Venkata Krishna Reddy Gandhari v. 1. The State of Telangana

Venkata Krishrra Reddy Gandhari, S/o Sri Venkata Ranga Fleddy, Aged 54 years, working as Language Pandit (Telugu) (Under promotion as School Assistant (Telugu) MPUPS, Palata Village, [\/anoharabad Mandal Medak District .,.PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT Petition undr;r 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 vacate the lnterim ,crder dated.2110612024 in l.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.15717 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I ..I CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1822OF 2024 Contempt case under sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 197.1. to punish the respondent herein for their willful violation and deliberate disobedience of interim orders dt. 21-06-2024 in W.p.No..15717 of 2024. Between: Venkata Krishna Reddy Gandhari, S/o Sri Venkata Ranga Reddy, Aged 54 years, working as Language Pandit (Telugu), (Under promotion- as School Assistant (Telugu) MPUPS, Palata Village, Manoharabad Medak District AND D.Radha Kishan, The District Educational Officer, Medak, Medak District. ...PETITIONER ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.RAM REDDY Counsel for the Sole Respondent: GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following: GOMMON ORDER 1, THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK W.P.No.15717 of 2024 C.C.No. 1822 of 2o24 ORDER: The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:s "To issue arL appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of urit of Mandamus, to declare the impugned acti tn of the 4tt' respondent in eot showing the place of posting on promotion as School Assistalt (Telugp) of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and unc rnstitutional and conseque;-rt1y direct the 4h respondent to pass appropriate proceedings posting the petitioner as School Assistant (Telugu) at MPLIPS, Ravelli, Toopran malclal, Medak district immediately''-

2. Heard Sri K.Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearjng for the petitioner ancl the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents and perused the record.

3. Accordrn g to the petitioner, while he was working as Lalguage Pandit (Te1ugr.r), the respondent No.4 placed him under- suspension and issued,Sharge Memo No.46 10/A312023 dated 17.2.2024, alleging that tler: petitioner has committed certain irregularities while performing his; legitimate duties. However, petitioner w,1s reinstated into service virlr: proceedings dated 18.4.2024. Thereafl.er, a regular enquiry was (londucted and the enquiry Ofhcer, after conducting 2 enquiry, submitted his report vide letter dated 13.6.2024 holding that the charge against the petitioner as "not proved". However, hnal decision is yet to be taken by the disciplinary authority on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Offrcer

4. While so, the respondents have conducted web counseling for affecting promotions and postings to the posts of School Assistants (Telugu) and as per the schedule, petitioner was given web option, indicating priority of the school on the basis of seniority of {]'.'j SGTs/LPs/PETs who are eligible for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Telugu) local body. In the said list, petitioner was shown at Serial No.14 ald he opted 20 places of schools in the order of preference, first one being MPUPS, Ravelli and the last one being MPUPS, Achampet. ThereaJter, basing on the seniority list and web options submitted by the eiigible candidates, the respondent No.4 passed common posting orders on 18.6.2024 under Multi Zone-|, Medak district, promoting as many as 140 Langrage Pandits (Telugu). In the said proceedings, the narne of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.14 against roster point 20 promoting him School Assistant (Telugu), but in the column "place of posting", it was shown as "disciplinary case pending". The learned counsel for the '::/ 3 petitioner furtherr submits that though the petitioner was promoted as School Assist.alt (Telugu), he was not given posting order without any justihcation. Further, the hrst preference exercised by the petitioner in rh.e web option viz. MPUPS Rave11i, Tooprar mandal was kept unfrlled and is vacant. Therefore, learned cor-rnsel :;ubmits that pendency of disr:iplinary proceedings, which has been co:ecluded, but waiting for hnal decision is not a bar for giving posting order to the petilioner. H(3nce, petitioner is entitled to be posted in the frrst preference exe rcised by him i.e. MPUPS Rave11i, Toopran mandal.

5. Per conlra., the learned Government Pleader fcrr Serwices-l submits that the petitioner was appointed as Language Pandit (Telugu) in April 2OO2 arld while the petitioner workitrg at MPPS, Gajagatlapally village, Shankarampet mandal on deputation, a news item was publis;hed in Eenadu newspaper on 16.l2.2orL3 under the caption "\/irll-rulaku Raakundane Jeetham Tisukuntunna Upadyayudu " in district edition. The Mardal Educia.tion Officer concerned, orL the directions of the District Educati rnal Officer, Medak, has cc,nducted arld submitted a preliminary r':port stating that the petitioner sat in the staff-room without taking teaching 'classes and aliso disobeyed the instructions of Headmaster and not :.: r ^. 4 updated the school records and also he is irregular to his duties. Based on the said report, petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings Rc.No.4610/A3/2023 dated 23.12.2023 of respondent No.4 and thereafter petitioner was issued a Charge Memo vide proceedings No.4610 /A3/2023 dated 17.2.2024 under Rule 2O of TCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, and after conducting enquiry, punishment of "Censure" was imposed against the petitioner vide proceedings Rc.No.46 1O/A3 12023 dated 2.9.2024. It is further contended by the ,-, learned Government Pleader that the respondent No.2 issued instructions vide Proceedings Rc.No.215/Ser.III/2015 dated 7 .6.2024 for upgradation of 8630 Language Pandits as School Assistants (Languages) and 1849 Physicai Education Teachers (PtrTs) as School Assistant (Physical Education) in Government Schools/ MPUPS lZiLla Praja Parishad High Schools in the State and as per the same, seniority list of Language Pandits was prepared, in which petitioner was shown at Serial No.14, but due to non- conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, his case was not considered for promotion/upgradation. Later, disciplinary proceedings were concluded duly following the CCA Rules and punishment of "Censure" was awarded against the petitioner vide proceedings ,, _-__ 5 Rc.No.46 10i4,3 12023 dated 2.9.2024, }:.ence the petitioner will be debarred for promotion for a period of one year, therefirre, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of the same, the learned Government Pleader has relied on the decisic,r:, of this Court in K.Babu v. State of Telangana and othersl.

6. Having r,:gard to the submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of :he view that admittedly in the seniority list of Language Pandits, petitioner was shown at Serial No.14, and based on which, he was allowed to exercise his oplion for place of posting to the upgraded prost of School Assistant and thereafter the respondents have issued proceedings dated 18.6 .20'24, affecting promotions and postings of School Assrstants (Larguages), wherein the name of the petitioner is shown at Serial No.1,1 and in the column of place of posting, it was mentioned as "disciplinary case is pending". It is rek:valt to note Rule 5(b) of []t.ate and Subordinate Service Rules, which reads as under: 1 2020{6) ALD 472 (rsl >". I r t I t : I I I I I 1 I I I I 6 "Non-selection posts:- No non-gazetted post should be treated as selection post. Promotion and appointment by transfer to higher posts other than those mentioned in sub-rule (a) shall be made in accordance with seniority-cum htness, unless, such promotion or appointment by trarsfer of a rnember has been wrthheld as a penalty. 7 . A close reading of the above rule, it is clear that promotion to non-selection post cannot be withheld unless the caldidate is under the currency of punishment. In the instant case, as per the seniority list of Language Pandits, the petitioner was allowed to exercise option and accordingly he exercised his option.

8. Admittedly, 86O0 Language Paridit posts were. upgraded as School Assistants (Languages) arrd as per the seniority in the cadre of Langu age Pandit (Telugu), petitioner was allowed to exercise his web option for place of posting in the cadre of School Assistant (Telugu). Accordingly, petitioner exercised his option on 15.6.2024 thereafter, respondent No.4 issued proceedings Rc.No.333/A3 12023 dated 18.6.2024, wherern the name of the petitioner was at serial No.14, but however, no posting order was given on the ground that disciplina{/ case is pending as on that date. Subsequenfly, the punishment of 'Censure" was imposed on the ,r,!,., 7 petitioner vide proceedings Rc.No.46lO/A3 12023 date'1 2'9'2024' however, the p::omotion order dated 18.6.2024 was neither calcelled nor uithdrarvn by the respondents. g. Here, it is; reievant to refer to the judgment of the Flon'ble Apex Court in Bank of India u. Degala Suryanaragand2, in which, it is categorically held that it is,illegal to withhold promotion based on departmental o:: criminal proceedings initiated after t'he date on which the car:,didate was considered for promotion 'lhe relevant excerpt of the: s;eLid decision is extracted hereunder: Houteuer, the motter as to promotiott stctnds on a " 14. d-ifferenl footing and the judgments of the Higll Court hctu: to be suskirted.. The sealed couer prorredure is nout a utell- established conr:ept in seruice juisprudence. The procerlure' is adopted uthen an emplogee is due for promotioru, incremL'nt etc' but c1i:;ciptinory/ criminot proceedings are pending again st him ancl hence the ftndings as to hjs entitlement to the ;eruice benefil c,f promotion, increment etc. ore kept in a sealed couer to be open=d afler the proceedings in question are ouer (se< Union of Indta u. K-V. Janakiraman SCC at pp. 114 115 : A ? at p' 201-l). As on 1-1-1986 the onlg proceedings pending agoinst the re:;p'ondent uere the ciminal proceedings which ert de-d in acquitlat. of the respondent uLiping out tuith retrospectiuc effect the acl.uerse consequences, if any, flouing fron the pendency ther<lqt. The departmental enquiry proceedings uere irtitiated ' (1999) 5 scc 76ir 1 . r I I 8 utith the deltuery of the chorge sheet on 3-12-1991. In tLrc geor 1986-87 u.then th.e respondent became due for promotion and uthen the Promotion Committee held its proceedings, there uere no departmental enquiry proceedings pending against the respondent. The sealed couer procedure could not haue been resorted to nor could the promotion in the gear 1986 87 be utithheld for tlrc DE proceedings initiated at the fag end of the year 1991. The High Court Loas therefore ight in directing the promotion to be giuen effect to to uthich tle respondent uas found. entitled as on 1-1-1986. In the facts and ciranmstances, the order of punishment made in the Aear 1995 cannot depiue the respondent of tlrc benefit of the promotion earned on 1-7- 1986.',

10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that as on the date of promotion on 18.6.2024, petitioner was not under the currency of punishment and the subsequent punishment order of "censure' d,ated 2.9.2024 wlll operate prospectively only and will not operate retrospectively and further as per Rule 5(b)(i) of State arld Subordinate Service Ruies, the promotion of the petitioner cannot be withheld. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that in view oforder of punishment "Censure", petitioner will be debarred for promotion for a period of one year cannot be countenalced as the punishment order dated 2.9.2024 will operate prospectively only, but not retrospectively. rt!4?.?fl : a':: -da 9 1 1. Accordingll , the writ petition is allowed and the respondent No.4 is directed to issue posting order to the petitioner as School Assistant (Telulp) in pursuance of proceedings Rc.No.333/ A3 12023 dated 18.6.2024, as expeditiously as possible, preferabLy within a period of two r.r'eeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel th,3reto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this u'rit petition stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. C.C.No.1822 of 2024 In vier,r, oi 1.he above hnal order, no further orders eLre required to be passed in the contempt case and is accordingly closed. No order as to costs //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.SAILESHt equ-rv'nEctsrnan ,/ \ J ECTION OFFICER To, I

2. J.

5. o.

7. 8 BSR LS +:i,dJiff'E:[,."?i",ii:ffia",.:3:3:[?L"B'T3i:ffll;-'u'aoB''!Ambedkar The Commiss;ioner, School Education' Telangana Hyderabad The Regional Joint Director of School Education' Warangal' Warangal District The District Eiducational Officer' Medak' Medak District The Mandal l]rlucationat Officer' Manoharabad Mandal' Medak' District' One CC to SRI K RAM REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI Two ccs to Gp FoR sERvrcES-r, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ['CUTI Two CD CoPi<;s r/ HIGH COURT DATED: fi10312025 CC TODAY 1HE s 4 14: s C +d zo'.,An2u5 t' 2 .a * COMMON OR.DER W.P.No.15717 of 2024 & C.C.No.1822 of 2024 ALLOWING HE WRIT PETITION & CLOSING THE C,C., WITHOUT COSTS /1 4/ ,/J Aa