1. J.Swarna Latha v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 extend interim orderr; granted on 13.09.2023 in WP.No. 25487 of 2023 and make it absolute till the final disposal of the matter. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI T.PRADEEP Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR SERVICES -l The Court made the following ORDER , D HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Dated : 11.12.2025 Between J. Swarna Latha & 5 others AND ... . Petitioners The State of Telangana reP. bY its Principal Secretary Education Department, Secretariat, HYderabad & 2 others .. ResPondents ORDER: Heard sri. T. Pradeep, tearned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. praver as under: "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of Mandamus, declaring the respondents action in not considering the petitioners for prornotion to the post of Junior Assistant (under compassionate grounds) as a in- service candidates of record assistant by taking seniority ltliiiii ii,'rl;l ':i:,i i i I 2 SN, J wP 25487 2023 list from 1999 as iilegar and arbitrary. consequentry, to direct the respondents to reserve 6 vacancies of Junior Assistant post(under compassionate grounds) for in service candidate as Record Assistant working since 1999 as per the seniority in the 3rd respondent control, lrending disposal of the writ petition and pass...,,. R retiti@ 'rhe petitioners had been appointed as office suborrlinates/ Record Assistants on compassionate grounds betwet:n 1999 and 2010. The petitioners had their services regularized from the dates of appointment and have been workin,J continuously with satisfactory service records. In the Khammam District Educationar Department, 113 Junior Assistart posts were sanctioned, with 42 filled and 7L vacant. The petitioners, who had passed Intermediate prior to 20L4, became eligible for promotion to Junior Assistant under G.O.Ms,No.135 dated L2.o5.20L4. However, despite their eligibility, ro seniority list was prepared for office subordirrates since 2015, and petitioners were not considered "4 - .1t! I n 3 SN, J wP 2s487 2023 for promotion, despite having over ten years of service and the necessary qualifications. Further, the 1't respondent decided to fill Junior Assistant posts under compassionate grounds by upgrading office Subordinate vacancies on a supernumery basis to accommodate new compassionate appointees. Following G.o.Ms.No.79 dated 20.07.2023, the 2nd respondent issued allotment orders to new candidates and directed the 3.d respondent to issue posting orders as Junior Assisants, ignoring the petitioners' seniority, service, and eligibility. This resulted in the denial of promotion to the petitioners while new candidates were appointed to the vacant posts. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had fired the present writ petition.

4. extracted hereunder: "5. I submit that, the petitioners further stated that, they were appointed as office Subordinate/Record Assistant under compassionate grounds in between lggg to 2010 and they were 4 SN. J wP 25487 2023 posted in their respective places and till date they all are working in their rr:spective places as mentioned in the cause title, and all the petitioners services were regularized in their respective date of appoinl:ments. since, their appointments they are all discharging their dr.rties with utmost satisfaction of their superiors. There are total nrrmber of 113 Junior Assistant working and remaining 71 &parr. Ir this context, the following facts are brought to the notice of the authority that, the petitioners herein are eligible for promotion to the post of lunior Assistant, but due to non- availabirity of Junior Assistant posts in the district no promotions have belen issued to the individuals so far. The cadre strength particulars of Junior Assistant are as shown below. sl. No. 01 02 Total No. of Junior Assistant pc'sts sanctioned Working vacant Remarks 32 01 33 32 01 33 00 00 00 Regular posts Samagra Siksha I s;ubmit that, the above candidates have been appointed as office subordinates in School Education department and promoted as Record Assistants. The seniority list had been prepared and communicated to all the employees by this office vide Procs.43!ialA3lEsttl2oz2, dt.Ls/0712022 as for the expected promotions to the above said eligible employees as Junior Assistants;. But there is no Junior Assistant posts are available to issue prornotions to the said employees. I srrbmit that, the Government vide G.o.Ms.No.79 Finance (HRM-I) E)epartment, Dt.20.07.2023, has accorded sanction for up i :?) 5 wp-zso,z-?Uii gradation of L266 vacant posts of Office Subordinates as Junior Assistants on Supernumerary basis in all the districts in the state Government of which (32) are allotted to Khammam district for the purpose of Compassionate appointments in the district, with the condition that these Supernumerary posts shall be lapse as and when regular vacancies arise in the concerned department in the district in future. It is relevant to submit that, all the petitioners herein were appointed as Class-IV employees more than 15 years back against vacancies available at that point of time. later on promoted as Record Assistants around 08 years back. In those circumstances at this distance of time they can't take shelter of orders of Govt. of Telangana issued vide G.o.Ms.No.7g Finance (HRM-I) Dept. Dt. 20.07.2023 which is issued in different circumstances and to which sought by the petitioners is unsustainable in the eye of law and devoid of merits. Therefore the very Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed rn /imine in the lnterest of Justice".

5. (i) The petitioners were appointed as Office Subordinates/Record Assistants under compassionate grounds between 1999 and 2010 and they had been posted to their respective places. The petitioners are working in their respective places as on date. <. .t 6 SN. J wP_25487_2023 (ii) The petitioners were appointed as Class-IV emgrloyees more than 15 years ago against the vacancies available at that point of time and the petitioners had been promoted as Record Assistants around eight years ago. (iii) Since the date of petitioners appointment, all the petii:ioners herein have been discharging their duties with utmcst satisfaction of their superiors. (iv) The petitioners are eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant however in spite of several reprr:sentations made by the petitioners seeking promotion to the post of Junior Assistants, the same have not been considered as on date. Further, despite the issuance of G.O.lYs.No.79 dated 20.O7.2023, upgrading the required numtler of vacancies of Office Subordinates as Junior Assistants on a supernumerary basis, for the purpose of consiCering pending applications for appointment on compassionate grounds, and despite the proceedings dated

18.08.2023, whereby 32 Office Subordinates vacancies had been notified by the Unit officer/District officer in the District for considering pending compassionate appointments in ) ) ';;,) 7 SN, J wP_25487 2023 Khammam District, the petitioners' claims have not been considered. (v) Making appointments through G.O.Ms.No.79, Finance (HRM-I), Dept. dated 2O-O7.2fJ23 while ignoring the request of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant for the last 15 years despite repeated representations made by the petitioners, is illegal, and hence the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

6. (i) The petitioners are eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant but due to non-availability of Junior Assistants in the District, no promotions have been issued to the petitioners so far. (ii) The petitioners have no vested or legal right' =?! \ 8 SN, J wP 25487 2023 (iii ) time to't!mc. Based on the submissions made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, the learned Assistant Goverrrment Pleader contends that the petitioners are not entitlec for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

7. A bare perusal of the averments made at para No.5 of the counter affidavit fired on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates the clear admission on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners had been appointed as office Subordinates/Record Assistants under (;ompassionate grounds between 1999 and 2010 and that th':y had been posted in their respective praces as mentioned in the cause tiHe of the present writ petition; that the petitioners' services had already been regularized; and I :i :i i : ' I t :, :I i I i I l, .li I !I !i t: t, j t n 9 SN. J wP_25487 2023 that since the date of appointment, the petitioners had been discharging their duties with utmost satisfaction of the petitioners superiors and that the petitioners are eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant but due to the non- availability of posts of Junior Assistant in the Distiict no promotions had been issued so far.

8. This Court opines that the pleas put forth by the learned Assistant Government Pleader orally are contrary to the clear admission made at para No.5 of the counter affidavit that 71 lunior Assistant posts are vacant in the Education Department in Khammam District. This Court further opines that, in view of the fact as borne on record that there is no dispute that the petitioners have been working since the period 1999- 2010 till date, nor there is any dispute regarding their services being rendered to the utmost satisfaction of their superiors and the petitioners being eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, as per the averments and the clear admission made on behalf of the respondents at para No.5 of the counter affidavit but however, denying other benefits to the petitioners on the ground that there are no lunior Assistant posts available for issuing promotions to the I i I I i t, i i t, : : I I : i. i i T ,.I l0 SN. J wP_25487_2023 petitioners herein is contrary to respondents, own admission at glara No.5 of the counter affidavit that 71 Junior Assistant posts are vacant in Education Department as on date. The pror:eedings of the respondents' in making appointments by upgrading vacant posts of office subordinates to Junior Assistants on a supernumerary basis, without considering the pleas of the petitioners as per G.o.Ms.No.79 Finance (HRM-I) Dep'artment, dated 20.07.2023 are unjustified, especiaily wher it is admitted even in the counter affidavit that the petitioners have been working for the last 15 years without any blemish and to the utmost satisfaction of their superior officers, and that the petitioners are eligible for promotion, as indic,ated at para No.5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of thr: respondents (referred to and extracted above).

9. / \ r) SN, J wP 25487 2023 meaninqful consideration.

10. The Division Bench of this court i.e., High court of Andhra Pradesh as it then was, in K.Sai Ram v state of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2Ot7 SCC Online Hyderabad 54g, vide its Judgment dated o7.o9.2o17 held that a ..person cannot be penalized by keeping disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long periods, and in the said case, the promotion to the petitioner therein was directed to be considered, with a clear observation that the same shatt be subject to outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

11. A simitar view was taken by this court vide its Judgment dated 3L.o7.2018 passed in w.P.No.213O6 of

2018. L2. 1l t2 r\ SN. J wP 25487 2023 'in *12. Applying the balancing process, we are of the c,pinion that the quashing of charges and of the order appointing enquiry officer was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case!. It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be ccnsidered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, This d'rection is made in the pafticular facts and circumstances of the case though we are aware that the Rules and practice normally followed in such cases may br: different. The promotion so made, if any, pending Of the finaings in the . It is also directed that the enquiry against the respondent shall be concluded w;thin eight months from today. The respondent shall cc'operate in concluding the enquiry. It is obvious that if the respondent does not so cooperate, it shail be open to the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte. If the enquiry is ncrt concluded and final orders are not passed within the afirresaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped.

13. The High court has relied upon the decision of this Court in State of Madhya pradesh v. Bani Singh & / a"l l3 wp-zsrsu-?ilii Anr. (1990 (Suppl.) S.C.C.738) on the question of detay. That was a case where the charges were served and disciplinary enquiry sought to be initiated after a lapse of twelve years from the alleged irregularities. From the report of the judgment, the nature of the charges concerned therein also do not appear. We do not know whether the charges theie were grave as in this case. Probably, they were not. There is another distinguishing feature in the case before us: by the date of the judgment of High Court, the major part of the enquiry was over. This is also a circumstance going into the scales while weighing the factors for and against. As stated hereinabove, wherever delay is put forward as a ground for quashing the charges, the court has to weigh all the factors, both for and against the delinquent officer and come to a conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstances. In the circumstances, the principle of the said decision cannot help the respondent,,.

13. This court opines that the petitioners are entifled to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant as in- service candidates from the post of of Record Assistant, duly taking into consideration the seniority list with effect from the year 1999 and the averments made at para No.5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is admitted that the petitioners are eligible for promotion and that the petitioners had been working since the period 1999- - l4 r' wp zs+szlfii 2010 onwards, that as on date the petitioners services had bee;r regularized in their respective posts and the petitioners havu' been discharging their duties sincerely to the utmost sati:;faction of the superior officers in accordance to law, duly takirrg into consideration the Judgment of the Apex Court and the Division Bench Judgment of A.P. High Court reported in 20L7 SCC Online Hyderabad 540 dated 07.09.2017 and also the Judgment of this Court dated 3L.O7.2018 passed in W.p. No.ll1306 of 2O1B (referred to and extracted above). t4. Takino into consideration: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The averments of the counter affidavit fited on trehalf of the respondents in particular at para No.5 (referred to and extracted above), (d) Various Judgments of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above), ,I' / \ I I , l I l5 SN, J wP_254E7 2023 (e) The discussions and conclusion as arrived at para Nos,9 to 13 of the present order. The Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant as in-service candidates from the category of Record Assistants strictly in accordance with the seniority maintained under the control of the 3'd respondent and in accordance to law, within a period four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgment dated 31.01.1995 passed in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC Page 57O, and also the other Judgments referred to and extracted above at Pages 1O to 13 of the present Judgment and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioners. However, there shall be no order as to costs. I I 1I i l6 wp zs+ru ?|zi The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall f. stand closed. SD/.T.SREENIVAS REDDY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To

1. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, OFFICER Hyderabad Magistrate, State of Telangana at Khammam, Khammam District. 2. The District Collector, and Magistrate, Khammam, Khammam District. 3. The District Educational Officer, Khammam District. 4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES- l, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI T.PRADEEP, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies SA/PMK \ I "$ C.C. TODAY HIGH COURT DATED i 1111212025 ORDER WP.No.25487 of 2023 t f I 'rii S c 1 5 APR ?iil; Z. () u * - :1.. ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. t6