The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAPPU NAGESHWAR RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services (Home) REP M/s. NAGA DEEPIKA.P, ADV W.P.NO: 15753 OF 2024 Between: Balavantaiah, S/o Late Sri Basappa, Occ. Presently working as lnspector of Police, CCS Vikarabad. R/o. H. No. 1-64, Mogalmadka village, Damaragidda lrlandal, Narayanapet District. Telangana. Pin Code . 509336 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home 2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Saifabad, Hyderabad. Department, Secretariat, T.S, Hyderabad. ...PETIT|ONER ...RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of i Mandamus declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered and be promoted to the post of DSP without reference to V, P.S.Anti-Corruption Bureau, Range Reddy Range in terms of orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 66 dated 30-01-1991 and the Judgments reported in2017 (4) ALT 225 and 2013 (4) SCC 161, duly hotding the action of the'tst and 2nd Respondents in not considering and further denying promotion to the petitioner to the post of DSP on the ground of pendency of FIR No. 01/RCT-CR2/2020 dated 09-01-2020, P.S. Anti-Corruption Bureau, Range Reddy Range, as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust contrary to the orders issued in G.o. tr/s. No.66 dated 30-1-1s91 and the law laid down in the above referred Judgments and in violation of Articles 14 and 1 6 of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15'1 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 1st and 2nd Respondents to consider the case of the Petltioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police without reference to FIR No. 01/RCT-CR2/2020 dated 09-01-2020, P.S. Anti-Corruption Bureau, Range Reddy Range on the analogy of Orders passed in similar cases and Judgment reported in 2017-4-ALf -225, pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 'l . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home 2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Saifabad, Hyderabad. Department, Secretariat, T.S, Hyderabad. AND ...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS Balavanthaiah, S/o Late Sri Basappa, Age 51 years, Occ Presently working as lnspector of Police, CCS Vikarabad- R/o. H. No. '1-64, Mogalmadka village, Damaragidda Mandal, Narayanapet District. Telangana. Pin Code 509336 ...PETITIONEFU RESPONDENT Petition under Section 15'1 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 interim orders issued in lA.No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.NO.'15753 ol 2024 dated 2510612024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAPPU NAGESHWAR RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services (Home) REP M/s. NAGA DEEPIKA.P, ADV The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER r. THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION N os.25774 and 15753 of2024 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue raised in both these Writ petitions is inter se connected with each other, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common order. 2) Heard Sri Pappu Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel, representing M/s. Naga Deepika, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for the respondents. 3) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-lnspector of police (Civil) in the year i999 and allotted to Hyderabad Region during the year 2OOO. Later, he was promoted as Inspector of police (Civi1) in the year 2013 and thereby completed ten years of servjcc in the cadre of Inspector. Further, while he was working as Inspector of police, CCS, Vikarabad District, one trap case was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities vide FIR No.Ol/RCT_ CR2l2O2O, dated O9.O1.2O2O, against the petitioner and another and as on date no charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Agency in the said case. Neither Final Report is sent to Government nor sanction is accorded for Prosecution, till date. Therefore, the petitioner is fully eligible and quarirred for promotion to the post of 2 DSP. On coming to know that the respondents are taking steps to effect promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and his case is not being considered for the same, he approached this Court and filed W.P.No.15753 of 2024 wherein this Court uide ir.Lerim order dated 25.06.2024' has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66, General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 30.01.199 1. Despite the same, the respondents while effecting promotions to the post of DSP on 22.06.2023 on adhoc basis, have overlooked the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 2O.O8.2O24 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of DSP, on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner uide FIR No.O1/RCT-CR2l2o2O, dated 09.01.2O2o, which is contrary to the Rules. Learned senior counsel has further contended that since the name of the petitioner is not figured in the integrated seniority list of Inspector of Police issued vide Memo RC.No.26OlLll2Ol4' dated 13.04.2022, promotion was not given to the petitioner even though his batchmates were promoted. Hence, the learned senior counsel prayed this Court to allow the writ petitions and set aside the rejection order vide RC No.54O/Estt'91IMZ-ll12O24, dated

20.08.2024. -, 4l Per contra, the iearned Government pleader has contended that as per the orders of this Courr in W.p.No.14039 of 2O2O, dated 3O.12.2O2O, permission was accorded by the Government and accordingly adhoc promotions were given to eligible candidates i.e. to those individuals whose names were found in lhe seniority list vide Memo in Rc.No.260/E1 /2024, dated 13.O4.2022, and G.O.Ms.No.153, Home Department, dated 05.10.201g. Further, as per the General Ruies, the criteria for promotion to any category is seniorit5r in the feeder category and since the name of the pctitioner is not figurecl in the seniority list in feeder category i.e. Inspector of Police (C), thc case of the petitioner is not considercd for promotion to the post of DSP and none of the juniors of the pe[itioner in the cadre of Inspector of Police were promoted as DSp (Civil). It is lurther submitted that Sri C.Giri prasad Babu and Sri p. Venkateshwarlu were juniors to the petitioner in the cadre of Sub_ Inspector of Police but not in the ca[egory of Inspector of police. Mr. Venkateshwarlu was promoted as Inspeclor of police on 30.12.2010, on which date, the petitioner was not considered for promotion as Inspector of police on par with Venkateshwarlu, as the petitioner was under currency of punishment of postponement of Increment for one year without effect vide proceedings RO No.478l2OlO, dated 31.07.2010. Further, at that point of time, the name of Sri P.Giri Prasad was also not considered as he was dismissed from service in view of his involvement in ACB case. /i t, i 4 But, after his acquittal in ACB case, he was assigned notional seniorily in the cadre of Inspector of Police w.e.f.O1 09'2O10 i e' on par with P.Venkateshwarlu. Therefore, the said individuals became seniors to the petitioner in the rank of Inspector of Police (Civil) as the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police on O2.O4.2O13' Further, no juniors to the petitioner in the rank of Inspector of Police were promoted as DSP as contended by the petitioner. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner was considered and rightly rejected by the authorities uide impugned order dated 20 08 '2024 ' Hence' there are no merits in the writ petitions and prayed to dismiss the same' 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record' 6) A perusal of the record discloses that in w P'No 15753 of 2024, this Court passed interim order dated 25'06'2024 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dcputy Superintendent of Police' in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66, General Administration (Services C) Department' dated 30.01. 1991, as and when promotions are effected' 7l While passing the said interim order, this Court was of the view that FIR No.O 1/ RCT-CR2l2O2O, dated O9'O1 202O' registered by the ACB authorities, Ranga Reddy District, was pending against 5- the petitioner and as on 25.06.2024 i.e. the date of passing of the interim order, no charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Agency. In compliance thereof, respondents have passed the impugned order vide Rc.No.540/ ESIP.-91IMZ-II l2024, dated 2O.Oa.2O24, rejecting the case of the petitio.ner on the following grounds: "5. Further, it is to informed that promotions were effected to tJ e eligible Inspectors of Police (Civil) whose names :rre figured in the final integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil) of 3 Rangcrs of Telangana, issued vide C.O. Memo Rc.No.260lE1/2014, Dated: 73.O4.2022 to G.O.Ms.No. 153, Home (Ser-I) Dept., Dated: O5.10.2018. The name of thc individual did not figured in the above seniority list, and as per the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, promotions cannot be given ignoring the seniority.

6. Thus, until and unless inclusion of name in the above seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil) the case of Sri K. B:Llzrvanthaiah, lnspector of Police (Civil) cannot be considered lor promotion as DSP (Civil)." 8) Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that though his batchmates viz., C.Giri Prasad Babu and Venkateshwarlu were promoted as DSP, the respondents have overlooked the case of the petitioner alleging that ACB case is pending against him, is t I concerned, as can be seen from the material on record though C.Giri Prasad Babu and Venkateshwarlu were juniors to the petitioner in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Policc, but, admittedly, , I r -6 both were subsequently promoted as Inspectors of Police and were assigned notional seniority from 01.O9.201O. The record further reveals that as the petitioner was under currency of punishment of 'postponement of increment for one year without effect' vide proceedings Rc.No.478/2010, dated 30.07.201O,-his case was not considered for promotion to the post of inspector of Police on par with the above individuals and he was subsequently promoted as Inspector of Police on 02.O4 .2013 . 9) Thercfore, this Court does not see any error in the impugned order dated 20.O8.2024 and there are no mcrits in WP No.25744 of 2024 and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10) Accordingly, W.P. No.25744 of 2024 is dismissed 11) Further, in view of passing of rejection order dated

20.O8.2O24 in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court on 25.06.2024, the cause in W.P.No.15753 of 2024 has rendered infructuous. Therefore, W.P. No.15753 of 2024 is dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous petitions pendir-rg, if any, shall stand closed No order as to co //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA STANT REGI ASS REDDY STRAR SECTION OFFICER o 1 2 Two ne CC to M/s. N CCs to GP FOn HOtUr, High Co AGA DEEPIKA.P, Advocate [OP urt for the State of Telangana, at Hvd erabad. [OUTI CD CoPies

3. Two i I To PSK. GJP i l i N I i I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.25774 AND 15753 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS jB 1RE ST4 ,/ (: I ,) \(r 2 B nri 2q5 7 J \ .Sr,^-r a\. -;- )b