Heard Sri v. Narasimha Goucl

. 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 direct the respondents to consider for promoting the petitioner to the post of School Assistant t'Telugu) to the (11) posts available for TelLigu Pandits in Karimnagar District without reference to the charge sheet dated 19.1O.2022 which is the subject matter of the Criminal Appeal. No. 450 of 2022 on the file of this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JI.ISTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.216O8 of 2024 ORDER: This writ Petition, under Article 226 of the constitution of India, is Iiled seeking the following relief: "...to issuc a Writ. Order or i)irection, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declal-ing the actton of the responrlent No.3 in not promoting the petitioirer is School esslstani'lf.etuguy in Karimnagar District, as illegal, arl>rtrary ancl violative of Ari. t+ of the Constitution of India and conscqlrcntly dircct the Respondent No.3 to promote thc Petitioner as School Assistanr (Tetugu) by posting her as per the web options exercised in l(arimnagar Oist."lct on p^. *itt s"t."t"a candidates for promotion by rvelt couse[ing to the post of School 1""-r,*11a_. (Telugrr) Rc.No.735lE3/2O23/ AL I A2-2, dt.t8.o6.2o2; u 2a.o7.z,oiq and to pass.. ." Karimnagar Oi"trict

2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goucl, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, ald learned Governrnent pleader lor Services_I, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3' Learned counsel for the petitroncr submits that rvhile the petitioner was working as a Language panclit (Tclugu) in Karimnagar District, a senio.ity list of a1l eligible candidates ror promotion to the post of School Assistant (Telugu) in I(arimnagar District was prepared by respondent No'3, wherein, the petitioner's nar,e *,as shown at Sr. No.2 1 among the (11.5) candidates. Thereafter, nrrrsuant to the same, the petitioner appeared for rveb counseling on 15.06.2024, rvherein, her eligibility for \... '= ' .] 2 - PK, J w.P.No.2160B of 2021 promotion was shown as Ves', and also successfully completed Lhe process of certificate vcriftcation vide Emp.lD.No. 1504569 Despile the samc, whilc respondent No.3 issued proceedings in Rc'No'73518'2/2023/A1'l A2- 2datedlS.06.202.4,effectingtempora-lypromotionstothepost,o[School Assistants, inclurling the juniors of the petitioner, her name was not reflected in the said list. Therefore, the petitioner submitLcd her representation to the authoritics on 19.06.2024 ' Howcver, no action has been taken thereon.

4. It is furthr:r submitted that the oflrce of the District trducation officer has informed the petitioner to:rssume dutres as L:rnguage Pandit in thesameplace,i.e.,Z-P-H.S.,Gatt-'rduddenapalli,'l(arimnagarDistrict' until furthcr orders. Subsequently, after participating in thc web counseling lor transfers, she was posted at M P U P'S , Irigapur' Sharrkarapatnam. Mandal. However, her applications dated 19 '06 '2024 and2T.06.2024,forpromotiontothepostofSchoolAssistant(Telugu) remain pending before respondent No.3 Whi1e so, onc Mr' Paka Ashok' who was shown ,at SI.No.115 in the seniority list, was promotcd as School Assistant. Thus. the action of the rcspondents in promoting her juniors' while denying the petitioner's rightful promotion, in spite of undergoing web counseling and certihcate verification, is illega1, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 3 PK, J W.P.No.21608 of 2024

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner and her husbald were earlier charged in a private criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 42O and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide C.C.No.275 of 2O15. However, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar acquitted them vide order dated O3.l2.2ola, holding the petitioner and her husband are not guilty of the crimina-l charges. Thereafter, the de Jacto complainant filed a criminal appeal against the said order vide Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2O2O on the hle of the learned Family Court-cum-Iv Additiona-l District arrd Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein, the petitioner ald her husband were convicted vide judgment dated 22.08.2022. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner . arrd her husband hled an appeal beiore this Court vide Cr1.A.No.4SO of 2022, wherein, this Court, vide order d,ated 19.09.2022 rn I.A.No.2 of 2022, enlarged them on bail, on thcir executing personal bonds for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to thb satisfaction of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Accordingly, they were released on bail.

6. It is further submitted that while the things stood thus, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 14.1O.2O22, suspending the petitioner from service for her involvement in the aforesaid criminal a.=. ,ltd for brief 4 - PK, J W.P.No.216O8 of 2021 detcntion ir-r custody from 13.O9.2022 to 19.O9.2022. 'l'hereafter, .r charge memo dated l9 .lO .2022 was issued , for which,. she submitlcd hcr rvritten statcment of defense on 21.1O.2O22, asd rpquestcd reinstatclnent- Tlrereafter, on 21.11.2022, respondent No.3 issued the proceedings, reinstating thc petitioner into service and posting her tr.r 1.he samc place prior to her detention, i.e., Z.P.H.S., Gattududdenapalli, Marakondur Mandal, I(arimnagar District, pending cnquiry. It is further submitted that thc criminal ca se does not relate to the ofhcial dutics of the petilioner. Hcncc, dcnying promotion to the petitioner, wl-ro rvas shown at Sl.No.21 in the senioritl, list, rvhile promoting her juniors, including Mr. Paka Ashok, who rvas shown at SI.No.115, is not only illegal, arbitrary and vioiativc o[ principles ol natural justicc, but also tantalnount to discrimination. Thcrefore, learned counsel seeks i[dulgeoce of this Court Lo issuc neccssary dire,:tions to the respondents to consider thc case of thc petitioner for prornotion to the post of School Assistant (Telugu) on par with the candidates promoted vide proceedings dated 18.06.2024 and 2a-O7.2024. Relialce has been placed on the decision of a Division Bcnch of this Court in Gooernm.cnt oJ Andhra Pradesh qnd others u. A. Rajesuara Red.dgt. ' 2010 (3) ALD 50l 5 PK, J W.P.No.21608 of 2024

7. On O4.O8.2O25, learned counsel for the petitioner filed I.A.No. 1 of 2025, stating that respondent No.3 has issued a publication dated O2.Oa.2025, informing that the vacancies available in the post of School Assistant in Karimnagar wiil be rrlled in by ar the erigible candidates, and a provisional vacancy list of Schoor Assistants (Tcrugu) was also notified, showing (1 1) vacancies exclusively meant for the Secondary Grade Teachers, which is equivalent to the post of Language pandit. Therefore, since all the seniors and juniors of the petitioner were given promotion, she is the only eligible ca,didate rrt for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Telugu). Therefore, learned counsel once again prays this Court to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of School Assistant in any of the (1r) ava able vacancies, without reference to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide charge sheet dated 19.70.2022, which is the subject matter of Crl.A.No.45O ol 2022, pending on the file of this Court.

8. Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, while admitting that the pelitioner,s name was shorvn at Sl.No.2 1 in the seniority list, submits that all the eligible candidates were issued with promotion orders, except the petitioner herein, due to the criminal charges registered against her for the offences punishable under sections 323, 42o and 5o6 read with Section 34 of the Indiar penal code. 6 - PK, J Vl.P.No.21608 of 2024 Though she rvas; initially acquitted in the crimina,l case vide order dated

03.12.2078 in C.C.No.275 of 2015, passcd by the iearned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Ctass (Excise) at Karimnagar, in the appeal preferred by tlre de facto corrrplainant vide Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2O2O, the learned Family Court-cum-lV Additional District ald Sessions .Iudgc, Karirnnagar, found the petitioner guilty of the charges and scntenced her to undelgo imprisonment- As such, she was detained in custody from 13.09.2O22 to

79.O9.2-022. Horvcver, this Court, vide ordcr dated 19.09.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.45O of 2022, enlarged the petitioner on bai1. The said criminal appeal is pending before this Court.

9. It is further submitted that the petitioner was initially placed under suspensiorr on 14.10.2022, on account of her invoivement in criminal casc and detention in custody for more thal (48) hours. Thereafter, on considering her representation, she was reinstated into service and was postcd to Z.P.H.S., Gattududdenapaili, Malakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District, pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings and thc hnal outcome of Crl.A.No.45O of 2022, pending before this Court. Thereafter, on 19.10.2022, a Charge Memo was also issued against the petitioner, in terms of Rule 1lO of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeat) Rules, 1991, and further action is still pending. Therefore, though the pt:titioner was initially permitted to participate in thc I 1 PK, J W.P.No 21608 of 2024 promotion counseling as per her seniority, on account of pendency of disciplinary and criminal proceedings, she is not entitled lor promotion to the post of School Assistant (Telugu). Hence, her promotion ordcrs are rightly deferred. As such, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court rn A. Jalender Reddg u. Sto.te oJ Teldngana and anotheP.

10. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the respective parties. 1 1. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioncr was implicated in a criminal case registered for the offences punishable undcr Sections 42O, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, vide C.C.No.275 of 2O15, wherein, the learned Special Judicial Magislrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar, vide order dated 03.12.2O18, acquitted her, holding her not guilty of the said charges. However, in the appeal preferred by tlrte de facto complainant vide Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2O2O, the learnd Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 22.Oa.2O22, convicted the petitioner of the offcnse punishable under Section 42O of th.e Indial Penal Code, and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year, in addition to paymenl of a hne of Rs. 1O,O0O/-. Thereafter, she was detained in judicial custody from , 201,7 \41 ALD 538 \'i - 8 PK, J W.P.No.21608 of 2024

13.09.2022 Lo 79.09.2022, on which date, she was enlarged on bail, vide ordcr passcd bv this cou.t dated 19.09.202-2 in I.A.No.2 0f 2022 in Crl.A.No.4SO of 2O2?,. As a rcsulL of hcr detcntron ir_r judicial cusrody for mbre than (48) hours, she was placed under suspension on 15.1O.2022, whic,r was latr:r revoked ot 21.11.2022, reinstating her into seruice and posting her to Z.P.H.S., Gattuducldenapalli, Mandakondur Mandal, I{arintnagar Di strict. I n t}rc meantirle, she was issued with a Charge Menro vide prot:cedings Rc.No.3040/A I/2022 dated 19.10.2O22.

72. Nou,, the issue bcforc this Court is with regard to the petitioner,s entitlement for promotion to the post of Schoot Assistant (Tclugu). 13. Admitteclly, the petitioner.,s namc was shown at Sl.No.2l in the seniority list ol Languagc pandits (Telugu) issued by respondent No.3 herein. Thercafter, on the basis of the said seniority 1ist, respondent No.3 issued procecdings Rc.No.7 3s /E2 /2023 /A1 /A2_2 dated 18.06.2 o24 and 24.07.2024, effc:cting promotions of as many as (121)+(32) candidates. As can be seen frorn the list annexed to the said proceedings, the candidates who were originally shown at Sl.Nos.2O and 22 in the seniority list, i.e., imnediate senjor and junior to the petitioncr, were promoted as School Assistants (Telugu). However, the respondents have deferred the case o[ the petitioner for promotion, citing the pendency ot disciplinary and criminal proceedings. i H 9 PK, J w.P.No.21608 of 2O24

14. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner in the year 2022, vide Charge Memo dated 19.IO.2O22 issued by respondent No.3, are still pending.

15. ln A. Jalender Reddg (supra), this Court emphasized that prolonged delay in disciplinary proceedings, without any justihcation, calnot deny promotion to the candidates, if such delay is not attributable to the employee. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder: " 127. As seen from the facts in WP No. 1O45 of 2O 17, the incident relates to the year 2011 and on 29.9.2014, the covernment declined the request of the ACB to sanction to prosecute the petitioner and instead, decided to entrust the cse to the Commissioner of Inquiries. For more than two years, there is no progress in formulating the charges and the disciplinary proceedings are lingering at that stage. Oir the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending, his juniors were promoted in November, 2016. Similarly in WP No.2451 of 2077 , trre incjdent relates to the year 2Ol4 arrd the crime was registered on 12.6.2014. On 23.4.2016, the Government decided to initiate disciplinary action. Thereafter, there is no further progress. Having decided to initiate drsciplinary action, there is no justification for the Government to keep silent, not to frame the charges and conduct enquiry. Thus, in the facts of these two cases and by apptying the balancing process, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary action as expeditiousli as possible, preferably \.ithin a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A time schedule to be drawn commensurate with the procedure incorporated in ApCS (CCA) Rules, 199 1. Petitioners shall cooperate for early conclusion of the enquiry. If the petitioners do no cooperate, it is open to the disciplinary authorities to conduct ex parte enquiry and conclude the proceedings. Their entitlement for promotion shall be reviewed on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. For any reason, disciplinary proceedings are not concluded, delay not attributable to the petitioners, their entitlement for promotion may be considered in accordance with C.O. Ms. No.257 dated 10.6. 1999. Subject to above directions, Wp Nos. 1045 and 2451 of 2017 axe dismissed." 10 PK, .] W.P.No.21608 oI2024 I

16. Admittedll', in the present case, though the disciplinary proceedings werc initiated agitinst the petitioner in the year 2022, Lhcre is no progress in the mattcr lor almost three years. This prolonged delay is clearly attributablc to ttrc adminisLrative lapses but not to thc petitioner. Ilencc, this.court is of the considered view that the petitioirer', having bcen shown as eligible for promotion and also having undergone promotion counseling and ccrtihcatc verification, cannot be denied thc bcncfit of promotion to [he post of School Assistant (Telugu), solely due to the pendency of the disciplinary proccedings.

17. In thc for,:going cliscussion, this Court decms it ht and proper to direct the responderts to consider the case of the petrtioner for promotion to the posl of ficl-rool 1\ssistant (Teiu gu) stlictly in ar;cordance '"vith the orders is:;ited in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, as against the cxisting vacancies, as art<l rvhen promotions are effccted.

18. Accordingty, the Writ Petition is disposed of' Nliscellant:ous applications, if any' pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. _r- .-- //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR (q SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary School Education Department, Government of Telangana, Dr. B.R. Am6edkar Telangana Secretariat, T.S.,HYDERABAD 2. 16s Director of School Education, O/o. Director of School Education, 3. The District Educationlal Officer, Karimnagar District, Telangana State. 1 a.'^ cC to SRt. V NARASIMHA GOUD, Advocate IOPUCI Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 5 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies BM BS,w HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 R ,4 ,,, * 2 I sEP 2025 O;:,. !/ -, r,- 1., - -:-/ '-2- ORDER WP.No.21608 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4 k^*