The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel appearang on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Th Draver as under: c ".......issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not providing for at least two promotional channels from the post of physical Directors/Lectu rers in Physical Education in Government Degree Colleges by making appropriate provision in the Telangana State Collegiate Education Service, issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 6, Higher Education Department, dt. 06/02/2023 as discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the judgmenti of the Honourable Supreme Court and further direct the Respondents to provide for promotional channels to the post of Principal and other higher posts from the post of Physical Directors/Lectu rers in physical Education in Government Degree Colleges in Telangana State Collegiate Education Service Rules, 2023 and pass....,, 2

3. Tlre case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Physical Director in Government Junior College at Bellampally on 09.07 ::999 and was later pr,rmoted to the post of Physical Director in UGC with pay scales in Government Degree College on 20.10.2004. The petition,:r herein is fully qualified and eligible to be appointed to the post of Principal. Subsequently, based on the UGC guidelines, G.O.Ms. No. 91 dated 26.03.1997 was issued, wherein it vvas ordered that Physical Director wcrking in Degree Colleles drawing scales of pay of Rs. 700 - Ils. 1600 and who possess qualifications as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.41)1 dated 16.11.1994 shall be designated as Lecturers in Physical Education with immediate effect. Accordingly, the petitioner was also considered as Lecturer in Physical Educ:ation. However, the rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 47, dated

74.05.2.007 did not provide for the Lecturers in Physical Education to be appointed to the post of Principal. Therefore, proposal was; sent in this regard and the government vide memo dated 31.01.2014 had directed the commissioner of Collegiate: Ed rcation to examine and submit a detailed report. \ \ J However, no action has been initiated till date and no further promotional channels has been provided. Further, the government has issued special rules for Telangana State Collegiate Education Service vide G.O. Ms. No.6 dated

06.02.2023, wherein the post of Physical Director for Government Degree College had been pushed down to Class 'D' category- I, where no channels have been provided for promotion. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed. PERUSED T E RECORD:-

4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the ent No.2 and in N .11 i rticular extracted hereunder:- "11. In the instant case, it is submitted that since the matter .of re-designation of Physical Director and promotion to the post of Principal requires requisite qualification i.e., must possess a Master's Degree with a minimum of 55o/o of marks of equivalent Grade, must posses Ph.D Degree, an experience of 15 years of teaching as Assistant Professor or Associate Professor and Lecturer (existing) in Government Degree College. Other criteria as per UGC Regulations From time to time and it's all related to academic, the promotion to the Principal cadre needs 15 years of teaching experience. Whereas pursuant to the U nion/Association letter has been addressed to the Government in this regard vide letter File No.CCE-SER1/POLY/9/2023-POLY, dated 4 \.1

73.12.',\023 for further action and orders are a',vaited in the malter. It is specific case of the petitioner that the 5. petitioner is presently working as Physical Director in the Governnrent Degree College and had been initially appointed in the year 1999 and since then the petitioner is being continued as a Physical Director without any promotion. It is specific case of the petitioner that Fhysica! 6. Director in Universaty would fit in for the description of teacher ancl therefore, the petitioner should be treated on par with any other teacher and the petitioner should also have the benefit of promotaon and other benefits wi,ich eventually follow on promotion i.e., pension and other monetary benefits. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 7, petitioner submits that the petitioner vide detailed representation, dated O4.O1.2O22 addressed to the respondent No.2 herein requested to resolve the issues pertaining to Physical Directors working in Degree 5 Colleges and in particular referred to creating promotion channel to the qualified physical Director to the post of principal in Degree Cotteges, duty amending G.O.Ms.No.47 ot 2OO7 which is in force, in addition to other issues pertaining to physical Directors,

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that Telangana Degree Colleges Physicat Education Teacher,s Association made its representation, dated 11.O9.2O23 addressed to the 2nd respondent herein to consider the request as put_ forth by the petitioner in petitioner,s earlier representation, dated O4.O1.2O22 addressed to the 2nd respondent and in particular sought for creating promotion channet to the qualified physical Directors to the post of Principal in Degree Colleges duly amending GO.Ms.No.47 ot 2OO7. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed on behatf of the respondent No.2 with a specific ptea that no promotional channel can be created since petationer had not fulfilled the criteraa of .15, years of teaching --' - .i 6 experience, The petitioner has filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No'2 and contended that a Sports Officer/Physical Training Instructor would also fall within definition of teacher. DISC USSION AND CONLcusION:-

10. On the point that duties of a PTllsports Officer would fall within the definition of a "teacher", petitioner placed reliance on the iudoment of the ADex Cou rt in P.C.Modi Vs. Jawa arlal Nehru Vishwa vid ala a and Another, dated 1 .L2.2O23 reoorted in ra No -7.2 7 and ar Da rn Da rticu I w u!t 2023 )1 a1 ( e rsextracted here nder: -

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it isr deemed approt)riate to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14th December, 2009 and restore the iudgment clated 26th April, 2005 passed by the learnt:d Single ludge. It is declared that the appellant, ruho was discharging the duties of a PTllSports Officer, would fall rvithin the definition of a "teacher" and would have been entitled to be continued in service till completion of 62 years of age. As the appellant was prematurely retired by the respondents at the age of 60 years, it is held that he shilll be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits including, arrear of salary, etc., had he contin ued in service upto to the age of 62 y':ars. The retiral benefits of the appellant shall also be (:omputed on a presumption that his age of retiremen: was 62 ( / 7 years. The entire amount due and payable to the appellant shall be computed by the respondents antl paid over to him along with a copy of the said computation within a period of six weeks from today.

11. The iudoment the Aoex Cou P.S.Ra amohana o Vs. A.P. A ricultural Un iversitv and A other reoo d in (1997) 8 SCC 3sO- dated ? 1 n7.L997 r nrl artirr rl:r nara N nc 'lO :n d20 tra extracted here u nder: -

19. We are unable to agree. It may be that the physical Director gives his guidance or teaching to the students only in the evenings after the regular classes are over. It may also be that the University has not prescribed in writing any theoretical and practical classes for the students so far as physical education is concerned. But as pointed by us earlier, among various duties of the Phvsical Director. exo sslv or otherw rse, are includ ed the dutv to teach the skills of various oames AS l,r,ell as their rtt eq and nractice q Th rc, id du + ac Jrri na him cl n-arf of the definition as a ' teacher'. We therefore, do not accept the contention raised in the additional counter affidavit of the University. A w rrrilhin the main

20. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and judgment of High Court is set aside and it is declared that appellant was entitled to continue in service till he completed 60 years of age. Now that he has retired he is entitled.to the emoluments payable to him for the remaining period of the service upto the completion of 60 years deducting the period for which he worked as Physical Director beyond 58 years pursuant to stay orders granted by the High Court. His retiral benefits shall also be computed on the basis that his age of --'- I 'l 8 retirernent was 60 years. The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. L2. In support of the contention that the prornotion,is a normal incidence of service and there is no ln denying the promotion for similarly justification placed emlrloyees, reliance is placed on the iudqment of the Apex Court in Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain Vs. Union of India repo o) SCC 688 and in oarticular Dara Nos. 7 &8 are extracted hereunder lz. Thi:; Court, has on more than one occasior, pointed out that provision for promotion increases eff ciency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and rrakes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no jurstification why rlhile similarly placed officers in other Ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical 'A' Group scientists in the establishment of Director Generill of Health Services would be deprived of such advanl:age. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient publlc serv- ice and, the:refore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attond to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this categcry of officers. It is, therefore, necessar'/ that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry o[ Science and l.echnology with such alterations as may be necessary/ appropriate rules should be framt:d within four months from now providing promotional a'renue for the'A category scientists in the non-medica wing of the Directorate. 9 B. Ihis Writ petition is allowed and the following directions are issued:

1. Within tour months from today, the Ministry of Health and Famiry welfare or the.uni#';;r;;";ilJlr frame a set of appropriate rules,. inter atia, pioirili,ig suitable promotionat avenue for the ,A, G.;;i;"].r,,1,, ,n ,nu ::l-m:di9ql wins of ffre estaoriinffii"';; Director General of Health Services; 2. These ,A, Grouo scientists shall be entifled to book llly^li._". higher degree.altowance, risk alowance and conveyance alowance at.the same iut" iJiJuirirrioru !o_d99!o_rs in the medicar wing in rnl'o,1"*ra"," *.".r. L.4.1989; 3. Government shall exam.ine the tenability of the claim of equat pay scates ror this ;t";;"#';k;"i, *,,n,n four months from today.

13. e u or or I a a a d o 2 are extra ed .here un er:- A ex nF d o ers V P r h o 8 5 c 1 o r N s. 12 1 Da 1 - -1-21 Wf'en employees are denied an opportunity of ?:o-oligl for tons years (in this case 30-iIuirl on ,6u ground that he fel wthin u .u-t"go.; Jr"iirproyues excluded from promotiona r p.o, j".t,'in6 sl, pu'rio. cor rt will have the jurisdiction to issue n".i"riurvZi".tion. 13. If there is no channel of promotion in respect particular group of officers .esutting i., :i- -t stagnation over the vears, the Court atttrough may not issue any direction as to in which manner a t0 I scheme should be formulated or by reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion to the officers working in ctifferent departments and officers of the Government but the jrrrisdiction to issue direction to make -a scheme cannot be denied to a Superior Court of the country, 74 Tl-is Court in Sta te of Tripua & Ors. v. K.K. Rov t(2:004) 9 SCC 651, upon taking into consideration some of the earlier decisions of this Court, held : "6. It is not a case where t here existed an avenue not a case where the for promotion. It is also amendments in the State intended to make ppellant being a.State promotional PolicY. The a Article L2 of the within the meaning of Constitution should have created promotional avenues for the respondent having regard to its constitutional obligations adumbrated in Articles !{ and 16 of the Constitutaon of India. Despite its constitutional obligations, the State cannot take a stand that as the respondent herein accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment knowing fully wel! that there was no avenue for promotion, he cannot resile there from. It is not a case where the principles of estoppel or waiver should be applied having regard to the constitutional functions of the State. It is not disputed that the other States in India,/Union of India having regard to the recommendations made in this behalf by the Pay Commission introduced the Scheme of Assured Career Promotion in terms whereof the incumbent of a post if not promoted within a period of 12 years is granted one higher scale of pay and another upon -ompletion of 24 years if in the meanwhile he had not been promoted despite existence of promotional avenues. When questioned, the learned counset appearing on behalf of the appellant, even could not point out that the State \ \ of Tripura has introduced such a scheme. We wonder as to why such a scheme was not introduced by the appellant like the other States in India, and what impeded it,from doing so. Promotion being a condition of service and having regard to the requirements thereof as has been pointed out by this Court in the decisions referred to hereinbefore, it was expected that the appellant should have followed the said principle.,' L4. Learned Government pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that grievance of the petitioner as put-forth in the representations dated O4.O1-.2O22 & 11.09.2023 had already been communicated vide letter File No.CCE- SERI/POLY/9/2O23-POLY, dated Lg.tZ.ZO2g to the Government and therefore, the Government may be directed to take decision in the matter in accordance to law within a reasonable period.

15. Learn-ed Government Pleader for Services-f appearing on behalf of the respondents further submits that the Writ Petition could be disposed of as per the averments made at para No.11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, directing the respondent No.1 to take appropriate actaon as per the 12 letter vicle File No.CCE-SERL/POLY/9/2023-POLY, dated L3.L2,2O23 in accordance to law within a reasonable period.

16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the !earned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents L7. This Court opines that the 1't respondent is bound take action upon letter File No.CCE- SER1/POLY/9/2O23-POLY, dated L3.L2.2O?-3, and forthwith consider the request of the petitioner to formulate a scheme, creating promotion channel to a qualified Physical Director to the post of Principal in Degree College, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above).

18. Takin a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. to considera r3 b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2(referred to and extracted above) d) The view of the Apex Court in the judgments enlisted below(referred to and extracted above) i) P.C.Modi Vs. Jawahartal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya and Another, dated L3.L2.2O29 reported in 2023 Lawsuit(SC) 1187 ii) P.S.Ramamohana Rao Vs. A.p.Agriculturat University and Another reported in (1997) I SCC aSO, dateA g]..O7.Lgg7. iii) Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain Vs. Union of India reported in 199O (Supp) SCC 688. 'l 14 iv) Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal and Others reported in (2OO8) s SCC 1OO, dated 05.02.2008. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the l't respondent to consider the specific request of the petitioner for formulating a scheme for providing at least two (O2) promotional channels in the post of Physical Directors/Physical Education Teac:hers in Government Degree Colleges by making apl>ropriate provision in the Telangana State Education Services, G.O.Ms.No. 06, Higher Education (CE-I) Dept, dated

06.02.2023 within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, duly taking into consideration the letter File No.CCE- SER1/POLY /g/2O23-POLY, dated L3.L2.2O2} which has already been forwarded pertaining to the subject issue, for initiating further necessary action and for passing of appropriate orders by the l't respondent herein, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court and the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders on 7 l5 the representations of the petitioner, dated O4.OL.2O22l LL,O9,2(J23 addressed to the 2nd respondent and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner on the said subject issue. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A,V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Departm ent,S 2. The Commissioner of Coll egiate Education, Balaji Enclave, Ghosha Mahal, Hyderabad, State of Telan gana Nampally, Hyderabad One CClo SRI M.SRIKANTH, Advocate loPUCl Two CCs to GP FOR SERVTCES-I High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [ouTJ Two CD Copies ecretariat, To 3 4 5 PSK, BS HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 ORDER WP.No.26734 ot 2023 CC TODAY t" I j .i :l {r 23rPHzffi .. -2 ,,' '._ -jr' :!, D ,i ,J /', DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS EK e