✦ High Court of India · 11 Feb 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 11 Feb 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
11 Feb 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
2,373 words

Acts & Sections

Petition under A(icle 2% of lhe 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 or Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ or Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declarirr,r thr: proceedings No. Eal255(26y2009-pD dated 19.10.2013 of the 2nd Responrl :nt promoting the 3rd Respondent to the pcst of senior Scale Officer, is arbitr; ry, unjust, contrary to APSRTC Ernployees(Service) Regulations, 1964, r on1rary to APSRTC Employees (Recruitrner,t) Regulations, 1966, discriminat,:rry a nrl in violation of Article 14, Articlel 6 anrl l\rticle 21 of the constitution of r rJ a and set aside same and consequenfly direct the Respondents 1 ancl il to promote the petitioners to the post senir:rr Scale officer from 19.10.2013 th: late on which their junior-3rd Respondenl w,as promoted to the post of Senior Si,;:1" OO'""r, with all consequential benefits !.A. NO: 1OF 201 IVPMP. NO: 14233 0F 20141 . Petition unde:r' Section 1s1 cpc praying ttrdi in tne circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed rr support of the petition, the High court nray be pleased to grant an interim dire rtio r the respondents 'l and 2 to promote tht> petitioners to the post of Senior Sr:;rls 961..r fo(hwith, pending disposal of the rurit petition Counsel for the Petition,:r: SRI A. G. SAWANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Res;ponrlent Nos. 1&2: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Res;conrlent No.3: Ms. K. UDAyA SRI The Court made the f cllowing: ORDER n HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A - 1[IRIT PETITION No. tL291()F 2OL4 t ORD ER: Cailing in question the proceedings dated 19.10.2013 of the 2'd respondent through which the 3'd respondent !\ras promoted to the post of Senior Scale Ofhcer' pctitioners are before this Court' They seek a direction tc Responcieris 7 a.rrd 2 to promote them in his stead' The main grievance of petitioners is that a-11 of them 2. u,orke <1 as Depot Managers for the required period o[ three ]ezrrs, therclore, they are all eligible for promotion to the ncxt highci posr ci Senior Scale oflicer as per their placement in ''he combineLl scnrt-rrir-y It is stated' petitioners 1' 3 and 8 belong tir Scrrec'ilccr caste communiry and petitioners 5 and 6 berong r'o of APS R-l'C As per Regulation a&)(ii) Regulations, 1964' in case C nrpir,','t<'s'1Se n"ice ) C:rste ,r Scheou.ied Tribe candidates' as long as such canCidale is c.,siricr,:ci iii for promotion, it shall be made accorciitrg lrr scnitiri;r zrrri:i tirev canno+' be superseded by any junior on ihe qroiiriil ci sup':rior rnerit and ability ' of Scheciuieci SJhc(r,,ii.rC 'l r ibe i I is sr'ated iurrther that the 3'c respondent i5 :rt Srri:Li l'.,,. -1t, :'i s'nioi iti''' tist of Assistant N{echanical Ertgi'-r'rt ) and wou c-, i,. ,rt Serial No. 44 in the combined seriori y list of Junior Sic it r Oificers, lurther he never viro.i<ec as Depot Manager arr,i .,n.r1 the 3.d respondent renders servicc as Depot Manager fr;r r period of three years, he is no;_ er:titlel to be considered (; . t 'te next promotion to the post o l D j visional Manager / L r. :r_rty Chief Mechanical Engineer, howevlp, he rvas posted as Pl, riir Relations Ofiicer under Reguiatiorr r on a though he does not possess the r,::quisite r,-PG Diploma in Journalisrn from a r ecrtgnized tempora4' b: r ;is. qualihcati ol institutiorr. I r. :,rrling to peiitioners. the 3.c resl;c,nclent is junior to eLl it: i:er-iti,.lners, but he .,r.as arbitraril_,,r pr-om,:ted to the post o-::lr : ,;r- Scalr: Oitlicr i.,ide 5rcler impugnecl :tnd posted as Senior l),., t I : +l:_'i:.ltir)ns fuliiratqer. .) Satlranara..ir rr qualified t-r t; post of Ser :,r: and, 2 are ..r though tb r: s qualifred c:.r, .-. need. i r-. . r:r .r :,:)Liitsai lor pelitioners Sri A.G- iii:r suhmits ihai .Lhe 3.d responclent is r.reither rl r zr,-te .>i c, r n .-si<i:ra tion for prcmo,ion to the 'r.r I' rJiirce :-. ir_ rs submitted that )?cspond:nts 1 , ,,s'r:3 Rt.gulaLior-r .3(; oi the ig6a, Rr.gr-rli rtions, : iti:ll-i ia iior i specii:e s ihar onir, el:e bl: and ' :: t,- .r itave lc irc ;liornote d in case ol :em1rgr2ry I i'r^L) l2^ - -i..+-.1 i-).1.i_t9.2C10. < learly ':;- a J specified that promotions under Regulation 30 shall not be resorted to except in rarest of rare cases in administrative exigencies. However, in this case, Respondents I and 2 resorted to Regulation 30 and continuing the 3rd respondent in the higher post of Senior Scale Oflicer permanently depriving the 3'd promotion chances of petitioners who are seniors to respondent. Respcndents 1 and 2 stated in their counter that 4. the 3'd responden[ rr'as initially appointed on 1O'04' 1991 as Deputy Superintendent (Mechanic) against ex-cadre post under sports quota; he u'as promoted as Superintendent (M) on 18.O9.199 I anC as Asst. Engineer (Mech) on 04'06'1992 against ex-cadre posts in recognition of his sports achievements- His senioriq- in t-hc ca'dre oi AE (M) was hxed at appropriate place in terms of B..;arC. Resolution dated 3l 'O8' 1998' thus he was brougl-rt ''"o rcgular strcam from ex-cadre post' It is stated' the Reguliriiorrs stiDulate that the post of Public Relations Ofhcer can be trllcd bi' transierring a suitable class I Junior Scale Ofhccr. iire -r'rc responclent does not belong to the cadre of PRO and nt-,i $'orkecl uts L)epot lvlanger so far, as such he is not entiticd tir t- irromotion to the post of DM/Dy'Chief Mechanical Eiiginccr, hrlr'r.cvei' ire u'as posted to work as PRO keeping in \r\ 1 view his 1l a ici, carr-ying out PR ivorks r,,,ith ciiiige r:r:e at that time, he i:; -r,! in possession of PG diploma in -jourlal,sm, but he obtairrec , L First Class PG diploma in Journal; s -;:r in 2013 subsequontll and also completed five years of service as pRO are pre-r(l(lL is i;.e for promotion. Ir is stated, promotion of the 3" resl>or dent is purely on leir po:-ary basis ivithout an1, probaric.nari, rigrhts, his services in t" t: -.enior scale -,vi11 onl5; ge t reguiai:rse d zr:: al rcl vghen his juniors g.t, s r iigible for promorion as SS0 ar:i br .;lacing his case beforc, 1lt I S:lection Committec as pcr his tlrrn. i isr furttter stated th,1l t: t ali rhe petitioners, as is contertr1.-rd, irre rtigible for promc,ti'r - t; .he post of SSO. pe ritioners i . .:1. =1. S arrd g are only eligiitir- { r 1:romotion as SSO as p$r- :itrir i,_.in j : lrte inter se senior:1.1 r ' .lrl(Js subject to Miriillrx st.iecr:c;-l r j[e ria and availability r' vrrcancics; petirioners 2 ,_. an,-i I irr ve not completec'r 1t - :;. s;113 oi se:r,.icr. a.s Dcpr,r- \[:lt r,rge r (] f,ecome eligible 1or .rr,n c:rLtorr, petitioncr No.7 .r'ho i:; in 1te:sonnel Departmen t ii :, lrol compie ic{ ilve 1.,:1rs lrl sii.,,i.:.: .rs pe -sonnei Officer, the 1 , 1 , she is n,ri cligicl: :'r,. i::.r:trrti lt :: _l-rr r. It is also statel t i,t tliouqh ih.3.d l.esr{_.it{i,iri i i-i:rs ,lo1 r:oirpleted ' three years r 1 ;:l i'ice a.'s DcDOt iv{an.iqer. as :,,.: r Rr:!r;iat.c,n 30, he was tr'':' c i r iilt iti-i,,I'iroIid :ii,.;i i!tt. t:a,)i _re( r_ ; :ti. the o promotion are not hampered in any way on account of this temporary promotion, Ultimately, it is stated that there are seniors to petitioners who are eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Officer, therefore, the representation of petitioners to promote them as Senior Scale Offrcers from the date of promotion given to the 3rd respondent cannot be considered. Hence, it is prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. The 3'd respondent in his counter stated t]lat he 5. joined the Corporation as Depury Superintendent (M) on 12.04.7gg1, subsequen[ly, u'as issued proceedings dated

12.O4-2OO8 promoting hirrr ro Cass-l Junior Scale Offrcer, on the same day he r.r'as posted as PRO at Head Offrce with effect from

31.05.2008, hi-ru'eve r, petitioners have not chosen to challenge the proceedings datecl 12 04.2008, hence, the plea of petitioners is liable to rejected on the ground of latches' It is stated that since he cor-npleted flve vcars of service as PRO and possessed PG diploma in journalisrn irom the Institutions of Bharatiya Vidya Bhar..an, H';derabad, he vras promoted' He w as further prornotccl as Scnior PRC in exercise cf powers under Regulation 30 as he \t'as ihe onh PRO r'vorking in the Corporation and eligiblc '"c be pi:rl:td on prornoticll as Senior PRO' Since 6 a petitione|s r i r rrot working in the cadre of PRl), rh;,r' are not entitled to lt,: ;la,:ed in the cadre.

6. :: i M. Ram Mohan Reddy, iearne.i Srtanding Counsel lbr tl e Oorporation reiterating the conl.nti.:rs pleaded in the corrn t,:i -afildavit, submits that Wrir Petiti,-,n i: I iai rle to be dismissecl. 7 . 1s is contended by the respor:.ir,r: s i 1 lheir respectiv<: ,::( 1l nt€rs, the order impugned ur.a-q pi, i.'sr., ,. t)t- rrnoting the 3rd respcrr,ler.t as Senior Scale Officer. l'he s,,id lr:i:: ' ,:learly specifies :hat iris promotion to the rank r:f Sr-n. -r : : .iit Officer in the post c I Senior PRO is purelr. on temDor.j-i. t): :. i.j * ithout any claim for r egrlarisation in the cadre at i: ii-.r . .r . ,:. Since it is a temprtra -; posting, petitigncrs cilln.)i iriLi.,. : ,.., an,:e in that regard. Ftrrther, Reguiation 30 auth:t.isc- .it,,,,t t(--nt On administral,i't' e>.igency and no PRO is *.rrkr .: i . ri cacire post, ttl,rrelbre, to meet the ailnrl:tis:i.:ri:. ,j. ,iri rst the c_,,'- the 3'd respon<ie'n, ri.ho worked as PRO icr i.r... , , ;11 ; .:.1 ,r l r:^.,ho pcssessed re::t:site qualification, \-i:3s .rt)atl,iri,i' i,i i: ilv as SPRM in cc)n r: Lance \4'ith the ,bor,,- RLTELT .iit ri: j i ; :, lo -tle notoc :at the 3.d res_ooltde;ii -,r':l.s r-:ii, il- . - .,,. ; i-,i{)c.edin!ls ri,, tec I2.O4.2A08 iurj s,r-ir:c il.,t n. :. ,., make c -t i an ' grievanc{t ot_ii oi rlis .r;1.11 I 1{ r,- ri-, ii is ,f?o by .'. have , :..: l'ir-st L a t 1 time, after he was promoted as Senior PRO, they have come up with this Writ Petition. But at the same time, the contenLion of petitioners that the post of Dy. Chief Public Relations Manager has to be frtled by promotion by selection of PRO rvho has put in not less than hve years of service and must be in possession of a degree or PG Diploma in Journalism or by transfer of suitable Divisional Manager / Senior Scale Officer, cannot be brushed aside. It is an admitted fact [hat the 3'd respondent is not borne in the cadre of PRO nor a Divisional Manager / Senior Scale oflicer for considering transfer, hence promotion of the 3'd respondent, who is junior to petitioners is contrary to law' It is needless to obscrve that temporary promotion is resorted to only for short periods but not inciefinitclv and in the guise of temporary promotion, a junior oifice r cannot be promoted to the higher post ahead of senior off'icers. tn this view of the matter' this Court deems it approp.iate t<.i direct the respondents to consider hlling up the said post permanently u'ith a suitable candidate. The Wiit Pcrition is accordingly, disposed of 8. directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the feasibility of hlling up the post ol Senior Public Relations Offrcer' on 8 permaner-rt )-l r. is, within a period of eight v,eeks l-i-on ilre calr: of i-i. receipt of : ,-:, r:: ) c:f this order. No costs. 9 . ( I : r scquently, the misce llaneous Applic at ons. if anv shal1 sta -^r i cicsed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. L. i-AKSHMI BABU ASFISTANT REGISTRAR \.7 ., SE(:TION OFFICER ..t Hyderabad. Bhavan, Musl irabad, Hyderabad

1. The Managirc Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus 2. !.he. Executive Directo(A&P), T.S.R.T.C, Bus Bhavan, Mur;hirabad, 3. 9..R.Kiran, E..'14153, Public Relations Officer, TSRTC., Brrs lJhavan, 4. One CC to :ttl. i\. G. SATYANARAYANA RAO, Advocatr, t(rpUCl 5. One CC to S,iil C). SUNILKUMAR REDDY(SC FOR APSRT( ) toptjct 6. One CC to S:Fl THOOMSRTNTVAS (SC FOR TSRTC) topL,bi 7. One CC to t\4s. K UDAYA SRl, Advo'cate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Cop e,s Mushira barl Flydr-'rabad. 8M,,,, GJP TT To, I i \ \ ) c) -.?- 1 rii b\1 ( 3li iair {lZ5 ( . t l)t sPr L:x d+ .,. t HIGH COURT' DATED:11101212025 ORDER WP.No.1129'l of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS coP?ei\ 1o v,^^ -29Pt'=

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments