The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI A.SUDARSHAN REDDY, THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No'1: SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G.SIVA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. L.PRANATHI REDDY, w.A.NO: 1186 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause '15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order Dated.06/03i2024 in writ petition No 8455 of 2022. on the file of the High court. Between: Sri G Damodar Reddy, S/o Sri. G. Narsi Reddy,Aged. about 58 y^ears, Occ Asst. Reqistrar, at Office of The Principal, JNTUH University College Of Engineeriirg, Jagityal, Kodimial (M), Nachupally(V), Jagityal Dist, 505501 . ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 3 AND

1. Madhavaoerldv Sneha, D/o Madhavapeddy Ramesh, Age 33 years, Occ ' ServiCe, R/o B3/6, Staff Quarters ,JNTLTFI-Campus, Kukatpally Hyderabad 500 085 ...RES'.NDENTMR.r pETtrloNER Registrar at Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500085

2. The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (H) Hyderabad, Rep by its 3. Thd Executive Council, Rep by its Chairman The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (H), at Kukatpally, Hyderabad5000B5 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IA NO 2024 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 suspend the operation of the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 06-03-2024 in the writ Petition No. 8455 ol 2022 so as to enable the Appellanu Respondent No.3 to continue to discharge his duties as Assistant Registrar, pending final disposal of the apPeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G. SIVA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. PRANATH I REDDY L Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI A.SU THE HAN REDDY ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BI,E THT CHIET'JUSTICT SRI APARESIH KI'MAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1110 AND 1186 OF 2o24 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since the issues that arise in the above writ appeals are integrally one and the same, the writ appeals are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.

2. These Writ Appeals are directed against the judgment dated 06.03.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8455 of 2022.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, tl" parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition uiz., W.P.No.8455 of

4. W.A.No.1 i 10 of 2024 is filed by respondent Nos.l and 2 in the subject writ petition.

5. W.A.No.1186 of 2024 is filed by respondent No.3 in the subject writ petition.

6. The writ petitioner is respondent No.1 in both the appeals.

7. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and directed respondent No.1 (Jawaharlal Nehru Technologicat University ) (JNTU)) to consider her eligibirity for the post of Assistant Registrar; and if the petitioner was found more rneritorious and suitable than respondent No.2 in the writ pt_'t.ition, to take necessary action in accordance with law.

8. Heard Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General for the Sterte of Telangana on behalf of the appellants-JNTU and its Execur-ive council (respondents Nos.l and ,2 in the writ petition) in w.A.No.111o of 2024 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 in w.A.No.1 186 of 2024; Sri J.Sudheer, learnecl counsel for respondent No.1; sri G.Siva, Iearned Scnior counsel representing Smt. L.Pranathi Reddy learned counsel for the appellant in w.A.No.l 186 of 2024 and respondent Np.2 in W.A.No.1110 of 2024 and perused the record. Factual Matrix (in briefl 9. The lactual background, necessary for the acljudication of this appeal, is as follows: i. The writ petitioner was initia[y appointec] as a Junior Assistant in the Ministerial Service of respondent No.1- Uni'ersity on compassionate grounds in the year 20og. ii. In the year 2o1 1, pursuant to an internal notification, the writ petitioner was appointed by transfer to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I, which falls under the Subordinate (Technical) Service. iii. The writ petitioner passed several departmental tests conc.ucted by the Telangana State public servicc commission (for short TspscJ. Believing herserf to be v J eligible, the writ petitioner made a representation dated 09.11 .2O2O seeking promotion/appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Registrar, which is classified under the Administrative Service. iv. The Executive Council of respondent No.1-Universit5r, in its 55ti' meeting held on 18.01.2021, resolved that writ petitioner was not eligible for transfer from Subordinate Service (Technical) to Administrative Service. The same was communicated to the writ petitioner. Subsequently, respondent No.3 was promoted from the post of Superintendent (a post in the Ministerial Service) to the post of Assistant Registrar. The relevant portion of the minutes of the 55th meeting held on 18.01.2021 order is extracted as under: Resolution: The Council has examined the item and resolued that Smt.M.Snehn, Technical Assisfanl Grade-I is not eligible for transfer of seruice from Subordinate Seruice (Technical) to Administratiue Service. Further resolued to sanction the EoL for the B. Tech. studg perlod as she has completed trcr B.Tech- In dag time. AIso resolued to wite q letter to the Gouernment for ratification of tLrc Uniuersitg orders for her appointment bg trarusfer a.s Technical Assistant Grade - I a,s suggested bg the State L.F. Audit. 1(). Being aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1- University in rejecting her application and appointment of respondent No.3, the writ petitioner filed the underlying writ petition. Submissions of the learned Advocate General on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2

11. Learned Advocate General on behalf of respondent No.1- University raised the following contentions: 4 a) Error in interpreting the Statute XIV: The Clause t2 of Statrrte XIV of the First Statutes under the JNTU Act, I97tl, is extracted as under:

12. QUALTFTCA?IO/VS FOR DTRECT RECRUTTMENT: (1) (a) No person shq.ll be eligible for appointntent to ang seruice bg direct recruitment unless he safisfe.s the selection authoritg as well as the appointing authority, that; (i) lte is of sound health, actiue ha.bits and free front ang bodilg defect or Infi"rrnitg rendering him unfit for such seruice; (ii) his character and antecedents are such as to qualifg him for such seruice; (iii) he possesses the acadernic and other qualifications prescribed for the post; and (iu) he is a citizen of Indta; Provtded that no candidate other than a citizen o-f India mag be appointed except ilith tne preuious sanction of the State Gouernment and except in accordance uith such conditions ctnd restrictions as theg mag be laid down. Such sanction shall not be accorded unless the State Gouernment are satisfied that sufficient number of citizens of India, who are qualified and suitable are not auailable. (u) No person sLnll be eligible for direct recntitment, If he is less than 18 gears of age and unless otherutise specified. in the special or adhoc rules and if he is more than 34 years of age a.s on the 7st dag of Julg of the gear in which the rtotifi"cation for selection to the releuant post, category or class or a seruice is made: Prouided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply for direct recntitment to all the categories and posts in the poltie Subordinate Seruice and in the Special Armed Police Seruice of the State of Telangana. (b) The maximum age limit prescribed in the Special Rules .for direct recruitment to a post shall be raised:- (i) Untftrmlg bg 5 gears in the case of candidates belonging to the SCs or STs or BCS specified in Schedule-I of these rules: NB: The age concession in fauour of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes will be in force up to 31.5.2016. NB: The age concession In fauour of BCs will be in force tiil the end of Mag, 2021. Prouided that in tlrc case of SCs and SIs, the maximum age !.imit prescibed for ottrcr communities in the Special rules .shall be raised uniformlg bg 10 gears for tlrc purpose of ,' imited direct recruitmertt. .\B: This o.ge concession In fauour of Schedulett Castes / ,Scheduled Tribes shall be in force till the end" of May, 20 1 6. (ii) UnifurmlA bg 10 gears in the case of persons With Disabilities: 5 ,lVB.' Ihis concession shall be in force till the end of Mag, 2021. (iii) In the case of widows, diuorced women and u)omen judiciallg separate-d from their husbands, who are rnt remarried, the maximttm age limit for direct recruitment to posts carrying a scale of paA equal to Junior Assisfanfs or Iess, shall not exceed 40 gears In the case of SCs and STs candidates and 35 Aears in the case of oth.ers: Prouided that for compa.ssionate appointment to the spouse of decea.sed Gouernment emplogee, the upper age limit shall be 45 gears Inespectiue of the communitg. (c) When direct recruitment is to be made to ang State or Subordinate Seruice bg examination or selection, ' (i) a person who worked in the armed forces of tle Indian [Jnion, shatl be allowed to deduct from his age a period of three gears in addition to the length of seruice rendered bg him in the armed forces for purposes of the maximum age limit; (ii) a person who ias recnited as a whole-time Cadet Corpse Instntctor on or afier tLrc lst January, 1963 on his discharge from the NCC eitlrcr before or afier the expiry of the initial or extended tenure of his olfice in NCC hauing served for a period of not less than six month-s prior to his release from the NCC shall, subiect to the production of a certifrcate to that effect that he hr.s been releo.sed from the NCC be allowed to deduct from his qge a period of three gears in addition to the length of seruice rendered bg him In the NCC for purposes of maximum age limit: Prouided that the person referred to In sub-ntles (1) and (ii) aboue shall, afier making the deductions refened on in the sub-rules shalt not exceed the maximum age limit prescribed for the post. (iii) a person alreadg in seruice of the State Gouerrtment, who has been appointed regularlg, stnll be allouted to deduct from his age the length of regalar seruice under the State Gouernment up to a mqximum of fiue years for purposes of the ma-rimum age limit (2) The minimum General Educational Qualifications uthereuer referred to in these or special rules shall be the qtalifications prescribed in ScLrcdule-Il of these rules, (3) (a) A candidate should possess the oca.demic qtalifications and experience Including practical expeience prescribed, If ang, for the post, onthe date of the notification for direct recruitment issued by ttLe concerned recniting agencg. (b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to a post bg promotion or oppointment bg transfer, unless he possesses tlrc academic quatifications and technical or oth'er qtatification and has passed the departmental and other tests and has satisfactorilg completed ang course or training 6 prescribed in the special rules as a prerequisitet qualification for the post, to which he is to be appointed. bg prornotion or bg transfer. (4 ) Disqualification for appointment: - (a) A candidate shall be disquatified for appointmeri If he hintself or through relations or friends or anry others hoLs catruassed. or endeauored to enlist for t;'s cand.klature ertrarteous support, whether from official or- non-offi.cial sources for appointment to ang state or suborciinate seruice. (b) No person utho has more than one wife liuinq or who hcts spouse liwng, marries in any case, in which suclt marriaqe ;.s uoid. bq reason of its taking place during the tife time of such spouse, shall be eligible for appointnent by direct ,-ecruitment to ang State or Subordinate Seruice. 1c) No woman whose marriage Is uoid by rczason of the itusbqnd hauing a utfe liuing at the time of such marriage or rulto lto's rnarried a person who ho's a wtfe liuing at the time <tf su<:h ntarriage, shall be eligible for appointnen.t bg d,irect recruitment to arty State or subordinate Seruice. (C) No person who has been dismissed fronr a State or ()erftral Gouentntent seruice or from the seruice c>f central or {}ktte Gouentment undertaking or local or other authorities or tuho has been conuicted bg a court of laut for an offence irtuoluing moral turpitude shall be eligible for appotntment to artg State or Subordinate Seruice It is submitted that the learned Single Judge furrdamentally erred in relying upon clause 12 of Statute XIV ol'the First statutes of respondent No.1-University to hold that the writ petitioner was eligible. The learned Advocrrte General argued that Clause 12 merely prescribes the methods of appointment such as open competition, promotion, for broad service categories. But, it does not, and cannot, prescribe the detailed qualifir:ations, eligibility criteria, or feeder cadres for specifir: posts, and to read it as permitting a free-flowing transfer from one service to any other service is an erroneous over- simplification. b) A council: The learned Advocate General emphasized that for the post of Assistant Registrar, no speci{ic statutory VC 7 recruitment Rules detailing qualifications and feeder cadres have been framed. In such a vacuum, Executive Council, being the highest executive body of respondent the Jawaharlal Nehru No. 1-University under Technological University Act,l972 (for short UNTU Act), is issue executive instructions and empowered to resolutions to govern appointments. The resolutions passed in the X and XI meetings of the Executive Council, which clearly state that the post of Assistant Registrar shall be filled by promotion from the post of Superintendent, have been in continuous practice since 1993. This settled " practice, which was evolved on account of administrative necessity, carries great weight- c) Violation of Established Service Classification: It is submitted that respondent No. 1-Universiqr's services are distinctly classilied under Statute xIV(1) into Academic, Administrative, Ministerial, Subordinate (Technical), etc., which are created for a functional purpose. It was argued that the post of Superintendent is the recognized feeder cadre for Assistant Registrar, bridging the Ministerial and Administrative services. The writ petitioner, belonging to the Subordinate (Technical) Service, cannot bypass into the Administrative Service without first being integrated into the recognized channel of promotion, i.e., the Ministerial Service, and rising to the level of Superintendent. d[) Misapplication of Telanqana State and Subordinate Service Rules.1996: Rule 8 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, L996 (for short 'the Rules, 1996'l is extracted as under: 8: Eligibilitg for promotion or appointment bg tran^sfer :-For appointment to a higlrcr post either bg promotion from one category to another within a seruice or bg appointment bg 8 transfer from one seruice to another seruice, a member of a :;eruice or class o-f a seruice, sho.ll haue satisfactoritg completecl itis probation in the category from uhich he is proposed" to be promoted or appointed bg transfer to such higher post. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge,s reliance on Rule 8 of the Rules, L996 is misplacecl. It is, argued that the said rule merely states a general principle of etigibility, and the said rule applies if such a transfer is pernritted by the specific recruitment rules. It is subrnitted that the said Rule does not create a right to be transferred from one service to anothcr. It is erlso submitted that the respondent No.l- University's o\^,n statu:tes and settled executive resolutions have created a specihc framework and the general state rulcs cannot overridc them. e) Seep-' of iudicial review: The learned Advocate General argut:d that the learned Single Judge exceeded the limits and :he scope of judicial review. tt is argued that the decisron of the Executive council was neither arbitrary nor rnala _fid". [t was based on a rational interpretation of the service structure, and the writ c<>urt can.ot substitute its own vierv for that of the academic and administrativc body in determining the appropriate feeder cadre and necessary administrative experience. ns of Sri J.Sudheer Iearned counsel for petitioner L2, Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, supporting the impugned order of the learned single Judge, vehemently argued the following: a) By placing reliance on clause 12 of statute Xlv, it is argued by the learned counsel that the said clause 9 explicitly permits "in-service personnel who possess the qualifications" to appear for selection to posts in the Acad.emic and Administrative Services, and the writ petitioner, being an in-service candidate who has passed all requisite departmental tests, fulfils this criterion and cannot be excluded from consideration. b) The learned counsel submitted that the writ petitioner, who was earlier serving in the M'inisterial Service as a Junior Assistant, had been transferred by respondent No.1-University to the Subordinate (Technical) Service as a Technical Assistant. To justify such transfer, respondent No.l-Univ'ersity had itself invoked Rule 8 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. It was argued that the same principte ought to apply in the case of transfer to the Administrative Service as well, as respondent No.1-University cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. tt is further argued that respondent No.1-University cannot adopt inconsistent stands to justify its iltegal and arbitrary action- c) The learned counsel also submitted that denying the writ petitioner a chance to be considered, despite her superior qualifications (B.Tech, MBA and qualification of multiple departmental tests), while promoting others who have passed all tests, is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. d) The learned counsel further stated that the rejection of the writ petitioner's representation by the Executive Council was by a cryptic non-speaking order, which was rightly interfered with by the learned Single Judge- +r, l0 Consideration by this Court

13. Upcxr a r:nreful consideration of the rival submissions, the statutory ;rrovisions and the precedents relied upon, this court finds considerable merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of responclent No. I -University, for the following compelling reasons: I. Misplaced reliance on Statute XIV (121:

14. The interpretation placed by the learned Single Juclge on clause 12 of Statute XIV is legally untenable. clause 12 is a general enabling provision prescribing the broad modes oI recruitment. It provides that appointments to the Administrativr: Service shall be made by open competition, permitting ;n-service personnel to participate. 'However, the said provision does not deline the category of in-service personnel rn,tlo are eligible to compete for such posts.

15. Furthr:r, thc language of clause 12 cannot be extended to imply that r:r'cry in-service employee, irrespective of cadre or classification, such ?S, Technical Assistant, Librarian, or Laboratory Attendant is eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar. such an interpretation would disrupt the established cadre structure and defeat the purpose of maintaining distinct service classif-rcations within the University. T'he rule of interpretation generalia specialibus non derogant (gencral provisions do not derogate from-.sps:-cial ones) used to resolve contradictions in the statutes would apply to the present case. The specilic rule governing eligibility is found in the long-standing administrative practice and resolutions of the Executive Council, which clearly identify the feeder cadre for appointment or promotion to the post of Aqsistant Registrar and that specific Rule, would govern the general. The learned Single Judge's contrary view overlooks this governing framework and therefore, cannot be sustained. II. The Primacy of the Executive Council's Resolutions:

16. tt will not be out of the context to note that in the absence of specilic statutory recruitment rules, it is both permissible and necessary for the Executive Council, being the highest executive body under the JNTU Act, to prescribe service conditions and to regulate recruitment through duly passed resolutions. The resolutions adopted in L993, designating the post of Superintendent, as the feeder cadre for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar, constitute a conscious and reasoned policy decision. This policy has been consistently adhered to for over three decades, thereby giving rise to legitimate expectations and forming the basis of settled seniority structures within the University administration. L7. It is now well-settled that a long-standing and consistent administrative practice, when not repugnant to the parent statute, carries substantial persuasive value and is entitled to \st t2 judicial rr:cognition. Therefore, the learned Singie Judge, in disregarding this settled institutional policy ancl aclministrative continuity, tailed to erccord due deference to r_he legitimate exercise ol' policy-making authorit5r of the Execul,ir.e council for functional ad ministrative arrangements. III. The Distinct Nature of Service Classifications:

18. It is to be noted that the classification of services under Statute xlv(l) is purposeful and cannot be clisregarded as superfluous. Each service, such as, Academic, Aclministrative, Ministerial, and Subordinate (Technical) is distincr_ in function, skill, and rt:sponsibility. The post of Assistant Registrar, being a core administrative position, requires experience in academic governance, finance, and personnel management, for which the post of Superintendent serves as the feeder cadre.

19. Further, the duties of a Technicar Assistant Grade-I, confined to technical and laboratory functions, are not comparable in nature or scope to that of a Superintendent. The respondent No.1-Universit5r's policy of restricting direct movement rrom a technical subordinate post to a senior administrati'r,e position is, therefore, founded on an intelligible differerttia ztnd has a rational nexus with the object of maintaining efficiency and administrative coherence. Thus, such a classification is reasonable and does not violate Article L4 of the Constitution of tndia. 13 IV. Misolaced Reliance on Rule 8 of State Rules and the writ petitioner's Past Transfer: 2o.. The writ petitioner's reliance on her earlier transfer and Rule 8 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules is misconceived. The prior transfer from Junior Assistant to Technical Assistant was confined to the subordinate, non- gazetted cadre and was treated as an exceptional case requiring audit justification and Government ratification, which remains pending. Such an irregular'and contested instance cannot be invoked as a precedent to claim a vested right for inter-service transfer.

21. Rule 8 of the State Rules, on a plain reading, merely prescribes the eligibility condition and does not, by itself, create a substantive right to seek transfer. The applicability of Rule 8 is contingent upon permissive provisions in the relevant special or institutional rules. Thus, in the present case, the University's framework, as dehned by its executive resolutions, does not permit direct transfer from the Technical to the Administrative Service, and thereby the writ petitioner's claim is therefore, legally untenable. V. The Review:

22. This Court is of the considered view that the scope of judiciat review in matters of administrative appointments is 14 limited tc examine whether the decision suffers from arbitrarinr:ss, mala fides, or violation of statutoryz provisions. It is not for this court to determine the appropriate leeder cadre or to weigh the cornparative merits clf administrativc and technical experience. The decision of the Executive council, being based on a ratiorLal and time-tested policy, cannot be termed perverse or illegal to rvarrant interference under Articlt: 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Juclge, hole\rer, exceeded ttre limits of judicial review by intruding int.o the policy domain and directing reconsideration contrary to the respondent No. 1 -Universit5r's established service framework and institutiona I autonomy.

23. In the: light of the aforesaid discussion, this c-ourt is of the view that the writ petitioner did not fulfil the essential eligibility criterion for being considered for the post of Assistant Registrar, as she was not holding the post of Superintendent or any other post in the recognized channel of promotiorl and that the appointmenlr of respondent No.2 was in accordance with the established practice and resolutions of respondent No.1- University.

24. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the impugned order dated o6.a3.2o24 of learned Single Judge suffers frorn infirmity warranting interference by this court. Ttre impugned l5 order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8455 of 2022 is liable to be set aside.

25. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8455 of 2022 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ SD/-K.SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR & SECTION OFFICER To Technological University' Hyderabad 1. The Registrar, Jawaharlal ^Nehru , +*",gnriv.,*S:.e!3:;,:#%3un"ir, rhe Jawaharrar Nehru rechnorosicar . V*XZBy,3+iil131,oqoL=. G€NERAL, High court ror the state or - l**eH shl'Jg"JtfEq{?.|{}o",,u re?ucr ., 5. one CC to sn^r] i.F"RAilAfiil'R'E-DDV,'Advocite [6PUC] 6. Two CD CoPies PSK. LS Qr HIGH COURT ( DATED:06/1 112A25 c o MMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.1110 AND 1186 of 2024 ... -. -"'::-:::- -.- : , ,. --: r.i. , . '.' ,' ,/.

1. 18 tt[ M ? ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS q,*s" ff*