High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affirravit trea tnerewitn,ln. Higt court may be preased to lssue a Writ, Order or a Direction, on" ,oo in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus- a' Decraring the proceedings in Rc.No. 4g5 l2ol,tpandEtAl-2 dared 2g.07.2016 PtY99...by !h9 3rd respondent by which tne seniority tist of the insp-e.i"* Prohibition & Excise in Zone v was revised, ,. i "r arbitrary and unconstitutional "g"r, !:9""]:rl"g lhe consequential orders of the 2nd respondent in Cr. No. 10673 t 2009 cPE I A2 dared 04.11.2016 under whichlhl iniegrateo seniority rist of Murti Zone lll has been revised as illegal, arbitrary anj unconstitutional and c. Declaring the rnaction of the Respondent No. I in considering thr:r prayer of the Petitioner to stay the operation of the orders dated 29.07.2O'16 passed by the 3rd Respondent and the crders dated 04.11.2016 passed by the 2n,l Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and u rco nstitutiona I and d. Consequentllr quash and set aside the proceedings in Rc.No. 495 l2O10lP&ElA1-2 dateC 29.07.2016 issued by the 3rd respondernt by which the seniority list of the inspectors of Prohibition and Excise in Zone V was revised and the consequential orders of the 2nd respondent in Cr. No. 1O(i73l2009lCPElA2 daled 04.11.2016 unrler which the integrated seniority list of Mulli Zone lll has been revised and e. Consequently direrct the Respondents to revise the Senioril.y List of the lnspectors of Prohibition and Excise in Zone V and the integrated Sr::niority List for Multi Zone lll and plilce the name of the Petitioner above the name of the 4th Respondent in the same, on the ground that the date of commencement of the Petitioner being 02. 1 I . 1 996 as against that of the 4th Resprondent being 25.07.1999 l.A. NO: 1 OF 20 16(W PMP. NO: 56485 OF 2016) Petition under liection 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumsta nces stated in the affidavit filed in sucport of the petition, the High Court may be plerased suspend the proceedings irr Rc No. 495 l2OlOlP&E/A1-2 dated 29.07.2016 issr.red by the 3rd respondent and the consequential orders of the 2nd respondent in Cr. No. 1 0673/2009/CPE/A2 dated 04.1 1.2016 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between: Sri. K. Prabhu Vinay Kumar, S/o Sri K.P. Kantha Rao, Prohibition and Excise, Superintendent, DP&EO Wana Parthy ,Wana Parthy District. ...PETITIONERY4TH RESPONDENT AND '1. S. Panchak:shari, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 50 years, Working as prohibition and Excise Suoerintendent, Medak, Ri/o. H.No. 1-1 -667, Siddarth Nagar, Kazipet, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

2. Tte State of.Telangana, Represented by its Principal, Secretary Revenue (Excise-l) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-22.

3. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Telangana Statr:, l.lyderabad-

4. The Deputy Conrmissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Warangal Di,,,ision, Warangal ...RESPONDE NTS/RESPONDE NTS Petition under Section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or tne petiiioi, ii"'irg;b;r.r may be preased to vacate the interim orders issued by this Hon,ble cor.tr:, w.p.rr,,.p.rvo. 56485 of 20.16 in w'P'No' 4sB3r of 2016 dated 2gt'r2t2o16, rnJJi.rir" the above writ petition in the interest of justice. IA NO: 10F 2018 Between: Gi;i.;:ii il#ilHt, secreta riat, nvaer abaa _ziia I . Tte State of Telangana, Represented bv its princ I' secreta ry, Reven ue 2' The commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Terangana state, Hyderabad- 3. The Deputy Commissioner of prohibition & Excise, Warangal Division, Warangal AND ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER '1. S. Panchakshari, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 50 years, Working as prohibition i]..rt -i-i-ti6z,"b'io?"",.ft,"'r'ils",., fti9,r!ffi,f"f,i'S,!",lli", Med;[, -R6'

2. sri. K. prabhu Vinay Kumar, S/o sri r<.p._xantia?::1fffl:::::,ff"' prohibition and Excise, sup;rini"il;;i, sATi'ffi;b-;",r"ii,iiiit.,tiiilliil,"t (V),putkat (M), Medak bisti:tct- (R2 is not necessary party in this petition) ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Petition under section- 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support!l !!u pqtilor, if," frig;b"r.r may be pteased to vacate the interim orders dt 2-12-2016 in WpMp. frf". i;O+ai I 2016 in W.p.No. 4s837 t 2016 and dismiss the writ petition Gounsel for the petitioner: SRl. STVARAJU SRINIVAS Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FOR SERVICES I 9:lf_"_1lf.__tt e Respondenr No.4: SRI pRATAp NARAYAN SANGHT REPRESENTING FOR SRI P.NARASIMHA The Court made the following: ORDER IIHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHII{' WRIT PETITION No .45837 of 2016 ORDER: Seel:ing .-o set aside the proceedings in Rc No 4 95 l20lo l P F-IA1-2, d.ated 29.07-2016 issued by respondcnt l\o'3 and its consequerrtial proceedings in Cr.No- 10673l2OO9 ICPE/42' dated 04.),1.2016 pzLssed by respondent No 2 and consequently to direct the respondent.s to revise the Seniority List of the Inspectors of prohibitio r & Excise in Zone v and the lntegrated Seniority List for Multi Zone III rluly placing name of the petitioncr above the name of respon<lent No.4, the present Writ Petition is hled' 2l Heard Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-l apllearing for respondetrl-s I to 3, and Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior counsel, reprr:senting Sri P.Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for respotrden t No.4. Learnecl counsel for the petitioner has subnlitted that 3) initially the cetitioner and respondent No'4 rvere appoiuted as prohibitic,n and Excise Inspector under direct recruittne nt through APPSC zLnd t.heir commencement of probation r'vas; fixed at O2.t7.1g96 and in respect of respondent No'4 the s;al'ne was re- fixed as i:7.O'; lggg as he could not pass the departmental tests as required r-rnder Telangana State and Subordinate Slerrice Rules, -2 PK, J wp_45a37 2016 '..1 f996. A hnal seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors of Zone V was published by orders of respondent No.3 dated O5.IO.2OO7 wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.10O and name of respondent No.4 at Sl.No. 143 and in the remarks column against name of respondent No.4, it was specilically mentioned that his date of commencement of probation was fixed from 27.O7.1999 due to his not passing of departmental tests within the stipulaLed time. Further, in the linal Integrated Seniority List of Multi Zone-III consisting of Zones V and VI prepared by respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 29.O9.'2OO9, the name of respondent No.4 was shown at S1.No.237 and the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.71. However, in the said seniorit5z list dated 29.O9.2OO9, the name of the one K.Vara Prasad was shown at Sl.No.236 i.e. above the name of respondent No.4 shown at S1.No.237. Therefore, questioning the same, respondent No.4 filed O.A. No. 11245 ol 2OO9 wherein vide order dated O7.O7.2O10, the Tribunal had allowed the said O.A. duly setting aside the Integrated Seniority List dated 29.O9.2OO9 and directed the official respondents to prepare the revised seniority list as per the merit assigned by APPSC. Alleging non-implementation of the said order dated 07.O7.2OlO, C.A. No.992 of 2Oll was filed arrd the same was closed based on the compliance reported by the official respondents therein. However, respondent No.4 herein has f ( /[ 3 PK, J ,,,.p 45837 -2016 lrled CMA No.lll0 of 2Ol4 in CA No 992 of 2011 alleginll that the complianc,: rellor[ed was not a fact Finally' in order tr') get over the appearantx: ordered in CMA No' 130 of ?-Ol4' the official respondents hrve issued proceedings in Rc'No'495/20 10 /P&E/A1' d,ated 25.()6.21] 16 proposing to revise the seniol.iry ol. r':lspondent No.4 at 51.116.!)9A i.e. above the name of the petitroner he.:ein solely on the gr,tun<l that he secured more marks than the petitioner herein at l-he time of his initial appointment, to uhicl-i' inrmediately the petitioner rraised objections stating that as the rcsporLdent No'4 has not pas sed the required departmental tesls' \vithin the stipulated tinre, he cannot be placed above the nal.ne of the petitioner in t tre seniority list. However, brushing asid e the said objections,, the official respondents passed the orrler dated 29.O7.2O16 stating that on account of the order daterl 07 07'2O10 passed bll th: Tribunal, the seniority list has to be p repared in accordanoe w th merit ranking alone and not based orl r'lster point and the s;ame is illegal and arbitrary' Though, thc petrtioner has instituted O.A. No.3620 of 2016 assailing the order dated 2g.07.2O t6, -lie same was disposed by the Tribunal vide order dated12'o9.:2016directingthepetitionertoar,ailtlrealternative remedlz of hling of Statutory Appeal and the same was directed to be dispos;ed oi by the authorities considering the fact tl-rat he was not a partlr tc o.A. No.11245 0f 2009' dated 07.o7 20 10, which are \ 4- PK, J wp_45837 2016 j not binding on the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner rrred a representation dated 26.09.2O16 along with an Appeal of even date seeking revision of zonal seniority list vide ord.er dated 29.O2.2016. However, vide order dated 04.1 l.2016, once again the said objections were brushed aside by respondent No.2 by placing misconceived reliance on the judgment of the Hontrle Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9856_986 O of 2076 with Civil Appeal No.9861 of 2076 d,ated 27.O9.2016. Further, the exemption sought by the petitioner under Rule 16(h) of the 1996 Rures was also dismissed by the Government vide Memo dated 16.O6.2016. It is further stated that the appeal daLed 24.77.2076 preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.11.2O16 passed by respondent No.2 is still pending and no orders are passed thereon till date. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to set aside the order dated 04.11.2016 in the interest of justice. 4) Per contra, the iearned Government pieader has submitted that petitioner and respondent No.4 were appointed as prohibition & Excise Inspector and joined on 21.11.7996 and 02.11.1996 respectiveiy. Further, the services oI the petitioner were regularized from 02.11 .1996 and as respondent No.4 did not pass the requisite departmental tests, within the period of probation, he was penalized under Rule 16(h) and his date of commencement of 5- PK, J !(.P 45a37 2016 probationwasfixedas2T.OTlgggvideGORt'No1993'Rev'(Ex'I) Dept., datt:d Ol,09.2006. Thereafter, a provisional seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors of Warangal Divir;ion was communicate d vide Cr.No.2 643 l2OO4 lP&'E/A I , dated '2tl 07 .2006 ' wherein tlle name of the petitioner was shown at SI N'> 1OO and respondent No.'+ at 51.No. 143. After considering r'he obie::tions' the provisional seniority list was confirmed vide Cr'No 26 43l2OO4 I P&E/A1-2, daled 05.10.2O07, basing on which' the Intcgrated Seniority List of Multizone-lll was prepared and cc'rnrnunicated name of the p:titioner was shown at S1 No 7i and respottdent No'4 at SI.No.237. While so, respondent No'4 submjlted zr r:presenta- tion that laisi-rg objection that one Sri K Vara Prasad' u,'lo secured less marks than him, was placed at Sl'No'142' Hou'':vt r' the fact remains l.hat clue to non-passing of requisite departmt'ntal lests' the probrrtior: of respondent No'4 was re-flxed as 2 / 07 1999 ' Similarly, the date of commencement of probation olf said K Vara Prasad !!ras Ie hxed by the Government as 25'07 L999 vide individuals rvere pushed down in ranking list Thereaiter' as per the order da-,e:d 07.O7.2O1O passed in O'A tO'' 1 12'15 /2009 and O.A.No.1 159(),/ 1990 & batch, the Integrated Seniorit'r List was revised as per merit and a revised provisional Integraled Seniority -6- PK, J wp 45437 _2016 List was communicated on 25.03.2011 and the same was hnalized on 06.09.2014 wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.7g, respondent No.4 was placed at Sl.No. llg and K.Varaprasad was placed at Sl.No. t 18A. However, in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal in C.A. No.992l2Ol1, the revised seniori[r list was issued placing respondent No.4 at Sl.No.99/A i.e. above the petitioner, as per merit, as the petitioner secured 313.6 marks whereas respondent No.4 secured 315.5 marks. Consequently, in the Integrated Seniority List, respondent No.4 was placed at S1.No.77/A i.e. above the petitioner who was placed at Sl.No.77. Further, the appeal liled by the petitioner is pending consideration before respondent No. 1. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and gone through the record. 6) A perusal of the material on record discloses that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were selected as Excise Inspectors by direct recruitment through public Service Commission on obtaining 313.6 and 315.5 marks respectively and they joined service on 21.11.1996 and O2.ll.1996 respectively. Further, the date of commencement of probation of respondent No.4 and petitioner were initially hxed at O2.tt.lgg6 but as / -7 PK, J ,fp 4 5837_2016 respondeni- No.,1 could not complete the requisite dep:rrtmenlal tests, within the period of probation, his probatior-r pt riod was extended upto :he last date of passing of the. last depzrr[mer-rtaI Lesl and accorcingl ,. he was deemed to have commen,:ed I.r rs yrrobation in the categorl of Prohibition & Excise Inspector w.e.f.2i'.O7. 1999 i.e. trvo ycars :Lnterior from the date on which he passc<l the last depar[men:zLl tt:st as stipulated under Rule i6 (h) of A.lr. iitate and Sub-ordina te Serwice Rules, 1996, and Gove rnmen issued G.O.Rt.No. l99Il, dated 09.O9.2006, to Lhat effect. Whilr: so, the provisional se r.r i,lrity tist of Prohibition & Excisr, lnspcc tors was prepared lry rcspondent No.3 vide Circular No.26431'.201)4 lP&tr 1 A1, dated '),8.0'7 .2006, wherein the name of petitioncr wirs shown at Sl.No. 1OO anc respondent No.4 at Sl.No. 143, basing or.r thc date of regulariz;atio r of services in the cadre of ProLLibilion ,tr Excise lnspcctor. Thereafter, after considering the objections laised by certain ir-rclividua ls, the said provisional list was confinr:r:d by third respondent vio e Circular No.2643 /2OO4 /P&,tr 1 Al -2 dated

05.10.2007. Ra sing on the final seniority lists of Zone V ancl II, the Integraled Senrc,rity List of Prohibition & Excise Inspr:ctors of Multizonc-lI was also prepared vide Circular No.2399/I2O{)9lC'.PRl L3-3, dated 29.1)9.2OO9 wherein the name of petitioner rv:rs placed at Sl.No.71 and respondent No.4 at 237 and one K.Varri F)rasad a[ Sl.No. 142. -Ihr: ri:cord further discloses that admitredlv respondent l -8 PK, J wp 4s837 2Ot6 No.4 lailed to pass requisite departmental tests within the period of probation of three years. As such, the Government has re-fixed his date of commencement of probatio n as 2g.OT .1999. Likewise, in case of K.Vara Prasad also, his date of commencement of probation was also re-Jixed by the Government as 25.O7.lggg vide G.O.Rt.No.459, dated t6.O3.2022. Therefore, borh rhe individuals i.e. respondent No.4 and K.Vara prasad were pushed down lrom original APPSC ranking list due to alteration of date of commencement of probation as 2A.O7.lgg9 and 25.O7.1999 respectively and were accordingly placed at Sl.Nos. 144 and 143 respectively. Aggrieved by the placement o[ said K.Vara prasad above his name and challenging the said Integrated seniority list dated 29.09.2009, respondent No.4 has filed O.A. No. tl24l of 2OO9 and vide order dated O7.O7.2O10, the Tribunal has allowed the said O.A. holding as under: "ln these circumstances, the impugned seniority list, dated 29.09.2009, is liable to be set aside and the respondents are directed to prepare the seniority list of Prohibition and Excise lnspectors in Multi Zone III stnctly as per the merit assigned by the 4th responden t-AppSC, within a period o[ eight weeks from the date o[ receipt of a copy of the order by following the procedure prescribed under the rules and shall consider the case of the appellant lor promotton to the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent as per hrs seniorify and it he is within the zone of consideration as per the directions of this Tribunal." 7) In compliance of the above order, the respondent authorities have revised the Integrated Seniority List of prohibition & Excise / 9- PK, J 1,'p +5837,2016 Inspec[ors irs per merit vide Circular No'D7a2 l2OO9/ CPE/13' daLed 25.O3.2C r 1 and the said list was frnalizcd or-r 0(; 09 2014 wherr:in tlte t-rc rncs of the petitioner, respondent No 4 trrrd K Vara Prasad were placed at Sl.Nos.78, 1 18 and I 18A res pectively' Further, it.t put s;uance to the order passed by the Tribunrll in C A' No.992 12011 . rcspondent No.3 has again reviscd tne Zonal senioritl, lisl a ld placed respondent No'4 at Sl'No 99/A L'e above the pefitiorter, vi<le proceeclings dated 21.O3'2Ol l , consi<:ering the merit asst,SL'tc:c bv the APPSC. Consequently, in tl-te lntegra[cd Seniorily List :l Multizone-lll (consisting of Zone V and VI), respondent No.'l was placed above the petitioner vide pr':ceedings d-aLecl 29.t)7 .2t'I 6 and the same was confirmed b1' respon Ce nt No'2 vidc Procer:clinlgs clated 04. l l.2016. 8) Hert, ir rs; pcr[inent to observe that petitioner is nrrt a party to any ol the proceedings before the Tribunal and the lis was admitte<lly cor fined between respondent No.4 and K \/ara Prasad' That apzrrt-, r,:spondenl No.4 has not chosen to cl-rallenge G.O.Rt.No 1993, Rev.(Ex.I), Dept., dated 09.O9'2006, r'vhereby the date of comnl,3llccment of probation of respondent No 4 was cxtended. in the category of Prohibition & Excisrc Inspector w.e.f .27.O'7 l9'19 and the same has attained finalitv. \ \ - 10- PK, J wp_45837 2Ot6 9) In view of the above peculiar facts of the case and having regard to the fact that the appeal dated 24.1I .2016 fited by the petitioner is stilr pending consideration before the Government, this Court is o[ the view that it is appropriate to direct responden t No. I to dispose of the appeal at the earliest. 10) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed oi directing respondent No. 1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 24.11.2O16, cluly giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by putting all the affected parties on notice, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, there shall be stay of proceedings dated 29.07.2016 of respondent No.3 and proceedings datcd O4.lI.2016 passed by respondent No.2. It is needless to say, the parties are at liberty to raise all the legal grounds during the course of hearing before respondent No.l. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shail stand closed No costs To, //TRUE COPYII S .P. GOWR] SHANKAR DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFF]CER 1 I?:#Uf-Z'l tecretary' Revenue (Excise-l ) De pa ent, Secretariat, 2 The commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Terangana state, Hyderabad- 3. The Deputy Commissioner of prohibition & Excise, Warangal Division, Warangal

4. One CC to SRt. STVARAJU SRtN|VAS Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to SRI P.NARASTMHA Advocate tOpUCl -

6.TwoCCstrrGF)forServices-l,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OLIT] /

7. Two CD CoPies KKS BS ry- \ '; rl VA.Ci\TION COURT HIGH COURT DATED: 1 4 10512025 ( .,' 1 .. sT4 -s .,:\\ v.. .\ /^.\- ':. n , l, : Tit5 :' Li .i '' a :, :. ,./ i '. ' -.!, \ -. ).. 'r'" -l. '''i:::' ''.'l' I t ORDER WP.No.45837 of 2016 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS '{,+