The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAP'U RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23359 of2024 ORDER: I This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of maldamus to issue a direction to respondents to assign the date of Naib Tahsildar to the petitioner as 01.O9.20 lZ and, accordingly, promote the petitioner as Tahsildar in the ensuing promotions.

2. Heard the learned counser for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. perused the record.

3. The facts in a nutshefl are that the father of the petitioner died while working as a Police constable in the Department. petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Junior Assistant on

13.10.2005. He was promoted to Senior Assistalt on 24.1O.20Og. Petitioner passed the Revenue Test, Account Test, civil Judicial Test, CRPC and other relevant subjects to enable him to be promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar. He a,lso completed Survey Training and worked as a Revenue Inspector, as such, he is fully eligible to be promoted as Naib Tahsildar for the panel year 2017. The 3'd respondent prepared a final seniority list of Senior Assistants from 2OO7 -OB to 2OO9-|O vide proceedings in Rc.No.A1/406/2013 dated 14.08.20r8. In the said seniority iist at 2 annexure-Ill, for the year 2OO8-09, the name of the pe -itioner is shown at S1.No.!'7 at the proposed rank of 680 ancl one Sri U' Maheswara Ilao rtame is placed at s1'no'30 with the proo:sed rank

683. 3(i) It is the further case of the petitione - tlLe 't the 3'a respondent-ssutrtnoticeRc.No.A|l|578l2o1odatecl29.ol.2o2| preparing a r.entative list of qualified senior assisl-ants to the post of Naib Tahsilclars fbr the panel year 2Ol7 -lB and :orr nlrnicated, calling for r:lairr s and objections. In the list, the nrIne of the petitioner is, sh lwn at Sl.No.9, whereas the natne o[ one Sri U.Maheswara R:.o is shown at S1. No. 1 1 . The 2'a respondent issued proceedirrg in CCLAs Proceedings No Ser'II(2 ),'2166759- lV 12023, da:ed C4. 1O.2023, promoting the senior ass;istzrrts as Naib Tahsiklars for th : panel year 2Ol7 tB to 2023-24 ir:, 7-on'= IV In the said list the nam: of the petitioner is shown at S1 No'54, and against his name, tlLe date as Naib Tahsildar is assigned as 01'()9 '2O2O and the name of Sri ll Maheswara Rao is shown at Sl No 41, er-d he was shown to lrave: been assigned the date as \aitr T:lhsildar on Ol.Og.2Ol7 . Per: tioner is surprised and shocked upor seeing the proceedings date cl 04. 1O.2023, wherein suddenlv, ttre panel year of the petitiont:r is :hanged lo O1.O9.2020 while keeping th': panel year in respect ol Sri ,'. Maheswar Rao as Ol.O9.2Ol7. I J 3(ii) It is the further case of the petitioner that as stated above, he is senior to Sri U.Maheswar Rao, and he joined the service as Junior Assistant on 13.10.2005, whereas Sri. U. Maheswar Rao joined the service as Junior Assistant on 26.02.2006. petitioner oflrciated as Senior Assistant on 2l .OB.2OOB , whereas sri U.Maheswar Rao officiated as Senior Assistant on 1O. 1 1.2OO8. The date of seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant for both of them were hxed as 31.O8.2009. But all through, he was shown senior to Sri U. Maheswar Rao, but in the proceedings dated 04. 1O.2023, the assigning date of Naib Tahsildar Sri U.Maheswar Rao is assigned

01.O9.2017 whereas petitioner was assigned Ol.O9.2O2O. The same is illegal and arbitrar5i, and petitioner is put to irreparable loss and injury. In the above circumstances, petitioner filed a representation to the CCLA on 06.1O.2023, immediately requesting the 2na respondent to include his name in the panel year 2OI7-I8 and hx his name above U.Maheswar Rao and below Ch.V.Ramakrishna.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while promoting the Senior Assistants as Naib Tahsildars, the respondents have committed several irregularities. The persons who were facing disciplinary proceedings and against whom criminal cases were pending, were promoted as Naib Ta-hsildars One Sri. M. Naresh at S1.No,4 of proceedings dated 04.10.2023 was i .l 4 assigned the tlate :f Naib Tahsildar as 01'09'2O17 The Drsciplinary Case is pending a{ainst him' One Sri' K' Rajesh a't Sl'No'12 in the proceedings c,aterJ 04. lO -2023 was facing criminal procer:<lings' He was included i:-r the palel year of 2Ol7-18' assiguirg t'rr: date as O1.Og.2Ol7 . 'A/her eas when it comes to the case of the 1'etitioner' the respondents .i)tegally changed the date assigned tc thtr petitioner as 01.09.2020 inr'tead of O1'09'2017' In the above r:ircr trnstances' the Petitioner a.pproached this Court and filed W P N'>2946O of 2023. After hear tlg the matter, this Court disllost'd rrf the Writ Petition anc pessed orders dated 19'IO'2oil'3' dirr:r:ting the Respondents to ( onsider and dispose of the represr:ntation of the Petitioner dated (16. lo.2o23 within a period of four rveel':s from the date of receirt of this order. But, the respondent, havinS received the copy of the o -der, has not so far disposed of the rep rr:sentation of the Petitio nerr c ated 06 .lO .2023 ' 4(i)L-^arn:dCounselforthepetitionerfurthersrrllmitsthat while the lna 'ter stood thus, the 2",] res;porrd ent vide Ref.No.Ser.li (1) ltt6751 12024, dated 12'O8'2o2'+' :-eqr:'esting the District collecto..s in the State to send the Annual r')'rnfidentia'l Reports of llaib lahsildhars of 2o|7-2o|8, for precedilrll 03 years and a,lso a I st ol disciplinary cases along with relevrlnt documents' The said procee lings are issued to effect promotions [o the Naib 5 /-\ Tahsildhars of the 2OI7 and. 2018 panets. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 13.10.20O5, ald promoted as Senior Assistant on 24.1O.2OO8. In the final seniority list of Senior Assistants for the years from 2OOT 2OO8 to 2OO9-2O|O, the name of the Petitioner is shown for the year 2OOB-2009 seniority list at S1.No.27. In the tentative seniority list of qualifred Senior Assistants, which was prepared on 29.10.2O2I, Petitioner,s name is shown at S1.No.9. But surprisingly, in the hnal seniority list prepared on 04. lO -2023 the name of the Petitioner is shown at S1.No.54, and his name is shown in the date assigned as Naib Tahsildar for the panel year OI.O9.2O2O instead of Ol.O9.2OlZ. There is no reason to show the name of the Petitioner for the 2O2O panel year. 4(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the present Writ Petition carne up for admission before this on 2O.O8.2O24, on 21.08.2024, the 2"d respondent communicated the proceedings dated 25.11.2023 to the petitioner considering the representation dated 06 .1O.2O23. In the said proceedings, it was stated that, as per the seniority list furnished by District Collector, Khammam, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on adhoc basis on O9.10.2OO8- Whereas he qualified for the Accounts Test on 2O.O8.2OO9, and his services were regularised in the cadre 6 t of Senior Assrst rnt from 20.08.2009. As per th': s':rriority list furnished by Drr strict Collector, Bhadradri Kothap;uderr, Sri' U' Ma-heshwar Rao tvas promoted as Senior Assistant ln ixlhoc basis on 20.1O.2Cr08. and he has qua1ifie6 1o1 ficcounts 'T't:st/Survey Training/ recluisrt e' tests on 07 .O7 .2009, and hence his seniority in the Senior l\ssis:ant Cadre is fixed from 07 .O7 '2OO9 llo reasons are given fot hor, sri U. Maheshwar Rao is shou''n ir: thc panel year of 2Ol7 20I 8. v'hereas petitioner is shown in the Pzir el year of

01.o9.2020. 4(iii) LeeLrn:d counsel for the petitioner furtht:r srrbmits that the panel year ;tarts from 1"t September. Even a'.:cot ding to the respondents. Sr. U. Maheshwar Rao and Petitioner have qualified and passecl tl-r: tests before the 1"t Septembe:' ol' the year' Therefore, shot'ing the name of Sri U.Maheshu'trr Rao n the panel year of 01.()9.:]t 17 and showing the name of tl-re ['etitic'ner in the panel year of t)1 .O9 .2020 is nothing but illega1, ar bitrary and discriminato{". "he grievance of the petitioner is that I'rt' .s senior to Sri U. Maheshu';rr Rao in the cadre of Junior Assistant rti well as in the cadre of Se tior Assistant, and both have pass'ecl the relevant tests before the I "t September of the year. Therefor':, tlrt: petitioner should also be shown for the panel year, or the Petit ion,rt' should be 7 assigned the date as Naib Tahsildhar, effective from O1.O9.2O17 but not as 01.09.2020

5. Respondents filed a counter by admitting that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Junior Assistant on

13.10.2005. Sri U. Maheswara Rao was appointed as Junior Assistant and joined the service on 26.07.2006. It is a fact that the petitioner was promoted to Senior Assistant on ad-hoc basis and joined on24.10.2008. Whereas, Sri U. Maheswara Rao officiated as Senior Assistant on 10. 1 1.2008. For promotion as Naib Tahsildar from the post of Senior Assistant, the passing of Account Test Part- 1, Maintenance Test are compulsory. The petitioner passed the Account Test on 2O.O8.2OO9; thus, his services were regularized in the Senior Assistalt cadre from 2O.O8.2OO9. Whereas Sri U. Maheswara Rao passed the Account Test Part-l, which was held on O7-O2-2OOB and passed on 07.O7.2OO9 as per the result published, and his serrriceS were regularized in Senior Assistant Cadre from

07.O7.2OO9. The District Collector, Khammam, has issued a notice in Rc.No. Al 1157812O10, Dated 29.1O.2021, preparing the tentative list of qualified Senior Assistalt to the post of the Naib Tahsildar for the parrel year 2Ol7 -18 ald called for objections. But during the preparation of the Naib Tahsildar panel for the year 2Ol7-18 to 2023-24 in Zone-lY, the Seniority list of Senior Assistants for 8 promotion t r th.r : cadre of Naib Tahsildar was J)reFrare d by taking t into consideraticn of the passing of Account Test F'art- 1, u,hich is mandatory lor l,romotion. Since the petitioner Sri T. ](arunakar Reddy has passr:d the qualihed Accounts test cn 20-03 2009 and thus the ser-\,r,ce ; have been regularised in Senror .\ss j s -ant cadre i.e, from 20.08.r 009, whereas Sri. U. Maheswa::a Fiao has passed the Accounts terst on 07.O7.2OO9 his services have been r egularized in Senior Assistant cadre i.e, frorn 07.O7.2OO9. As :;uclr, the name of Sri U. Mzr reshu,ar Rao Senior Assistant of Bhadradri Kothaguderr Dis -rict, stands at S1.No.52, and whereas r he name of the petition :r Sri T. Karunakar Reddy, Senior l,.s sistant of Khammam l)isr-r ct, stands at Sl.No. 57 vide CCLA'r; lJ () note No. Ser.lv(1)/ 167 2C23, dated 19.09.2023. 5(i) F:espc ndents further pleaded that L,ase,l on the integrated s,:niority list of Senior Assistants of ',7,on '= lY , the Zonal Seniority lis-.,r'ei,; prepared for promoting the Sr:nior A,isristants to the cadre of Naib Tahsildars for the panel year 2017 18 tt 2023-24 and approvecl ,rde CCLA's Proceeding No. Ser II(2 17 2166759- IV 12023, daled ( 4.1O.2023, in which the petitioner'r; n€inre i.e., Sri T. Karunakar ReCdy is at S1.No.54 and assigned the d,,rle as Naib Tahsildar on 0l-.{)9-2020 and the name of Sri U. Mahes.' r,irra Rao is at S1.No.44 emc assigned the date as Naib l'ahsilrlrr as on I I l

7.. 9

01.09 .2017 as per their turn and eligibility. As such, the date assigned as Naib rahs dar by taking into account of t].e Zonal Seniority List, the petitioner comes to the panel year 2O2O_21, and. Sri U. Maheswara Rao comes to the panel year 2Ol7_lg. As such, the preparation of the Naib rahsildar panel for the years 2017-rg to 2023-24 is done duly following the procedure only. s(ii) Respondents further pleaded that the persons facing disciplinary proceedings and Criminal proceedings were promoted as Naib Tahsildar is incorrect. With regard to Sri M. Naresh, Naib Tahsildar, whose name was included at Sl.No.B in the Naib Tahsildar panel for the year 2or7 rB was issued Article of charges vide Collector, Khammam, proceedings Dated 23.Og.2O13, on the allegation that, with malalide intension by utilizing the provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 01.11.2022. The case was pending at the time of approval of the Naib Tahsildar panel. Further, the DPC has approved the Tahsildar panel year for 2023-24 vide CCLA's proceedings No. Ser.II/26ZSZSI/2024, Dated

31.08.2024 in which the name of Sri M.Naresh, Naib Tahsildar, was at Sl.No.34 and as per recommendation of DpC his name was "DEFERRED" due to the pendency of disciplinar5r proceedings against him. Now, the disciplinary case pending against Sri M.Naresh, Naib Tahsildar, has been dropped vide CCLA's l0 Proceedings No VS-I-II(II/276987O12024, Dated C5.'i\.2024, on + further action ( r.er the article of charges isstted by t ee District Collector, l(hanrmam, vide Proceedings No.A/ 47612021., Dated t3.o9.2024 5(ii) lRe sp rndents further pleaded that rhe Na b Tahsildar panels for tne panel years frorn 2Ol7-18 tcl 202.3,-'.2024 were prepared arrd al,proved based on the Zonal Seniorily List of Senior Assistants comnrunicated wide CCLA's Ref. No. Ser IV(1 /167 12023, Dated 16.0!).110! 3 in which the name of Sri U. lVlaheswiLra Rao, Ad- hoc Naib Tahsilc ar. stands at Sl.No.52 (his servi<:es ,vert, :egu.larized in Senior Assistrnt Cadre from 07.OT.2OO9l ald was :,.s signed the date as Naib 'Ll}Lsildar on O1.09.2017. And whereas the rLame of Sri T. Karunakar Re ddy, Adhoc Naib Tahsildar, stands at Si. No. 57 (his servlces were regularized in Senior Assistan: ( )zLdre from OI.O9.2O2O) an,l rvas assigned the date Naib Tahsrllar as on Ol .O9 .2O2O . He nce, the petitioner was assiqnerl t]-r: date of Ol .O9.2O2O as N aib Tahsildar is in accordance rvith 1ar'.. In view of the above, there is no allegation or irregularity comnrittrrd to issuing the order deLtecl 15.17.2023, including drawing pare[s. \:cordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. The adrritted facts are that petitioner \('as r1I)F,ointed on compassron,lte grounds as Junior Assistant on 13.1C.!;Cr05. Sri U 1t Maheswara Rao was appointed as Junior Assistant and joined the service on 26.07 .20O6. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on adhoc basis and joined on 24.LC.2OOB. Whereas, Sri U. Maheswara Rao officiated as Senior Assistant on 10.1 1.2008. For promotion as Naib Tahsildar from the post of Senior Assistant, passing the Account Test Part- 1 , and Maintenance Test is compulsory. The petitioner passed the Account Test on 20.O8.2OO9, arrd thus, his services were regularrzed in the Senior Assistant cadre from 20,08.2009. Sri U. Maheswara Rao passed the Account Test Part-l, which was held on 07.O2.2OO8 and passed on O7.O7.2OO9, as per the published result, his services were reguiarized in Senior Assistant Cadre from 07 .O7 .2OO9 . The date of seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant for both of them were fixed as 31.O8.2OO9. But all through the petitioner was shown as senior to Sri U. Maheswar Rao, but in the proceedings dated 04.1O.2023, while assigning date of Naib Tahsildqr, Sri U. Maheswar Rao is assigned Ol-Og.2Ol7 whereas petitioner was assigne d Ol .O9 .2020. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner is shown senior to Sri U. Maheswara Rao till the publication of results. When the departmental examination is common, and results are declared commonly, why should there be a difference in the regularrzatioo of service as Senior Assistants. The respondents failed to convince this Court as to why ; I I i i t2 the petitiorer':i services were regularized rn the ilen or Assistarrt cadre from 12(1 .18.2009 and as to why Sri U. Mahe swara Rao,s services u,ere regularized in Senior Assistant cad:t: from on 07 .O7 .2OO9 *'h r.n the departmental test is condu<:ted lbr all in a particular rtclrt, t, and results are declared on a ltarticulil: date. 7 . It is :tor tmon knowledge that deparlmental tests are conducted :omrronly for all the employees on a specrf c day and results are decliLred on a particular day. Here, as per the counter affidavit, Sri Ll. Maheswara Rao passed the A<;cotLnt l:st part_ 1 which was trelcl ,n 07.o2.2oo8 and passed on 07 .o7 .2oc9 as per the result publisher I ald his services were reqrrlarized in Senior Assistant czrdre flrom oz.or .2oog. whereas, the petitio..e r allegedry passed the Ac,::c ltnt Test on 2O.O8.2O09, thus, his sr,r,rices were regularized n []re senior Assistant cadre from 2o.og]2(t(tg. As far as the conducting of the examination in respect of ther .rt:titioner is concerned, ,o :lirte has been mentioned, whereas irr resltect of Sri U. Mahesu.ara Fi to is concerned, it is stated that the A,:c:ount Test Part- 1 r,r'as L eld ,, 07 .o2.2oo8. why is the date of e,x:rr.rination for the petitioner no mentioned? As per the counter, both are passed within a gap of cne month and thirteen days. Why thii; difference was shown, is no mentioned. I t3 B. Further, as per the petitioner, the 3'd respondent issued notice Rc.No.A1/ 1578/2O1O dated 29.01.2021, prepating a tentative list of qualified senior assistants to the post of Naib Tahsildars for the panel year 2Ol7-18 and communicating, calling for claims ald objections. In the said list, the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.9, and whereas the name of one Sri U. Maheswara Rao is shou.n at Sl.No.1 1. g. As per the respondents, based on the integrated seniority list of Senior Assistants of Zone-IY , tJte Zonaf Seniority list was prepared for promoting the Senior Assistants to the cadre ol Naib Tahsildars for the panel year 2Ol7-la b 2023-24 and approved vide CCLA's Proceeding No- Ser.Il(21121,66759 IV 12023, Dated O4.1O.2O23, in which the petitioner's name i.e., Sri T. Karunakar Reddy, is at SI.No.54, and assigned the date Naib Tahsildar on Ol.Og.2O2O. The name of Sri U. Maheswara rao is at Sl.No'44 and assigned the datd as Naib Tahsildar as on 01 O9-2O17 as per their turn and eligibility. As such, the date assigned as Naib Tahsildar by taking into account the ZonaT Seniority List, the petitioner comes to the parel year 2O2O-21, and Sri U. Maheswara Rao comes to the panel year 2O|7-IB. They have not mentioned any reasons as to how Sri U. Maheswara Rao is shown at S1.No.44, and the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.54. Just because there is a difference in passing I I t4 of the Accc unt Test Part- 1 , it does not warrant zLlter a[ion of the seniority lir;t [rr:r:ause the examination is condur:ted ior all the \ departmental p:rsonnel particular date, and r esuits are declared on a r>articular day.

10. In th: r:i r:umstances stated supra, the r:sporLdents directed to re < onsider the case of the petitioner a,rrl pass an appropriate detziled order in accordance with law wittrirr a period of (08) eight weerl..s from the date of receipt of a copv of t.h..s order arld communicate th : same to the petitioner. 1 1 . With -he rbove direction, this Writ Petition is lisposed of. There shall be n'r order as to costs. Miscellane,rus applications, if any pending. shal. also stand closed. //TRUE COPY/I SD/.N. SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR Dq .. SE(::ItON OFFTCER \\ \ The Prircipal Secretary, Revenue Depa(ment, Secretarittt, H/cerabad, State of Telanganer The Chi if Co nmissioner of Land Administration, Telange na S;t.(e, Hyderak,ad The Dislrict C :llector and Maqistrate, Khammam, Khamntam lJ strict. One CC tc, SFII RAIT,4A RAO KILARU, AdVOCAtE [OPUC] Two CCs 1o C P FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State oi'--elangana, at Hyderah,ad [)UT] Two CD CoP,i :s To 1 2 J 4 t) PSK. GJP I HIGH COUR'I- DATED:1ilA812025 ORDER WP.No.2li35!) of 2024 , CC TODAY ()r' iilE S Te .) () :l , iiN 2025 7ri -9a -:,1:i DISPOSING fF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CoSTS @brid ge-- tp\6\il