The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order Rc.No. 46291,,112014 dated 23-4'2016 of the 2nd respondent by giving promotion to the petitioner as School Assistant (Maths) as was given to the sim*arly situated persons with a* consequential benefits to the petitioner pending disposal of the Writ appeal' Counsel for the Appellant: SRI tUlD IQBAL ALI JAVID counsel for the Respondents: sRr s. SATYNANARAYANA RAo, GP FOR SERVTCES.I The Court made the following: ORDER 'I TIIE Eo['BtE ?rrE cltrE..rusucE sRTApARE$rxurwAR sil.,r THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE G.II{. MOHTUDDIN AND JUDGMENT: \ {

18.1 1 .2025 passed by the learr This Writ Appeal is filed assailing the order dated or 2or 7, whereor rn" "";. ;;#::":H":, .ffi , direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the appelrant /writ petitioner (hereafter ,petitioner) promotion to the post of scho.l Assistant (Maths) Urdu Medium as and when a vacancy arises, subject to senioritSz and eligibiliry.

2. Heard Sri Mohammed Iqbar Ali Javid, rearned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 3' The factuar background necessary for the adjudication of the appeal, is as follows: i) The appellant /wnt petitioner was appointed as a Seconclary Grade Teacher (sGT) on 1g.01.2002 through the District Selection Committe e_2OO1 (DSC_2O0 l). i 1i : I 2 ii) In 2OOg, pursuant to a state-wide promotion exerclse' the petitioner was temporarily promoted to the post of School Assistant ( Mathematics) Urdu Medium' iii) SubsequentlY, it was discovered that due to a miscarcurzrtion of vacancies, excess promotions had been made acrosstheboard.Consequently,thepromotionofthepetitioner, along wit-tr several others, was cancelled' and he rvas reverted to his substantive Post of SGT' iu) The petitioner approached the erstwhile Andhra PradeshAdministrativeTribunal(theTribunal)seekinga direction to the 2nd respondent-District Education officer to consider his representation dated 05.11.2O15, for immediate promotion, as similarly placed persons were promoted' v) 'lhe Tribunal uid.e order d.ated 14.12.2015 had disposed the O.A. with a direction to the respondents therein to dispose petitioner's representation dated 05.11 .2025 regarding promotion to the post of School Assistant as per Rules and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. vi) Subsequently, the 2nd respondent passed a speaking order dated 23.04.2016, rejecting the representation of the petitioner for irnmediate promotion stating that itwourd n,t be feasibre for imprementation and that his candidature wourd be considered for promotion as and when future vacancies arise. \ \ \ \\ aJ vii) Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the underlying writ Petition, which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 18.11 .2023.

4. The core grievance of the appellant, in the present case is in respect of the discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that two teachers, namely 1) Smt. Taskeen Begum and 2) Sri Syed Masood Ahmed, who were similarly appointed in the same DSC batch, promoted in 2OO9, and subsequently reverted, and were granted promotion by the respondents pursuant to orders of the Tribunal, whereas the appellant was denied the similar benefit of promotion. It is further contended that the aforesaid pick-and-choose policy by the respondents is arbitrary.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader supported the order of the learned Single Judge and has reiterated the stand in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2-District Educational Officer in the writ petition, wherein, it was stated that the promotions of Smt. Taskeen Begum and Sri Syed Masood Ahmed were granted strictly in compliance with specific interim and Iinal orders passed by the Tribunal in Original Applications uide O.A.No.66O3/2OO9 and O.A.No.148L /2O1O, which had attained finality. It is also contended that the appellant's case was distinct, as his seniorit5r was lower (Sl. No. /i : :'/ I I I I 4 L2 in the relevant 1ist) compared to the said individuals (sr. No. 10 & 11). and that no junior candidate had been promoted over the petitioner. Thus, the direction of the learned singre Judge to consicler the apperants case upon arising of the future vacancies was, therefore, just and proper. Consideration by this Court 6. After a careful consideration of the respectirre contentions urged and a thorough perusar of the record incruding the proceedings before the Tribunal, we find no merit in this appeal for the foliowing compelling reasons:

6.1 It is pertinent to note that the promotio. order dated 29.O1.2OO9, by which the petitioner was promoted, was explicitly issued under Rure 10(a) of the A.p. State and Subordinate sen,ice Rules. The said order itself demonstrates the fact that the promotion was purely temporary and liable for termination at any time without notice. The subsequent cancellation of the alleged promotion, realising an administrative error committed by the respondents in calculating vacancies, was a direct consequence of the promotion order being temporary in nature. Therefore, the appellant, does not possess any right to continue in the alleged promoted post. \ \ 5

6.2 Tlne sheet anchor of the petitioner's entire case is based on the argument that he is similarly situated to Smt. Taskeen Begum and Sri Syed Masood Ahmed, which is a flawed comparison. A perusal of the record reveals the following: a) Difference in Seniority: The petitioner was at Serial No.12 in the seniority list for promotion to School Assistant (Maths) Urdu Medium, whereas, both Smt. Taskeen Begum and Sri Syed Masood Ahmed were senior to him and were placed at S1. Nos.11 and 10 respectively. However, it is to be noted that in a system governed by seniority-cum-merit, this distinction assumes flundamental and decisive significance, as it forms very basis on which evaluations, promotions, and appointments are made. b) Distinct Leeal Traiectorv: [t is also to be noted that said individuals secured specific relief from the Tribunal in their separate Original Applications filed uide O.A.No.6603 of 2Ol9 and O.A.No. 1481 of 2OL0. The respondents were legally compelled to comply with the said judicial orders. The petitioner cannot claim a right to promotion by placing reliance on Court orders obtained by others individuals, especially when the petitioner's own legal challenges did not result in a similar mandatory direction.

6.3 The learned Government Pleader coptended that no candidate junior to the appellant has been promoted to the post ./ '/ I I 6 of School Assistant (Maths) urdu Medium in the Locar Body management. It is to be noted that this crucial fact completely negates the allegation of arbitrariness or discrimination. Further the State's action, though stemming from an initial error, has been consistently appried to protect the seniority principre. The petitioner's grievance is not that a junior was pr.omoted over him, but that others who were appointed in the same DSC were promoted, which does not constitute a legar injr-rry warranting this Court's intervention 6'4 The learned Singre Judge, after considering the entire factual and legal matrix, did not find any arbitrariness in the respondent's decision to reject the petitioner,s claim for immediate promotion. However the learned Single Judge recognizing the petitioner's eligibility, issued a positive direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner,s case a.s and when vacancies errise, based on his seniority and eligibility.

7. In this regard, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity and thereby it balances the petitioner's legitimate expectations with the administrative constraints and the rights of other individuars (seniors) in the queue. \ \ 7

8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Writ Appeal is devoid of merits. The order of the learned Singte Judge is just, equitable, and legally sound. 9 Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. I I I As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed SD/.K.AM PUTY //TRUE COPY/ ECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri tvlD lqbal Ali Javid, Advocate [OPU 2. Two CCs to GP for Services-|, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies To, T J LS Q HIGH COURT DATED:30/1 012025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1197 of 2025 r_ ri ii ''': i J. O 0 1 t:[ 20[ * r'1 ra,l€. 1-'! * (. (' i -a' DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS