Honble High Court · 2025

.....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitutron of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court.may be pleased to issue an appropriate wrrt, order or Direction, more particurarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a Declaring the Order ROC.No 3O/2025_BSpL , dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Respondent No.i as arbitrary, contrary to the material available onrecord, being contrary to the proceedings of the Honble High Court in Order ROC No277312021-B.B.SLp dated 18.06.2022 and Order Roc.No.275'll20 18-Vigirance cell dated 13.02.2020 and thereby set aside the same, b. Direct the Respondent No.1 to cons ide r/include the petitioners name for the promotions to the cadre of District Judges (Entry Level) from the cadre of civil Judges (senior division) under 65 percent quota for the year 2025 as notified under Order R O C No 3O|2O25-B SPL dated 28.O3.2025 and 30 042025, on par with the other officers immediately above and below the Petitioner as per seniority. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praytng that in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to consider/include the Petitioners name for the promotions to the cadre of District Judges (Entry Level) from the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior division) under 65% quota for the year 2025 as notrfied under Order R O C No 30/2025-8 SPL dated 28.03 2025 and 30.04 2025 by suspending the Order ROC.No.3O/2025-B SPL., daled 21 .05.2025 passed by the Respondent No.'l . pending disposal of the above writ petttion Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.SURENDER RAO, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : SRI HARENDER PERSHAD, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SRI A.NAREN RUDRA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Ms. M.SHALINI, LEARNED G.P FOR SERVICES-III The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'B LE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AP ARESH KT]MAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC EP.SA M KOSHY Writ Petition No.20900 of 2025 ORDER: @et the Hon'ble Sri llstice P Son Koshv) Heard M.Surender Rao, leamed Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner' Mr' Harender Pershad, leamed Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr' A'Naren Rudra' leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No' l, and Ms' M'shalini' leamed Govemment Pleader for Services-lll' appearing lor respondent No'2' 2,TheinstantwritpetitionhasbeenfiledbythepetitionerunderArticle226of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the ORDER ROC.No.30/2025-BSPL', dated 2l'05'2025' passed by respondent No.l / High Court for the State of Telanganaat Hyderabad as arbitrary' contrary to the material available on record and also contrary to the proceedings of respondent No.linoRDERRoC.No.2773/2021-B.SPL.,dated18.06.2022,andoRDER ROC.No.2751l2018-Vigilance Cell, dated 13'02'2020' In addition' there was also aprayermadebythepetitionertoconsiderhisnameforpromotiontothecadreof District Judges (Entry Level) from the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division) under 65%0 quota fbr the year 2025 and for which notification has already been issued by respondent No. I

3. The grievancc of the petitioner seems to be that the persons junior to him and persons immediately senior to him have been included for being considered to be promoted to the District Judges (Entry Level) cadre and there is no impediment whatsoever coming in the way for respondent No.1 in not including the name of the petitioner also lor the said post.

4. From the instructions received from respondent No.l, it is revealed that perhaps the name ol- petitioner got left out for the reason that he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and on account of which he was not promoted atong with his batchmates in thc Civil Judges (Senior Division) cadre on 23.09.2019.

5. However, perusal of the records would show that the Vigilance Cell of the High Court vide order dated, 13.02.2020 dropped the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner after administering an unrecorded waming to the petitioner. Subsequent to the dropping of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner stood promoted to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre vide order dated 3 1.03.2021. Subsequent to the petitioner having being promoted w.e.l. Pa-gc i ol'8 :l I '01'202 l' he made a representation to respondent No. l seeking for restoration or his se niorirv in the right of dropping of the departmental enquiry initiated against hinr' The respondent No. l after due consideration or.his representation and request Io. rcslori'g or his seniority. vidc order dared rg.0o.l0rr. r.cstoretr his senioriwin the caresory of Civil Judges (.lunior Division). 6' As a conscquence of the restoration of his seniority, for all practicar purposcs' the petitioner's seniority has to be reckoned at par witrr his batchniates. Ilo,ur'e'er, when the respondent No. I on 1g.03.2023, published a list ol eligible oflicers w.ho have completed five (05) years of service as per Rule 4.2(A)(rI) o1. the 'r'erangana State Judiciar Service Rures, 2023, the petitioner,s name was not iisted on the ground of the pelitioner actualry not having served trve (05) years as c'iv'il 'ludgc (Senior Division). Meanwhile, the petitioner and sirnirarly praced offlce.s have urade a rep'esentalion to respondent N..r requesting their names also to be Iisted in the list of erigible officers for promotion to the District Judges ([:ntry l-ever)' l{owever. the petitioner's request stood rejected on 2g.04.2025 lcading to filing of the instanr writ petition. 7 At t,is junctu.e. what is foremost required to be seen is the order dated fixing the seniority of petitioner as a

18.06.2022 passed by rcspondent \6. 1 -I I'age 4 ol8 consequence ofdroppinl all the charges levelled against hirn. For rcady ref'etence, the relevant portion ol' thc order dated 18.06.2022, so fhr as it telates to the petitioner, is reproduccd here u uder '...-..... (3).\r'i A..l7r'rlr Kumur. .\arrior Cit'il .lutlge-crun-lli\ istunt Sc.r.rir.rirs .lutlge. \'irrnul. it rt:trtral in tlrc cule{ot of Senior Oit,il Jutlge: in hettcen Sri D. Kirun Kutrrr ur .\ri Brungi Srinivusulu. '

8. Ncxt what is to he sce 11 is that thc ordel datcd 23.09.2019. did not include the name of petitionel firr ['reing prornoted as Civil Judgc (Senior Division). l'he said order would shou'that the person senior to the petitioner narnely Sri D.Kiran Kumar was placcd at Sl.No.l5 arld thc person junior to the petitioner namely Sn Brungi Srinivasulu u as placed at Sl.No. 16. Now it is in bctwecn thcse two Officers that the senioritv ol tlre petitioner has been ordcrccl to be flxed. Both the aforesaid Officers, Sri D. Kiraii Kunrar and Sri Brungi Srinivasulu, admittedly got promoted \r'.e.L 13.09.1019. and i1'rcspondent No.1 had granted the benefit ol' seniority to the petitioner hr, placinq him in between the aforcsaid two Officers. it leaves this Bench r'., ith no doubt as to the restoration of the status of petitioner so far as his seniority in the Civil .lr-rdgcs (Senior Division) cadle is concerned. [r.r view of the same, Iirr all practical purposes the seniority of tl-re petitioner has to be reckoned along with [ris batchmates u'.e.L 2i 09.2019. l,-

9. Leamed Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contended that since the promotion process which is being considered by respondent No.l is of the level of District Judges (Entry Level), respondent No.l was of the view that the petitioner in lact should have physically worked as Civil Judge (Senior Division) for the required five (05) years period so as to gain sufficient experience to take on the responsibiliry at the senior level, and it was for this reason that the petitioner's name was excluded lrom the list of eligible candidates. f0. The said contention of the leamed Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. I woutd not be sustainable for the simple reason that; firstly, though the petitioner was initially subjected to disciplinary proceedings, the entire charges and the disciplinary proceedings all were dropped and secondly, the dropping of the disciptinary proceedings by itself would lead to a situation as if the period in between underwent by the petitioner cannot be taken into account detrimental to the interest ol the petitioneras that by itself would amount to a punishment of different nature.

11. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that, once when the disciptinary proceedings are dropped, whatever loss that the petitioner has suffered in befween including the delay in getting promotion because of the disciplinary Page 6 o[8 - proceedings has to be accepted to be one lor which the petitioner cannot be held responsible.

12. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that if the petitioner has not actually worked as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) for five (05) years, it is not the petitioner who should be held responsible for the same since the respondent No.l itself had granted promotion and seniority to the petitioner along with his batchmates that would relate back to the promotion order dated

23.09.2019 and from that onwards the petitioner's seniority at the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has to be reckoned. If such treatment is not given to the petitioner, it would still amount to the petitioner getting penalized even though the disciplinary proceedings and the charges levelled against him stood dropped. As a consequence, what would result is that even though the disciplinary proceedings stood dropped and in spite olrestoration of his seniority having been accepted and implemented, the juniors to the petitioner would march ahead of him in the career which may have a cascading effect alt through the remaining service of the petitioner.

13. Yet another aspect which needs to be appreciated at this j uncture is that, under somewhat similar circumstances, another similarly placed Judicial Officer Page 7 of8 Smt. Radhika Jaiswal had questioned similar action on the part of respondent No. I in Writ Petition No. 16794 of 2025 and where the Division Bench of this High Court vide order datcd 26.06.2025 had allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondent No. I in the said writ petition for granting consequential benefits which was similar to the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

14. It has also been inlormed by the leamed Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. I that the respondent No.l has decided to implement the said order passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Smt. Radhika Jaiswal. This all the more makes the case of the petitioner stronger as his case is tn a better footing compared to the case of Smt. Radhika Jaiswal

15. Thus, lor all the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to allow the instant writ petition and direct the respondent No.l to forthwith include the name of the petitioner also in the list ol candidates eligible for participating in the promotion process for the post of District Judges (Entry Level) under 65Yo quota from the Civil Judges (Senior Division) cadre. It has been further leamt that the selected candidates have already been called for interview. Therefore, without any further delay, the respondent No.l shall take appropriate and immediate steps m subjecting the judgments of the petitioner also lor evaluation and thereafter call the petitioner for interview before conclusion of the promotion process which is already undergoing. The respondent No.l shal[ ensure that the promotion order is finally passed after the petitioner's claim is also considered for promotion.No

16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, ilany, shalI stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ilance), HONBLE HIGH COURT OR THE STATE OF s HYDERABAD, High Court Buildtng s, Hyderabad, Telangana To 1 The Registrar (Vi TELANGANA AT State - 500066 Hyderabad, Telangana State. Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2 The Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, State Of Telangana at 3. The Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, State Of Telangana at a Tiro cc's to G p F'OR SERVICES _ 1il, High court for the state of Telangana 5. One'CC to SRI'SRINIVASA RAO IVADIRAJU, Advocate [OPUC] 6 One CC to SRI A NAREN RUDRA. Advocate [OPUC] 7 Two CD Copies at Hyderabad (OUT) SA BS ,\$. .z;"'" ,,'.:- c t_ J 29 JlJt zffi o( o {'} * * DFsn -, HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 ORDER WP.No.20900 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \{ @n "14 LL2