfer of Sri.P.Yztdagiri Reddy was improperly shown as 23.11.2004, instead of 24 .l 1 .2OO5 . The petitioner is senior to the said Sri.P.Yadagiri Redcly. Further, one Sri.C.J.Sheily, who is junior to the petitioner, was placed much above the petitioner, i.e., at S1.No.3304 and her date of joining is 18.04.2006, and the petitioner's date of joining is 23. 1 1.2005. Likewise, one Sri.B.Balya's date of inter-district transfer was u,rongly mentioned as 2l .O4.2004 instead of 23.04.2006, and though he is also junior to the petitioner, he is placed above the petitioner.

15. It is further stated that though the 2.d respondent in the counter stated that Sri MurzLli Rampuram and Sri.V.Rajesh were allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District as per Guideline No.2 I of t.O.Ms.l.lo.3 t7, the respondents did not provide any material to 9 sub stantiate the same

16. It is further stated that the date of joining of one Sri J.Balaji is wrongly mentioned as 21.11.2005 instead of 23.1 1.2005, and the petitioner and the said Sri. Balaji were posted on inter-district transfer on the sarne date, i.e.,23.1 1.2005. Suppose the year of DSC and the date of the joining of the inter-district match each other, in that case, the petitioner's aB€ must be considered in determining the seniority, as per which the petitioner is older than Sri.Balaji t7. It is further stated that the respondents prepared the seniority list without verifying the reiords, and allocated the employees to the new local cadres without taking their actual seniority into account

18. It is further stated that the respondents in their counter affidavit clearly admitted that if the seniority list was rectified and that the juniors to the petitioner were re-allotted to their appropriate new local cadres as per their rectified seniority, the petitioner would get the chance of being allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District, as she is the senior. Therefore, on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be a-llowed, and the respondents may be directed to post the petitioner at Ranga Reddy District.

19. karned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 6 10 issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.3772O of 2022, dated 19.06.2023.

20. Therefore, learned counsel appea-ring for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned ordcrs dated 21.I2.2O21. and 3L.O3.2022.

21. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. Peru sed the record

22. Having hearcl both the learned counsel, it may be noted that the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Prakasam District on 13. 1 1.2000 through DSC-2000 notification. Subsequently, she was transferred to Mahabubnagar District under inter district mutual transfer on 23.1 1.2005. Since then, she has been working in Ranga Reddy District (erstwhile Mahabubnagar) until the issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 21.12.2021. It may be noted that consequent to ltre Presidential Order on 28.08.2018, the 1"t respondent issued G.O.Ms.No. 124, dated 30.08.20 18, ald to implement the Presidential Order, the 1"t respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021 , providing the detailed guidelines for the preparation of seniority lists, seeking options, and allotment employees based on seniority, disability, medical grounds, etc. +....7 11 '23. Further, the counting of seniority as per the ruie position contained in G.o.Ms.No.21, dated o2.o2.2o22, specihcally states that where both the employees seeking mutual transfer shall give art undertaking in the prescribed format, they will forego their lien ald seniority in the old loca-l cadres and accept to take the last ralk in the new local cadres.

24. It may further be noted that as per Guideline No'3 of the appended to G.O.Ms.N o.317, dated O6' 12'2021' all departmental heads were directed to prepare seniority lists of all employees in each erstwhile local cadre. As per Guideline No'5' while considering allotment to new local cg'dres, employee preferences were to be obtained based on their seniority. The petitioner was placed at S1.No.3349 in the seniority list, and she contends that her seniority wascalculatedfromthedateofherinter-districtmutualtransfer,i.e., 23.11.2oo5, rather than from the date of her initial appointment date' i.e., 13.11.2000, thereby resulting in loss of seniority' Further' individuals, such as Sri.Yadagiri Reddy and Sri'Jayashree' appointed through DSC-2001 and transferred in 2005' were placed above her in the seniority list. Likewise, Shaily Hepzibah' appointed through DSC- 2002, was placed at S1'No'3304; and such miscalculation of her seniority resulted in her being allotted to Mahabubnagar District' while her juniors were allotted to Ranga Reddy District' With this grievance, the petitioner hled an appeal seeking correction of the 1,2 f\ senl.rity rist and re-allotment to Ranga Reddy District; a,d while the appeal was pencling, she liled w.p.No.3o26 of 2022, and this court vide interim order dated 24.01 .2022 directed the respondents to dispose of the zrppeal by 21.03.2022. The appeal was subsequently rejected on 31.03.2022, stating that eight employees senior to the petitioner, who have given first preference to Ranga Reddy, were allotted to other districts. Mahabubnagar District. 25' In w'P'No 37z2o of 2022, the petitioner therein, while working as the Secondarv Grade Teacher, the respondents have issued G.O.Ms.No.3lZ, clated 06.12:2021. The respondents have prepared the seniority list of Secondary Grade Teachers, and the petitioner,s narne was shown at S1.No.3430, in the said list, some of the teachers are juniors to the petitioner, and their seniority was counted from the date of their initial appolntment instead of their transfer to The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 29.12.2005 and should have been shown above their names and that the petitioner would have been allotted to Ranga Reddy District, whicl.r was her first option. 26. In the said writ petition, the 2.d respondent accepted in the counter that the respondents erroneously shown some of the juniors to the petitioner therein in general category as seniors and allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District and that the name of one Smt.G.Vijaya Lakshmi, who originally belong to OC community, was lI 13 )rroneously considered under SC community and allotted to the new Iocal cadre of Ranga Reddy District

27. In those circumstances, this court disposed of the said writ petition on 19.06-2023 by observing as follows :- the uit Petition ls disposed of setting aside the impugned rejection order in Memo No'Spl/ SeretaryPeshi/ 2021-198 dated 31.O3.2O22 passed by the responrTent No'1 and tLe respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for altotting her in the eisting uacancA of Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu) (LB) in the Ranga Redd'y Distict uithin eight uteeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'" 2A. The rule position containi:h in G'O'Ms'No'21' dated O2'O2'2o22' wherein clause 8 reads as ftillows :- 'Both the emplogees seeking mutual transfer sho'll giue on undertaking in the prescibed format that theg tt'tould forego their lien ond senioitg in the old locol cadres and accept to take the lost rank in the neut local codres' "

29. As per the above G.O', employees' seeking mutual transfer' shall forego their lien and seniority in the old cadres and must take the last rank in the new local cadres'

30. At this juncture, it may be noted that it is the contention of the petitioner that the seniority of the alleged eight employees was not properly calculated and that their names were not mentioned in the rejection order; however, it is the specilic stand of the learned Government Pleader, based on records, that the petitioner's appeal 0 \ 14 disposed of in accordance with Guideline No.27 of C G.O.Ms.No.3l7, rvhereunder an aggrieved emplo_vee can submit a representation to the Secretary of the concerned Department. Further, the petitioner, being at S1.No.3349 in the seniority list and belonging to the general category, had given her preference for allotment to Ranga Reddy and Mahabubnagar Districts. Horvever, the general cutoff for allotment to Ranga Reddy District was at S1.No.3303, and the petitioner, being at S1.No.3349, did not fall within this ralge.

31. As can be seen from the counter affidavit, the respondents stated that if the seniority list is rectified arrd the juniors are re-allotted to their appropriate new local cadres, the petitioner might have a chalce of being allotted to Rariga Reddy District.

32. In the instan t case, in the counter afhdavit, the respondents themselves stated that if the seniority list was rectified and if the juniors of the petitioners were re-allotted to their appropriate new local cadres as per their rectified seniority, the petitioner '*.ould get the chance of being allotted to the new local cadre o[ Ranga Reddy District, as she is the senior. Further, the respondents cannot deprive the right of the petitioner as she had already availed her remedy of appeal. In the similar circumstances, this Court disposed of W.P.No.3772O of 2OO2 on 19.06.2023

33. The main grievance of the petitioner is that upon her inter- district mutua-l transfer, her date of transfer has been taken into I 15 -onsideration while fixing the seniority, whereas in respect of her juniors, who were also on inter-district mutual transfer, while frxing the seniority, their date of appointment was taken into consideration, thereby the juniors of the petitioner were placed above the petitioner. Further, a perusal of the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 goes to show that the l't respondent has rejected the petitioner's appeal mechanically without assigning arly reasons-

34. For the aJoresaid reasons and since the respondents themselves stated that if the seniority list is rectified and if the said juniors were re-allotted to their appropriate."new local cadre, the petitioner being the senior, may get a chance to re-a-llot her to the Ranga Reddy District, this Court is of the view that it is just and proper to set aside the impugned rejection order uide Memo No.Spl/Secretary Peshil2O2I-24O, dated 31.O3.2022, passed by respondent No.1' The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotting to Ranga Reddy District and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight u,eeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.

35. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs' //TRUE COPYII SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY SS STANT REGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER 1 Il.:Ill:,ert Secretary, State of Tetangana, S nyoeraDa0 chool Education, Secretariat, i I

2. The Commissioner ancl Director of School Education, Government of 3. The District Cnllcr.tnr t\/r hah,,F.^^^ ^ - n:-.-:-. Telangana, Hyderabad, Telangana. - -- *"-":''"

4. The District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar District 5. One CC to SRI SR|N|VASA RAO MADIRAJU, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two ccs to GP FoR SERVTCES r, High court for the State of rerangana \

7. Two CD Copies BSK GJP g HIGH COURT DATE D:2 6106120Zs ORDER WP.No.27105 of 2022 I I .i {tiE .S T4 o Y 1 tt]l 2U5 1 J. \'l * /)/.-r -i:--. r-r il:O DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS w