Writ Petition No. 24319 of 2023 · The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1't respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioners for grant of Notional Promotion and seniority in the category of Senior Assistants on par with their batch mates, recruited as VROs 2014 batch vide Proceedings No. Ser. lV(1)/273889812024 Dt:23-12-2024 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 16 of constitution of lndia and consequently, set aside the impugned proceedings and further direct the respondents to grant notional promotion and seniority to the petitiondrs in the cadre of Senior Assistants on par with their batchmates, as per their seniority in strictly according with rules, with all service and monetary benefits. (Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated O2.O7.2025 vide l.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.24319 of 2023) lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 the case of the Petitioner, for granting notional promotion and seniority in the category of Senior Assistants on par with their batch-mates, recruited through APPSC as per the rankings assigned by the pSC, as per Rule 33(b) of TS SSS Rules, 1996, by considering their Representation dt. 23.08.2023, before affecting promotions to the post of Dy. Tahsildars pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. N. SAMEENA FOR SRI POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - | CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1673 OF 2024 Petition filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to summon the respondent herein and punish him for willful violation and intentional deliberation of the clear, categorical and mandatory orders passed by this Hon'ble Coud dated 01.O9.2023 in W.P No. 24319 o'( 2023. Between:

1. M. Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o M. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Senior Assistant, Collectorate, Vikarabad District, Rl/o H.No.1-37, Ramreddypally village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District.

2. Rajukallem, S/o K. Yadhi Reddy, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Revenue lnspector, Kadthal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Rl/o H.No.9-4-18, Champapet, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District.

3. S.Ram Reddy, S/o Hanmanth Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Senior Assistant, Collectorate, Vikarabad District, Rl/o H.No.2-46, Peelaram, Vikarabad Mandal and District.

4. D. Mony Babu, S/o Balaswamy, Occ: Senior Assistant, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, Rl/o H.No.14-107, Srinivas Nagar colony, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad.

5. Giridhar Gopal, S/o Bheemsen Rao, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Senior Assistant, Collectorale, Hyderabad District, Ryo H.No.6-B-68/1 , Gandhinagar, Tand ur, Vikarabad District.

6. E Satish Reddy, S/o Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Mandal Revenue Inspector, Doma mandal, Vikarabad District, R!/o. H.No.4-2-967, Vikarabad Mdl and District.

7. O Lingam Goud, S/o Laxmaiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Senior Assistant, Kotepally Mandal, Vikarabad District, Rl/o Chowdaryaguda Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mdl, Ranga Reddy District.

8. K Yadilal, S/o Ramulu, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Mandal Revenue lnspector, Zaheerabad Mandal, Sangareddy District, Rl/o H.No.3-13, Mansoorabad, Saroornagar Mdl, Ranga Reddy District.

9. Nallola Raju, S/o Shankariah, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Senior Assistant, Collectorate, Hyderabad District, Rl/o H.No.1-5, Mahalingapuram Vil, Shankarpally Mdl, Ranga Reddy District. l0.Vaditya Mohan, S/o Pedda Subya, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Senior Assistant, IMaredpally Mandal, Hyderabad District, Rl,/o KulkacherlatVldl, Vikarabad District. 1 1 . Vijaya Bhaskar, S/o Lazarus, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Senior Assistant, Collectorate, Hyderabad District, Fi/o H.No.30-212, Saibabanagar, Suraram, Quthbullapur, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND Sri Naveen Mittal, S/o lVl.L. Mittal, aged about 51 years, The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. Hyderabad, Telangana. ...RESPONDENT Counsel forthe Petitioners: Ms. SAMAN AAFREEN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - I The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE TIONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHA\A DEVI WRIT PETITION NO.24319 OF 2023 AND CONTEMPT CASE NO.1673 OF 2024 COMMON ORDER In W.P.No.24319 of 2023, the petitioners are challenging the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioners for notional promotion and seniority in the category of Senior Assistants on par with their batch-mates recruited as Village Revenue Officers (2014- Batch) through APPSC, vid e P roceedings No.Ser.IV(1)127 38898 12024 dt.23.12.2024, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to grant notional promotion and seniority in the category of Senior Assistants on par with their batch-mates as per their seniority in accordance with rules with all service and consequential monetary benefits and to pass such other order or orders

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioners were appointed as Village Revenue Officers in the year 2014 through APPSC (Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission) after due process of selection in Ranga Reddy District. W.P.No.243 l9l2023 & C.C.No.167312024 2 Subsequently, they were promoted to the post of Senior Assistants on

04.11.2019 and are working as such till date. It is submitted that in the year 2016, when the petitioners were working as Village Revenue Officers due to reorganization of Districts and bifurcation of Mandals, all the Village Revenue Officers of Ranga Reddy District selected in the year 2014 were allotted to Ranga Reddy, Medchal, Vikarabad and Mahaboobnagar Districts and accordingly the petitioners were allotted to various Districts and are working as such. In the meantime, vide G.O.Ms.No.92, General Administration (SPF-MC) Depaftment, dt.21 .03.2011 , al1 the District Heads of the erstwhile Districts were appointed as Nodal Officers to look after the service matters in respect of the employees of that Department working in the nerv Districts after reorganization until final allocation of the employees is made Therefore, according to the petitioners, their seniority and other aspects of their service are to be considered under the erstwhile District of Ranga Reddy and the Nodal Officer of the erstwhile District ought to have followed the seniority list for sending the eligible Village Revenue Officers of the erstwhile District for Survey Training which is mandatory for promotion as Senior Assistant. It is stated that some of the juniors to the petitioners in the seniority list who were allotted to W.P.No.243 l912023 & C.C.No.16'1 3 12024 3 other Districts, were sent for Survey training ignoring the petitioners' seniorify. The petitioners immediately made representations. However, there was no response from the respondents and the juniors who completed the training were given promotion from the date of training and the petitioners were sent for six months training later and were promoted to the post of Senior Assistants on 04.1 | .2019. Consequently, the petitioners became juniors to their batch-mates who were ranked below the petitioners in the seniority list in the cadre of Village Revenue Officers. In view thereof, the petitioners made several representations, the latest being dated 23.08.2023, seeking notional promotion and seniority in the category of Senior Assistants on par with their batch- mates, but they did not consider their request and they were proceeding with further promotions to the posts of Deputy Tahsildars without considering the request of the petitioners for notional promotion. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to f,rle the present Writ Petition.

3. This Court, vide orders dt.01.09.2023, had directed the respondents to take the representation of the petitioners into consideration and if acceptable, to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Depufy Tahsildar. However, the respondents did not W.P.No.243 l912023 & C.C.No.l 67 3 12024 4 consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and therefore, Contempt Case in C.C.No.1673 of 2024 bas been filed and in the meantime, the respondents also filed a stay vacate petition in I.A.No.1 of 2025. Therefore, both the Contempt Case as well as the Writ Petition including the stay vacate petition have been posted together for hearing

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the submissions made in tlie writ affidavit and submitted that there are tluee tests that are to be passed for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as prescribed under Rule I 1(b) of the Telangana Ministerial Service Rules, 1998, i.e., (1) Revenue Tests Part I, II and III; (2) Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I; and (3) Successful completion of Revenue Survey Training for six weeks. It is submitted that the petitioners have passed the first two tests, i.e., Revenue as well as Account Tests, and were awaiting the initiation of Survey Training programme. It is submitted that in the meantime, due to bifurcation of Districts, the petitioners were posted at different places and without considering the erstwhile District seniority, the .iuniors to the petitioners have been sent on training Leamed counsel for the petitioners has referred to G.O.Ms.No.92 dt.27 .03.2017 , wherein p.rras 4 and 5 are as follows: W.P.No.24319/2023 & C.C.No.1673/2024 "4. Government after careful examindtion of the matter, to avoid the hardships of the employees, hereby appoint all the District Heads of erstwhile districts as 'Nodal Officers' to look after the service matters in respect of the employees of that Department working in the new districts after re-organisation for the timc bi,eing, untit final allocation of employees is made, as the seryice particulars of all those employees remain with them.

5. All the Departments of Secretariat are requested to follow the above iwtructions scrupulously and issue fttrther Circular instructions to HoDs and Unit Olfices accordingly under intimation to this Department, Finance and Law Departments." It is submitted that in accordance with the said G.O., the respondents ought to have maintained seniority of the petitioners while sending the Village Revenue Officers for training. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the representation made by the petitioners dt.08.l1.20i8 to send the petitioners also for training. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the representation of the petitioners dt.23.08.2023 for notional promotion and seniority from the date on which the batch- mates and juniors of the petitioners have been promoted. He placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati in the case of Shaik Ahmmad Vs. State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School W.P.No.243 l9l2021 & C.C.No.1673/2024 6 Education Department and othersl, wherein it was held that right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right. The Division Bench had relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla Vs. Arvind Rai2 and alio in the case of Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab3, to hold that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her fundamental right. The Division Bench thereafter has directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner therein for promotion to the post of Head Master, Grade-II, in accordance with law, after granting him notional promotion and seniority with effect from the date on which his juniors were granted such promotion.

5. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the combined Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State of A.P. and another Vs. C. Srinivasulu Reddya, wherein it was held that where a person was not considered for promotion at the time he should have been I zozt py *r st (DB) (AP) 2 lzozzy tz. scc sto I lreeey z scc zoe n zool (s) elo ogz (os) W.P.No.2431912023 & C.C.No.1673/2024 7 considered, for any reason whatsoever, then he is entitled for notional promotion and seniority.

6. Leamed Government Pleader for Services-I, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made by the respondents in the counter affidavit and submitted that as per Rule 11(b) of the Telangana Ministerial Service Rules, 1998, no person shall be eligible for promotion or appointment by transfer to the posts mentioned in Annexure II unless he has passed such test or acquired such qualihcations as are prescribed in the said Annexure. He submitted that Annexure II of Telangana Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 also prescribes that successful completion of Revenue Survey Training for six weeks is mandatory for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. He submitted that the batch-mates of the petitioners who have completed the training only were promoted as Senior Assistants on 17.06.2019 and the petitioners were promoted on 04.11.2019 on completion of the required tests. It is submitted that the appeal petition filed by the petitioners on 11.09.2024 and their representation dt.23.08.2023 were examined by the respondents and rejected vide proceedings dt.23.12.2024. The learned Government Pleader also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of P. Pavani and others Vs. W.P.No.243 19/2023 & C.C.No.l673/2024 8 The Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana, Hyderabad and otherss on the very same issue which has been decided against the petitioners therein. He further submitted thal the petitioners have filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.18597 of 2025 against the speaking order dt.23.12.2024 and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek the same relief in this Writ Petition as wel1.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that since the representation of the petitioners was rejected, the petitioners were constrained to hle Writ Petition No.18597 of 2025 and that they are willing to withdraw the same provided this Writ Petition is disposed of on ments

8. As regards the Contempt Case, the respondents have relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that the request of the petitioners has been considered and rejected vide orders dt.23.12.2024 and therefore, there is compliance with the directions of this Court and the Contempt Case has to be closed. 5 W.P.Nos.28O40 of 2O23 alld 2'7064 a ,28764 of 2024 dt.02.05.2025 t W.P.No.243 19/2023 & C.C.No.16'7312024 9

9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioners were appointed as Village Revenue Officers along with others who have been promoted on 17.06.2019 as Senior Assistants and the petitioners are admittedly seniors in the rank of Village Revenue Offrcers. It is also an admitted fact that due to bifurcation of Districts in the year 2016, tlne petitioners have been provisionally allotted to various Districts and pending final allocation, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.92 dt.27.03.2017, their seniority was to be considered in the erstwhile Districts and the District Heads of the erstwhile Districts were appointed as Nodal Officers to look after the seryice matters until final allocation of the employees is made. Admittedly, final allocation of these petitioners as well as their juniors was not made in the year 2018-19. In those circumstances, the Nodal Officers ought to have sent the Village Revenue Officers for training in the order of their seniority and instead, have sent some of the juniors of the petitioners for training. The petitioners have also made representations to consider their case for training, but it is stated that due to election code they were not sent for training and thereafter, the petitioners' representations were considered and were sent to training subsequently and on completion of the training, they were also , ! I W.P.No.24319l2023 & C.C.No.16'13/2024 10 promoted with effect from 04. 1 1 .2019. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners have passed the first two tests and the third requirement is to be satisfied, i.e., Revenue Survey Training for six weeks and it can only be at the behest of or initiation by the responilent authorities. The petitioners cannot, on their own, complete the training. In such circumstances, when it is not under the control of the petitioners to undergo and complete the training, the burden shifts to the respondents to demonstrate that they have followed the seniority tbr sending certain employees for training and not sending the petitioners herein. In the case before a Single Judge of this Coufi in the case of P. Pavani and others Vs. The Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana, Hyderabad and others (5 supra), this Court has considered the petitioners therein who had not made representations within time by raising objections to the juniors being sent on training and has dismissed their request for notional seniority and promotions.

10. But, the leamed counsel for the petitioners herein has demonstrated before this Court that except for one or two, all the other petitioners have made representations to the authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay on their part in raising the I i I l i W.P.No.243 I 9/2023 k C.C.No.t 67 3 t2024 t1 objection or making a request. Even otherwise, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to send the petitioners and others, i.e., Village Revenue officers in the order of their seniority for training unless the petitioners did not pass the first two tests in Annexure-Il orth" ulolsterial Service Rules. For the action of the respondents of not sending the petitioners who are seniors for training, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer.

11. Though the learned Govemment pleader has reiterated that unless and until the petitioners possess necessary qualification, they cannot be promoted, this court finds that in the case of p. pavani and others vs. The secretary to Chiet commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana, Hyderabad and others (5 supra), the respondents therein had promoted the petitioners therein and granted ad hoc promotion to the petitioners therein subject to the condition of their possessing the necessary qualification. In this case also, the petitioners could have been granted ad hoc promotion subject to their completing the training programme, but the respondents have failed to fulfil their part ofduty.

12. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to grant notional promotion to the petitioners and also W.P.No.243 l912023 & C.C.No.1673/2O24 t2 seniority on par with their juniors who were promoted oL 17.06.2019 and the petitioners shall also be eligible for consequential benefits including monetary benefits from the date on which their juniors have been promoted.

13. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the vacancies that have arisen prior to the promotion of their juniors as Senior Assistants and consider their notional promotion as well with all consequential benefits. Three (3) months time is granted to the respondents to pass consequential orders from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14. Further, this Court is satisfied that the respondent/contemnor has not complied with the interim orders dt.01.09.2023 of this Court in true letter and spirit and therefore, he is liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1911. However, he is given further chance to comply with the order of this Court passed now in the main Writ Petition, which is similar to the interim orders dt.01.09.2023, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the respondent/contemnor fails to comply with the said I I i W.P.No.24319 12023 & C.C.No.t 673 /2024 13 directions of this court, he shall undergo civil imprisonment for a period of two (2) months and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/_ (Rupees two thousand) and if he fails to make the payment of fine amount of Rs.2.000/-, he shall undergo simple imprisorunenr ror a further period of ten (10) days. The Contempt Case is accordingly allowed.

15. In the result, (i) The Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the vacancies that have arisen prior to the promotion of their juniors as Senior Assistants and consider their notional promotion as well with all consequential benefits. Three (3) months time is granted to the respondents to pass consequential orders from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. (ii) The respondents are given further opportunity to comply with the order of this Court in the main Writ petition passed today within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt ofa copy ofthis order. W.P.No.2431912023 & C.C.No.1673/2024 t4 (iiD In case of non-compliance of the said orders within the above said period, the respondent/contemnor in the Contempt Case is sentenced to undergo detention in civil prison for a period of two (02) months and shall pay a fl1ne of Rs.2,000i- (Rupees two thousand) and in default of payment of the fine amount, the respondent/contemnor shall undergo detention in civil prison for a further period of ten (10) days, for the contempt of Courl committed on account of non-compliance with the interim order of this Couft d1.01.09.2023 which is similar to the directions of this Court in the main Writ Petition. He shall be entitled to subsistence allowance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) per day in accordance with Rule 32(1) of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980 framed by the High Court for the State ofTelangana under the Act of 1971 during the period of his detention which shall be bome by the State. (iv) The Contempt Case is accordingly disposed of. (v) I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.243 19 of 2023 is dismissed. I I '' l \ / To, W.P.No.243l912023 & C.C.No.1673/2024 15 (ui) The petitioners shall withdraw W.P.No.18597 of 2025 forthwith.

16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, iu both these matters shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD EPUry REGIS SECTION OFFICER 'I . The Chief Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, 2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., State of Telangana, Secretariat, 3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy. 4. The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District. 5. The District Collector, Vikarabad District. 6. The District Collector, Sangareddy District. 7. Sri Naveen [Vliftal. S/o. M.L. Mittal, aged about 51 years, The Chief Commissioner of Land AdminGtraiicji,'nv?liiufri"tuns"n, B. One CC to SRt POODATTU AMARENDER, Advocate tOpUCl 9' Two ccs to Gp for Services-r, High court for the state.of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUTJ

10. One CC to Ms. SAMAN AAFREEN, Advocate tOpUCl 1'l .Two CD Copies MP BS t t HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 \a 1H€ S I.q ,6 o U o 1 0 5 rlJE 2s25 ) o COMMON ORDER WP.No.24319 of 2023 & GC.No.1673 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION & DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS