High Court · 2025

petition under Art'rc;,e Z2O of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Proc.No. A1167212016. dated 19-6- 2017 issued by the 5th respondent and the final seniority list of Senior Assistants working in Rangareddy District vide Lr.No. A11232812023. dated 05-09-2023 issued by the I st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust. discriminatory and vrolative of Articles 14, '16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndian and contreary to 2 the provisions of the state and Subordinate service Rules and consequen y set- aside the same and hold that the petitioners are entitled to count their seniority in the category o[ Senior Assistants with effect from the dzrte of their promotion to the said post on 10-10-2016 and consequenfly entifled for placing their names at appropriate places in the final seniority list of senior As sistants of Rangareddy District with all consequential and attendant benefits including promotion to the post of Superintendent on that basis lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion of their name in the seniority list of senior Assistants working in FLangareddy District vide Lr-No- A1/232812023, dated 5-9-2023 issued by the 1st respondent taking the date of their promotion to the post of senior Assistants on 10-10-2016 without reference to passing ihe survey training lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Betwee n: Hyderabad Telangana. Hyderabad. .1 - The Secreta,ry to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of 2.7he Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Teiangana. 3. The Collector and Distnct li{agistrate, Rangareddy District, Kongarakatan, 4. The collector and District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar fistrict, Mahabubnaqar. 5, State oi Telangana. r_ep_, by its Special Chiei-Se,:retary. to Governm"enr, lbrahimpatnam lvlandal, R.R. District. Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. AND .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 2 3 Smt P Pavanr, D19r Sqlyjrq, aged about 35 yearr;, U.D.R.t., O/o. Speciat Deputy C.ollector (LA), lAP, Shamshabad, Rangareddy District. Smt. P Nivedita, D/o. Buchareddy, aged 33 ye-ars, Oic. Rl,0/o. Tahsildar. Keshampet lr,ilandal, Rangareddy District. Smt. R Shilpa. D/o. R.Krishna Reddy, aged 32 1,ears, Senior Assistant, Q/o Special Deputy Cottector (LA), lAp, Shdmshabad, Rangareddy District. ... RESPOf\IDENTS/PETITIoNERS J

4. P.Manjula, Senior Assistant, C/o. District Collector, Rangareddy District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou( may be pleased to vacate the lnterim orders dated. 06-10-2023 in l.A.No. 1 of 2023 in w,p.No.2g040 ot 2023 and dismiss {he Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D. BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to5: Gp FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.6:- WP NO: 27O64OF 2024 Between: Collectorate, Sangare ddv, Dlo Tahsildar, Ameenpur MandaI,Sangareddy District Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Sangaieddy District (LA), lAP, Shamsha bad, Rangaredd Anantha Ramul i. V.B. Sriman Raju, S/o. V.B. Ranga raju, Aged 38 years, Senior Assistant, O/o 2 Mohiuddin Arif, S/o. M.A. Hameed, aged 36 years, Senior Assistant. O/o 3. Smt. V.Aparna, W/o. Rapell i Raju, aged 44 years, Senior Assistant. O/o. SDC 4 H.Annapurna, D/o Sangaredd 5 Smt. B.Navaneetha, Gopal, aged 35 Years, Senror Assrstant, O/o 6 Smt. M.Tejaswini, D/o. M .Srinivas, aged 34 Yea rs, Senior Assistant. O/o 7 B.Jyothsna, D/o. B Shankaraiah, a 42 Years, Senior Assrstant. O/o. Collectorate. Sangaredd y, Sang B T.Srinivas. S/o. Panda ri, aged 41 years, Senior Assistant D ivisional Officer, Narayankhed Divison, Sa ngareddy District. 9. Y.Nagaraju, S/o. Durgaiah, aged 40 years, Senior Assistant Raikode Mandal, Sangaredd y District. Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Sangaredd y District 36 years, Senior Assistant. O/o Collectorate, Sangare ddy, Sangareddy District , O/o. Revenue , O/o Tahsildar, y Dislrict. u, aged Distri y District. v AND ..PETITIONERS Telangana, Hyderabad. 1 . The Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana, 3 lhe District Colbctor, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. 1 Ine District Collector, Rangareddy District at Kongarakatan, 5 State of Telangana, rep., by its Special Chiei Secretary to Government. Hyderabad, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tlre High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned seniority list of senior Assistants issued in Proc.No. A11136112023, dated 21-9-2024 issue(l by the 3rd respondent counting the seniority of the petitioners from 4-z-2011 ins..ead of from the date of their promotion to the said post on 18-s-2017 while counting the date of temporary promotion of simirarry situated person is as irtegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and viotative of Artictes 14, 16 and 21 of th constitution of lndian and contrary to the provisions of the State and subordinate Service Rules and consequently set-aside the same and hold that the petitioners are entifled to count their seniority in the category of senior Assistants with effect from the date of their promotion to the said post on 1B-s-2o1T and consequenfly entifled for placing their names at appropriate places in the final r;eniority list of senior Assistants of sangai-eddy District with all consequential ,rnd-ftendant benefits including promotion to the post of Superintendent on that basis lA NO: 1 OF 2024 = Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sL;oport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents [o consrder the case of the petitioners for inclusion of their name in the seniority irst oi Senror Assistants working in s;rngareddy District vide Notice No. A11136it2a23. dated 21-9-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent taking the date of their prornotron to the post of Senior Assistants on 1}-s-2o17 without reference to passing the survey training Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D. BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES I 5 WP NO: 28764 OF 2024 Between: 1 !,S[va Kumar, S/o. Srisailam, aged About 40 years, Senior Assistant, _ 9/o-. Tahsildar, Kondurg, Rangareddy District. 2. N.E.Bhagya Laxmi, D/o. Sayanni, aged About 41 vears, Senior Assistant, 0/o. Revenue Diiisional Officer, Kandukui, Rangreddy District. 3. P.Manjula,_ D/o. Anjaiah, aged 38 years, Senior Assistant, 0/c. Tahsildar, Talakondapally, Rangareddy District. AND ...PETITIONERS Hyderabad. Telangana, Hyderabad. t. Ihg Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana, 3. The Collector and District Magistrate, Rangareddy District, 4. The Collector and District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar District, 5. State of Telangana, rep., by its SpecialC.irief Secretary to Government, Kongarakalan, lbrahimpatnam MandaliR.R. District, Mahabubnagar. Reve n u e De pa rtme n t, Secretariat H-yttffitta-d. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of \ /rit of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proc.No. 41167212016, dated 19-4-2017 issued by the 4th respondent and the final seniority list of Senior Assistants working in Rangareddy District vide Lr.No. A1/232812023, dated 5-9-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent as being illegal. arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violafive of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndian and contrary to the provisions of the State and Subordinate Service Rules and consequently set-aside the same and hold that the petitioners are entitled to count their seniority in the category of Senior Assistants with effect from the date of their promotion to the said post on 10-'1 0-2016 and consequently entitled for placing their names at appropriate places in the final seniority list of senior Assistants of 6 Rangareddy District with all consequential and atten Jant benefits including promotion to the post of Superintendent on that basis lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion of their name in the seniority list of Senior Assistants working in Rangareddy District vide Lr.trio. A1l2321lzo23, dateJ s-g-2023 issued by the 3'd respondent taking the date of their promotion to the post of senior Assistants on 10-10-2016 without reference to passinr; the survey training Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D. BALA KISHAN RA.O Gounsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES I The Court made the foltowing: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PI'LLA NARTHTK aO4O of 2023 & 270,64 aad 2A764 oF 2024 WRIT PETITIO N Nos.2 COMMONORDER: Sincethelisinvolvedinallthesewritpetitionsisinterserelated with each other, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order. for tJle resPondent resPondent No 6 in Heard Sri D.Bala Kishan Rao, leamed counsel for the petltloners of 2024 and learned 2l in W.P.Nos.28O40 of 2023' 27064 and' 28764 Government Pieader for Services-I appearing authorities. In spite of service of notrce on W.P.No.28O4O ol 2023, none appeared on her behalf' 3) Aggrieved by the action of respondent No'3 in issuing the seniority list dated 2r.og.2024 dury counting the seniority of the petitioners from the date of passing of Survey Training Test instead from the date of promotion, W.P'Nos'2804 O of 2023 arld 27 064 and 287 64 of 2O24 are The case of the Petitioners in W.P.No.28040 of 2O23 is that 4l originally they '*'ere appointed as Junior Assistants on 01'07'2O13 after Group-tV Services and allotted to erstwhile due selection through Thereafter, ttrey were promoted to the post of Mahabu bnagar District 2 Senior Assistants vide proc.No.A2/29 45l2016, date .l lO. 10.2O16, with a precondition to pass the Survey Training within one year. Accordingly, they joined in the said posts and are working as surh. Thereafter, they were deputed to Survey Training held between 2g.12.2016 to 07 .O2.2O1T in second spelr and accordingly they have completec the training within the period of probation. However, their services were regr:larized in the post of Senior Assistant from the date of completion of survey training i.e. 13.06.2017 vide proc.No.Al /672/2016, dated 19.06.2OlZ,instead from t-he date of their promotion to the said post on Irl.1O.2O16, which is clearly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articlt.s L4, 16 and, 27 of the Constitution of India. [t is further submitted th rt a_fter creation of new Districts, the services of the petitioners were taken over to the control of O/o. Collectorate, Rangareddy District. While so, the provisional seniority list in the cadre o[ Senior Assistant dated 30.06.2023 was communicated by respondent No.3 u herein the names of petitioner were includecl at Sl.Nos.3S, 3g and 40 r espectively. But, based on the objections raised by some of the empl ryees, the oflicial respondents have issued the flnal seniority list of tjenior Assistants working in Ranga Reddy Districr vide Lr.No.Al /2.t2a/2023, dated. o5.o9.2023, pushing down rhe names of the petitione^, to sl.Nos.7g, 79 and 8O duly ta_king the date of passing the survey train ng test, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14' 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India

4.1) Similarly, the case of the petitioners in W'P'No '27064 of 2024 is that they were originally appointed as Junior Assistants in erstwhile Medak District during the year 20 13 and thereafter tJrey have passed Revenue Test Pa-rt I, Il and III' Accounts Test for Subordinate Oflicers Part-t. It is further submitted that based on the promotions given by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar' to several Junior Assistants who have completed three years services' passed Revenue and Accounts Tests' but could not complete Survey Training' to the cadre of Senior Assistants' petitioners herein have also made representation dated 09'O5'2017 to considertheircaseforpromotiontothepostofseniorAssistant. Considering the same, responde nt No'3 issued Proc'No'A2/7O8 /2017 ' dated 18.O5.2O17, promoting these petitioners temporarily to the cadre of Senior Assistants with a precondition to pass the Survey Training Test within one year. Accordingly' they are working as Senior Assistants' Thereafter, they were deputed to Survey Training held between 28.12.2016 to 07.O2'2O17 in the second spel and they have completed the same within the period of probation' Consequently' respondent No'3 has issued Proc'No A2/70 812077 ' dated O4'O7'2O17 revoking the condition and regularizing their services in the post of Senior Assistant 4 w.e.f .O4.O7 .2OlZ instead from the date of reir promotion on 14.O5.2017, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust a.d vi.lative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of ttre Constitution of India

4.21 Likewise, the case of the petitioners in W.p. llo.,2g164 of 2024 is that they were initially appointed as Junior Assi stants in erstwhile Malrabubnagar District on l2.O9.2Oll, O2.O7.2013 and 22.02.2013 respectively. Thereafter, they were promoted to rhe post of Senior Assistants vide proc.No.A2/2g4Sl2Ot6, dated rt.1O.20t6, with a precondition to pass the Survey Training within one y_,ar and they joined the said posts and are working as such. Even before they were promoted to the post of Senior Assistarrt, the petitioners hererrr u.ere deputed for Survey Training held between 24-06.2016 to 04.0ti.20 t6 in the first spell and they have completed the same rvithin thc pe.rod of probation. However, their services were regula:-ized in the post c f Senior Assistant from the date of completion of Survey Training r.e. 27.10.2O 16 vide impugned Proc.No.A I /6 Z2 /2016, dared 19.04.20 17, instead from the date of their promotion on 1O. 10.2016, which is illegal arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and.2L of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that after creation o[ new Distrrcts, the services of the petitioners were taken over to the control o[ ()/ct. Collectorate, Rangareddy. It is further submitted that the provisiona,l seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistant dated 30-06'2023 was communicated by respondent No.3 wherein the names of petitioners were included at S1.Nos.35, 36 and 39 resPectivelY' But, based on the objections raised by some of the employees, the ofhcial respondents have issued t1le final seniority list of Senior Assistants working in Ranga Reddy District vide Lr.No.Al/232 8l2023,dated 05'O9'2023' pushing down the names of the petitioners to Sl'Nos'74, 75 and 76 duly taking the date of passing the survey training test, which is illegal' arbitrary' unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India' l,earned counsel for the petitioners has contended that while 5) issuing the impugrred frnal seniority list' no' notice was served on the petitioners and unjustly their places in the'seniority list was altered and thereby the principles of natural jus[ice were violated' Further' due to pushing down of the seniority based on the dates of regularization of services, their seniority was affected in the zonal seniority list affecting their further promotion to the cadre ol Superintendents' Further' while sending for Survey Training' the respondents have not followed the seniority, for the reasons best known to them' Learned counsel has contended that when thc promotion to the post of senior Assistant was with a precondition to pass the Survey Test' the authorities ought to have sent the emproyees for Survey Training Test as per seniority' Since 6 the respondents have not followed the seniority, the petitioners have deprived their seniority from the date of their promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, for no fault of them, which is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel has further contended that the pelitioners were never given the opportunity to undergo the Revenue Surrey Training before they were promoted ald as soon as the petitior.ers were sent for Training they have successfully completed the same rvithin the period of probation. Therefore, they are entitled for countinll ol their seniority from the date of promotion but not from the datc of completion of Training. In the instant cases, the delay in passing Survey Training is only administrative action and cannot be attributed to the petitioners herein. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Rules 15 and 16 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules and also F.R. 26 and 33. It is further contended that the authorities have counted the adhoc service of one Smt. A. Jyothi frorn [0.10.2O16 and promoted her to the cadre of Naib rahs dar in Zone-\./[ s,. c.f.o i.o9.2023 rvhereas the said benefit is not extended to the petitioilers and the same amounts to discrimination. As per F.R. 26, tlrle last drLte of examination is to be reckoned for the purpose of counting senioritl. and as such the petitioners are deemed to have completed the Survelz .l.raining as on the date of their promotion. Learned counsel has strentrously contended that the persons who were junior to the petitioners in the cadre of 7 Junior Assistants were shown over and above them in the final seniority list of Senior Assistants only on the ground that they has passed Survey Training igrroring the fact that the authorities have not followed seniorit5r while sending the employees for Survey Training Test, for which, the petitioners cannot be penalized. Further, the delay in challenging the conformation orders dated 19 .06.2017 cannot be taken into consideration as the petitioners came to know the facts only after the final seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistants dated 05.09.2023 was prepared and communicated to the petitioners' Therefore, the learnedcounselprayedthisCourttoissuesuitabledirectionstothe respondent authorities to include the names of the petitioners in the seniority list of Senior Assistants duly taking the date of their promotion to the post of Senior Assistants but not passing the Survey Training' Reliance has been placed on M.V.Chotapa;thi v' Managing Diredo4 APSRIIC, Musheerabad, Hgderabadt and J' V'S'P' Purnananda Rao a. Commissioner and Director of School Educatiorl A'P" Hgderabadz. 6) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents while admitting the factum of appointment of tlte ' 1999 (3) ALD 664 , 2006 (l) ALT 528 (D.E}.) petitioners to the post of Junior Assistants a,d furr her pre-conditional promotion to the post of Senior Assistants has <.ontended that the petitioners were promoted as Senior Assistants on adhoc basis with speciFrc condition duly invoking Rule lo(b) of Telalgana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Leamed Goverrrment pleader has contended that in the promotion proceedings it was clearly mentioned that -(i) the promotion is purely temporarjr basis anrl does not confirm any right and the individuals are liable to be revertt:d to their origrnal post at any time without assigning any reasons there for. The Services of the promotes performed in Sr. Asst. cadre will not be counted lor seniority till acquisition of requisite qualification i.e ., pass of Survey Training Examination.,, It is further contended that it is u.ell scttled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases that tdhoc promotions are considered where exigencies of public serrrice n<:cessitatc such arrangements and even consideration of seniority do not erlter into it. The incumbents continue to hold their substantive lort ". pcst anC onl-v discharge the duties of ttre higher post essenriali-y as a sropgap arrangement and [he petitioners cannot seek any seniority on such service. Further, the Honble Supreme Court in R.tmkoLnt Shripcrd Sinai Adrnlpqlkar v. tlnion o! Indta3 has held that asking an officer I AIR I99I SC I I45 9 who substantively holds a lower post merely to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion. Similar view was expressed by t1le Honble Supreme Court in its later judgments holding that such promotions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny and the temporar5r/adhoc promotions cannot result into the grant of seniority. karned Government Pleader has further contended that in the promotion orders it was clearly stated that all the appointments are temporar5r appointments, purely on temporary basis and the same will not be regarded as qualiffing service for regularization as Senior Assistant and will not be counted as service as Senior Assistant. To that written undertaking was also taken from the employees that they will not claim any right and seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant ald that the seniority will be based only on the service rendered by them after acquiring all the requisite qualifications. It is lurther contended that as the petitioners were appointed under Rule 1O (b) of Telangana State and Subordinate Serrrice Rules, 1996, Rule 16 (ii) cannot be made applicable to their case. Learned Government Pleader has further contended that the petitioners have not challenged the proceedings whereby their services were regularized, taking into consideration the acquisition of requisite qualification of Survey Training. Therefore, now it is not open for the petitioners to seek seniority from the date of adhoc promotion. As such, the present writ petitions are filed at belated stage 10 and therefore liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 7l In reply, while reiterating the arguments tLlready advanced, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as settled by the Hontrle Supreme Court, if the initia_l appointment is not made by following the procedure laid dov,n by the Rules, trut the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly, till the regularization of his services in accordance with the Rules, the period of offrciating service will be counted. By relying on the same, Iearned cour.: se1 has submitted that by applying the said principle of law, the services of the petitioners from the date o[ promotion to the post of Senior Assistant can bc considered since there is no break in service and the petitioners are uninterruptedly discharging their duties from the date of their promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. 8) This Court has taken note of the submissions rrLade by respectivc counsel and perused the material on record. 9) As can be seen from the record, admittedly, thr: petitioners werc appointed as Junior Assistants through direct recruitment on OL.O7 .2013. Af[er completion of three years of srrrvice, they were promoted to the post of Senior Assistaats as per Rule 1O(b) of Teialgana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, on adhocr basis, by which 11 time, all the petitioners have passed the requisite tests, except Survey Training Test. However, the said promotion was subject to following conditions: 1) 2l 3) 4l s) The promotion is purely on teEporary basis and does not conhrm any right and the individuals are liable to be reverted to tieir original post at any time \,ithout assigning reasons thetefor. The Service of t.I"e promotecs performed in Sr'Asst. cadre will not be counted for seniority till acquisition of requisite pass of Survey Training Examinetion- The Promote€s shall not be etigible to an increment in the trme of scale pay applicabte to them ur ess they pass the tests, complete the training or acquire rJ:e qua.lification prescribed in the Spl. Rules, as a condition for the grant of increment to a member of the sertrice class or category- The promotees shall be rcplaced as soon as possible by the member of the servicc, who is entitted to the appointment under this rules The promotees are directed to join in tlte post within (15) da-vs from the date o[ receipt of this order. If they fail to join in the Post withrn the strPula(cd period o[ (15) days or evade to join tie post by proceeding on leavc, the ofltr of promotion shatl be treated s automatically cancetled and thelr namcs shall dcemcd to havc been omitted from the list of approved candidates and they shall li)rlirl the right of promotion both the present and in future lor the post rn terms of G.O.Ms.No.123, G.A. (Ser.A) Dept., dt.I4.O3.2OO4' 10) From the above conditions, it is clear that the promotion of the petitioners as Senior Assistants was on adhoc basis and it was specifica-tly mentioned in the promotion order that services of the promotees performed in the cadre of sr. Assts. will not be counted till acquisition of requisite pass of survey training examination' t2 1l) F\rther, though the petitioners were prcmoted as senior assistants on i0.lO.20l6 and 1g.05.2017 respectiveJy, admittedly, they have completed the survey training between 2a.12.2016 to OZ.O2.2O17 and 24.06.2016 to O4.08.2O16, as the case may be, a.rd the results were announced on 13.O6.2017 and, 27.10.2016 respecr.ively. Thereafter, respondent No.4 has issued the impugned proceedings dated i9'o6.2o17 and i9.o4-2o17 regularizing the adhoc promotion of the petitioners in the senior assistant cadre from the datr. of survey training result i.e. 13.06.2017 and 19.O4.2012 respectively, and now aJter a lapse of more than 6 years the petitioners aro challenging the regularization proceedings. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that there is no delay on the part of the petitioners, but the fact remains that they are very rnuch conscious of the regularization of their services from the date of pubtication of results of Survey Training examination and they failed to <luestion thc same immediately. l2l A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 166O of 2otg and 593 ol 2016, clared 13. 12.2021, has held that the dclay of five to eighteen years, in preferring a writ petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution o[ India, has to be treated as inordinate. In the present 13 case also, there is a delay of more ttran sk years on the part of the petiLioners in approaching this Court, whilh cannot be countenanced. 13) As regards the contention of the petitioners that the respondents have counted the adhoc service of one A.Jyottri in tl.e cadre of Senior Assistant while promoting her to the cadre of Naib Tahsildar whereas the said concession is not extended to the petitioners herein is concerned, it is seen from the material papers annexed to W.P.No.27O64 of 2024 (page 261 that said A.Jyothi was promoted as Senior Assistant on adhoc basis on 10. 10.2016 whereas the material papers annexed to W.P.No.28O4O of 2023 (page 241 establishes that adhoc promotion of said A.Jyothi was regularizrd w.e.f. 13.O6 -2O 17 i.e. from the date of declaration of survey training results and the same is on par with the petitioners herein. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners in this regard is misconceived and disproved. 14) The next contention of the tearned counsel for the petitioncrs is that the persons shown below the petitioners in the promotion order dated 10. 1O.2O16 were sent for Survey Training in lirst batch overlooking the petitioncrs, as a result ol which, the services of the said individuals were regularized prioc to the regutarization of petitioners' services and the said individuals became seniors to the petitioners in the seniority list of Senior Assistants. When that be so, the petitioners L4 ought to have raiscd objcctions or taken necessary remedial measures at the releva.t point of time i.e. at the Lime of sending their juniors for Survey Training overlooking their case and the petitione rs ought to have diligent at the relevant point of time. Therefore, trris court is of the view that this ground is unavailable to the petitioners at this stage. petitioner concerned, the same 15) Insofar as the decision in M.V.Cru.lapotht's crzse (tejerred szpru/ is has no application to the case of slnce no discrimination is made out by the petitioners. Similarly in J. V.S.p. puntano;ndo,s ocse {referred supraf, the Division Bench of this Court dealt with the case where the del,ry s,as occurred due to non-publication o[ oflicial gaz,tte. Therefore, t]re said case is arso distinguishable on facts of the present case. 16l [n view o[ the abovc discussion, this Court does n,tt Iind any merit in the Writ Petitions and thc same are liable to be dismissed. l7l Accordingly,, rhc \\r.it petitions are dismissed. Miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed No To, //TRUE COPYII SD/-N. SRIHARI DEPUW REGISTRAR 8w SECTION O FFICER

1. One CC ro SRt. D BALA{|S]IAN RAO, Advocate [OI)UC] 2. Two CCs ro Gp FoR SERVTCES I ,Higti Cou.t foithe SlitL of Tetangana at 3. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTI BM GJP Yi 8 I HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 COMMONORDER .:s. \-:c. ) 10 SiP 1 50i ' ' l*'. WP.Nos.28040 of 2023 & 27064 and 28764 ot 2024 DISMISSING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS G*dd v,_o (l.to-