The High Court · 2025

Sri B. Siddirami Reddy, Now promoted as Asst. Project Officer, Adult Education. Hyderabad District. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in promoting the unofficial third respondent as Assistant Project Officer vide Procs. Rc.No.771lA2lDAE/TS/2014-1 dated 30.08.2018 of the Director of Adult Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad ignoring the seniority of the applicant as illegal, improper and violative of Rule 33(b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules and consequently hold that the petitioner is senior to the unofficial third respondent according to the order of arrangement indicated in the Government Memo No. 2990/PE-Prog.1l2O10-2 dated 0'l .03.2012 as well as the proceedings issued by the Commissioner and Director of School Education in Rc. No. 6841D1- 212012 dated 24.04.2012 and entitled for promotion as Asst. Project Officer from the date when the unofficial third respondent was promoted with all consequential benefits such as seniority, pay-fixation etc. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Project Officer in the existing vacancy as the petitioner is senior according to Rule 33(b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules Pending disposal of the above Writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, School Education Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director of Adult Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. ..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 1 2 P. Srinivas 8abu, S/o Bobbili, aged about 50 years, Supervisor, Adult Education Department, Medak District at Sanga Reddy ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 9ri B. Siddirami Reddy, Now promoted as Asst. Project Officer, Adult Education, Hyderabad District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT (Respondent no.3 in W.P is not necessary party in this petition) Petition under Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt. 01.1 1 .2018 in WP.No. 3928712018 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. NAGARAJA RAO REPRESENTING FOR Smt. A V S LAXMI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS WRIT PETITION NO: 327 OF 2022 Between: P.Srinivas Babu, S/o Bobbili, aged about 54 years, Asst Proj Education Department, Lakdikapool, RR District, resident of Phase 5, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad.72. ect Officer, Adult flat 8, Block 1 '1 , AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER

2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, State of Telengana, Hyderabad.

3. The Director of Adult Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 4. Sri K.Venkata Reddy, Asst.Project Officer, Adult Education, Office of Dy.Director, Nizamabad Dist. 5 Sri J.Narasimha Reddy, Asst.Project Officer, Adult Education, Office of Dy. Director, Nalgonda. ...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 an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [Vlandamus declaring the further action of the official respondents in contemplating further promotions of Project Officer and Dy Director in Adult education by ignoring the order of seniority of the supervisors appointed under the proceedings Commissioner of School Education in Rc. No.6B4/D 1-2120i2 dated 24.04.2012 is arbrtrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to follow the same only while ignoring the senioriiy as finalized by the Director in contravention of the orders of the Commisstoner and thereby consider the case of the Petitroner for further promotions by regulating his promotion as Asst Project officer wef the date on which his junior was promoted with all consequential and attendant benefits IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to keep consideration of further promotions to the posts of Project Officers and Dy. Directors in Adult education depa(ment on hold or in the alternative direct the official respondents to follow only interms of the ranking given by the Commissioner in his proceedings Rc.No.684lD1-212012 dated 24.O4.2012 duly the ignoring the illegal exercise of fixation of seniority by the subordinate authority Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. NAGARAJA RAO REPRESENTTNG FOR Smt. A V S LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK 1VRIT PETITION N os.27O6O of 20L7 392A7 of2O18 and,327 of2O22 COMMON ORDER: Since the lls in these writ petitions is inter_connected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.r W.P.No.2706O of 2OI7 is hled seeking the following relief "...fo issue qn order or dtrectton Or Writ, more particulqrlg, one itl the nature of Wit of Mandamus declar[ng impugnid. orders issued by ths 2"a respondent uide proc.Rc.No.262/ A2l DAIr/ fS/ 2o 14 doted 26 08-2015 ftxirg the senioritg of the unoffcial respondent ouer and .me as _illegal, iregular, arbitrary, disciminatory, c,gcLinst the proui-sions of the AP Stctte qnd Suborc)inate Seruice RuteZ an'd the retio laid dottn bg the Hon'ble Courts and_ in uioletton of Articles 14 and 16 of the Colstitution of India and set asid.e the iame so far as the respondent and the petitioner is concerned ancl cinsequentlg u-t.toffrci dtrect the respondents to fix the senioitA of the petitioner ouer and. aboue the unofftcial respondent with alt cinsequ-ential benefits and_ pcr-ss... " -al

2.2. W.P.No.39287 of 2018 is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue an order or dtrection or wit more parttcularlg one in the nature of uit of mandqmus declqing the aciiort of thi official respondents in promoting the unofficial third respondent as Assistant Project OJficer uide procs. Rc.No.771/ A2/ DiE/ TS/ 20 j4_1 (lated 30.0_8.2018 .of the Director of Adutt Educatioru, Telangana State, Hgderabad tgnoring the senioitg of the dpplicdnt as i\tegZl, inproper and uioLatiue of Rule 33(b) of the Stqte and. Subordinate Rules a-nd ,con-sequentlg hold thctt the petitioner is senlor to the unofficial third-respondent according to the ord.er of arrangement indicqted. in tLLe Gouemment Memo No.2g9O/ p&E-prog.t/ 20 l O:2 cloted O1-03.2012 as the proceedings issued bA the Commissioner and Director of School Education in Rc. I[o. 654/D1-2/2Oj2 dated. 24.O4.2()12 and. etltttled for promotion as Assr. proJed Ofrtcer from ttle date when the unoffcial thtrd- respondent u)as promoted with alt consequential benefi.ts such cLs sentoritg, pqg-fixation etc. and. pa_ss...' -seruice _utell L- I 2 PK, J W.P.No.27060 of 2017 W.P.No.39287 of 2018 W.P.No.327 of 2022

2.3. W.P.No.327 of 2022 is hled seeking the following relief: ".. .lo issue an order or direction or wit more pizrticularly one in the tLature of Wit of Mand.emus declaing the futther dction oJ'the offi.ciat r<:spondents in contemplatilg further promotions of Project Offi.cer attd Dg Dtrector in Adult educotion bA ignoing the order of seniontA of the superuisors appotnted und.er the proceedings Commissioner of SchaoL Education in Rc.No.684/ A1-2/ 2012 dated 24-04.2012 is arbitrory, illegal and consequentlg d.irect the resportdetts to Jollow lhe sdme onlq while ignoing the senioitA as finaLized bg the Director in contrauention of lhe orders of the Comrnissioner ond therebg constder the case of the Petitioner for futTher prorrLottons bg regulating his promotion as Asst Prqect offi.cer uef the dqte on whtch his juntor toas promoted utith al[ c:onsequential aftd attendent benefits and poss..."

3. Heard Sri J. Nagaraja Rao, learned counsel, representing Smt. A.V.S. Laxrni, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearing on behalf of the ofhcial respondents, and Sri Gaddam Slinivas, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent (respondent No.3 in both W.P.Nos.27060 of 2Ol7 alrd 39287 of 2018 & respondent No.,1 in W.P.No.327 of 20221.

4. For the purpose of convenience, firstly, W.P.No.27060 of 2017 is adjudicated hereunder.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 22.06.1989, whereas, the unofhcial respondents v/ere appointed as such on

16.07 .2OO2, thereby, making the petitioner senior to the unofficial l, i-- -, f \ \- ,\ 3 PK, J W.P.No.27O6O of 2017 W.P.No.39287 of 2018 W.P.No.327 of 2022 respondent in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher. While so, the petitioner and other Secondary Grade Teachers had requested the Governmcnl to appoint them as Supervisors in the Adult Education Department. The method of appointment for the post of Supervisor is prescribed under Rule 3 (ii) of the cd hoc Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.697 dated 18.O7.1999. On considering the request of the petitioners and others, the Government, vide Memo dated O1.03.2012, permitted respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner, the unofficial respondents ald two others, viz., Mr. M. Murali Mohan, SGT, p.S. Amsapalli Tanda, Kulcharama Mandal, Medak District Mr. V. Narasimha Reddy, SGT, P.S. Munigadapa, Jagadevpur Manda-l, Medak Districl-, to lhe post of Supervisor in respondent No.2 Department by transfer, in relaxation of Rule 6 of the od hoc Rules issucd in G.O.Ms.No.679 dated la.O7 .1999, as they have crossed the prescribed age limit of 45 years. Consequently, the Director of School Education, vide proceedings dated 24.O4.2012, instructed the District Education Ofhcer, Medak, to reiieve the petitioner and the other aforesaid individuals- Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 09.O5.2012, appointing the above individuals by transfer in respondent No.2 Department as Supervisors. Subsequently, the I 4 PK, .] w.P.No.27O6O of 2017 W.P.No.39287 of 2O1B W.P.No.327 of 2022 petitioner made a representation to the District Education Ofhcer, Medak, on 10.05.20 i2, requesting to relieve hi-m from Lhc post of Secondary Grade Teacher so as to enabie him to report before the Deputy Director of respondent No.2 Department, Ranga Reddy District. In pursuance of the same, the District Education Ofhcer, Medak, permitted the Mandal Education Offir:er, Ramachandrapuram) to relieve the petitioner immediately, vide proceedings dated 1 1.05.2012. Consequently, the Mandal Education Office r, Ramachandrapuram, issued procecdings dated 1 4.O5.2072, relieving the petitioner on thc afternoon of 14.O5.2012. Accordingly, the petitioner reported before the Deputy Director of respondent No.2 Department on the afternoon of

14.05.2012. However, the unolficial respondents, including the two other Teachers, reportcd to duty on 1 t.05.2012 itself.

6. It was lurther submitted that as per Rule 1 1 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, a person on appointment/ temporary appointment on ad hoc basis under Rule 1O, including appointment by transfer or by promotion, other-wise than by direct recruitment shall be allowed joining time of hfteen days from the date of receipt of ordcr of appointment. In the case of the petitioner, the appointment order was issued lo him by respondent No.2 on 5 PK, J W.P.No.27060 oJ 2017 w.P.No.39287 of 2018 W.P.No.327 oJ 2022 O9.O5.2O12, and he joined duty on 14.05.2012, i.e., the date on which he was relieved by the competent authority. 7 . It was further submitted that respondent No.2 issued a tentative seniority list of Supervisors in Zone-Yl vide proceedings Rc.No.262/A2 /DAtr /TS/2014 dated 1O.O7.2015, wherein, the unofficial respondent and the two other individua-ls were shown as seniors to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 on 27.07.2015, stating that he was senior to the unoflicial respondent arrd the other two individua-lsin the feeder category of Secondary Grade Teacher, and requested to l-rx his seniority over and above the unofficial respondents and the two other teachers. However, rejecting the request of the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued the l-rnal seniority list vide proceedings Rc.No.262lA2/DAE/TS/2014 dated

26.08.2015. Further, as per the Government Memo dated O1.O3.2O72, the four teachers, including the petitioner herein, were promoted to the post of Supervisors in the Adult Education Department, wherein, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No. 1, whereas, unollicial respondent is shown at S1.No.3. Therefore, it is submitted that when two or more persons are appointed simultaneously to a service, seniority shall be determined in accordance with the order of preference given in the -t I .1 ..jri 6 PK, J W.P.No.27060 of 2017 W.P.No.39287 of 2O18 W.P.No.327 oJ 2022 appointment order. Therefore, the impugned order vide proceedings Rc.No.262/A2/DAtr /TS/2014 dated 26.Oa.2O15, hxing the seniority to the unofhcial respondent arld two others, over and above the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the provisions of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of tndia. Therefore, it was prayed to aliow the present writ petition.

8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader lor Services submits that no notihcation was issued by the Government calling for applications from the Seconda5r Grade Teachers for appointment by transfer as Supervisor in the Adult Education Department. It was only after consideration of the representation submitted by some of the Secondary Grade Teachers, requesting to appoint them by tran sfer as Supervisors in the Adult Education Department as per the provisions contained in t}l.e ad hoc Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.679, Education Department, dated la.O7 .1979, the Government permitted respondent No.2 to affect such appointments. The applications received from different corners/ districts of the State have been considered by the Government in consultation with the Director of School Education and orders were issued to various batches of Secondary Grade Teachers in various G.Os. 7 PK, J W.P.No.27O6O of 2017 W.P.No.39287 of 2018 W.P.No.327 of 2022 Hence, the order of serial number in the Government ord.ers is not the criteria for fixation of the seniority. It was lurther submitted that the candidates have to accept their seniority from thb dates of their joining as Supervisors in the Aduit Education Department as they were appointed in the Department on their own request but not on administrative grounds, and after joining in the Adult Education Department, they cannot claim any seniority of the previous service, exccpt lrom the date of thcir joining in respondent No.2 Department. The same was clearly mentioned in the appointment orders issued to them by Lhe Government and the Director of Aduit Education also. It was further submitted thal the seniority list of Supervisors has been prepared as per Rule 35 (b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, duly taking their respective dates ofjoining into the Adult trduca[ion Department, into consideration, as they have been appointed by transfer at their own request only. Further, the petitioner had kept quiet for more than two years and frled the present writ petition challenging the seniority tist dated 26.Oa.2OtS, without hling any statutory appeal under Rule 26 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. I I 8 PK, J W.P.No.27O60 of 2O17 W.P.No.392BZ of 2O1g W.P.No.327 of 2022

9. Having regard to the submissions made bv thc Iearned counsel for the respective parties, it is undisputedly clear that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 22.06.L989, whereas, the unofficial respondent was appointed in the sante cadre only on 16.07.2OO2. Hence, there is no dispute as to the seniority of the individuals in the cadre of Secondarl, Grade Teacher.

10. As can be seen from the record, both the petitioner and the unofhcial respondent, along wilh two other secondary Grade Teachers, have submitted representations, seeking appointmenl by transfer to the post of Supervisor in the Adult Education Department. Upon due consideration of their requests, the Government issued proccedings datcd O 1.03.2012, approving the appointments of thc four indrviduals by transfer, in relaxation of Rule 5 of the acl hoc Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.679, Education Department, dated 1g.O7.1979, with a specific condition that they shall take the last rank in the category of Supervisors in the Adult trducation Department. Herc, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 3, which deals with Method of recruitment and Rule 6, which deals with the age, and the said Rules are extracted hereunder: t i I I I t i ', i I I I , ! i i I E PK, J W.P.No.27O60 of 2017 W.P.No.39287 of 2018 W.P.No.327 oJ 2A22 "3. Method of recruitment: iii) . By transfer from among the Officers holding posts on equal scale of pay in the Departments of School Edulation / Higier Education;

6. Aqe: In respect of recrurtment by transfer specified under mcthods (ii) and (iii) under rule 3 above the maximum age limit shall be 45 years of age as on the date of appointment- In respect of direct recruitment the candidates should have completed or shall complete 18 years of age ar-Id should not have completed or shall not co-pl"t. 32 years of age as on the first day of July of the year in which recrultment is made." I 1. Consequently, the Commissioner of School Education permitted the Director of School Education to appoint by transfer the petitioner, unofficial respondent and two others, as Supervisors in the Adult Education Department, vide proceedings Rc.No.6g4/ Dl-2 /2012 dated 24.04 -2012, and instructed the District Education officer to rerieve them upon receipt of the specific posting orders. It was specifrcally mentioned therein that their lien in the parent department would stand terminated after three years, in terms of FR-14 (b), and they shall have no claim over the service rights in their parent .department after completion of the said three years period. pursuant to the same, the Director of Adult Education Department, vide proceedings dated 09.O5.2O12, issued orders appointing the said individuals by transfer in the post of SuperviSor in the Adult Education Department. It is not in I 10 PK, J W.P.No.27O6O o.f 2017 W.P.No.392t)7 of 2018 W.P.No.327 of 2022 dispute that'.r'hile the unofrrcial respondent joined cruty on 11.05.2012, the petitioner reported to duty only on 14.OS.2Ol2.

12. Now the only issue arises lor detcrmination in lhe present writ petition is whether the seniority in the cadre of Supervisor in the Adult Education Department is to be fixed with referencc t o Rule i 1 (b) or Rule 35 (b) of the Tclangana State and Subordinatc Servicc Rutes. 1996.

13. In this legard, it is pertinent to refer to Rules 11 and 35 of the Tela.gana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, which are extracted hereunder: "1I. THE LIMIT FOR JOINING EITHER ON FIRST SELECTION OR ON PROMOTTON OR ON APPOTNTMEN By TRANSFER:, (a) Dircct recruitment: A cantlidale selccted for appointment by direct recruitment either through thc Andhra pradesh Fublic Scr-vrce Commission or through any other agenc_v, shall be requircd brj the appointing authority to join in tbe post for which he has been selected within a period of 45 days taking the date of despatch (by registered post with acknowledgement due) of the appointment order as crucial date for reckoning the time limit. If he does r.rot join the post within the stipulated period of .15 da1.s, the ofler of appointmcnt shall be treated as automatically cancelied and the name of the candidate shall be deemed to have bcen omitted from the list of approved candidates. (b) Tim_e to join a post an appointrnent, shall be allo[.ed a joining time of 30 days, other wise than by direct recruitment. shall be allowcd a joining time of 3O days from the date of receipr of the order of appointment sent to the candidate by Registerid post with acknowledgement due or by any other means- Where a person fails to join the new post to which he is appointed within the sard time limit or evades to join the post by proceeding on leave, l,re shall forfcit his right of appointment both for the present and in future for the pos t. I i I 11 PK, J W.P.No.27060 of 2017 W.P.No.39287 of 2018 W.P.No.327 of 2022

35. FIXATION OF SENIORITY IN THE CASD OF TRANSFERS ON REQUDST OR ON ADMTNISTRATIVE GROUNDS;_ (a) The seniority of a member o[ a service, class or category transferred from one unit of appointment to another unit of appointment, on administrative grounds, shall be, deterrnined with reference to the date of senioritv of such member in the lormer unit. (b) The seniorrtv of member o[ a ser-vice. class or catesorv- who is transferred on his own request nt to another unit of apporntment shall be fixed with referen ce to the date of his oinins dutv in the latter unit of aopointment." from one unit of aDpoin (emphasis supplied)

14. From a bare reading of the abovc, it is evident that under Rule 35 (b), the date of joining duty is the determining criteria for fixing the inter se seniority among the employees appointed by way of transfer at their own request. Therefore, Lhe said Rute 35 (b) squarely applies to the present case, since the transfer of the petitioner and the other individuals to the Adurt Education Department was affected not on administrative exigencies, but at their own request. Further, the reliance placed by the petitioner on Rule 11 is unfounded, as the said Rule 1 1 (b) provides for thirty days of joining time for the appointments made under Rule 1O, which pertains only to the compliance of the said appointment orders, but not the hxation of seniority. As such, Rule 11 (b) cannot override the specific prousion of Rule 35 (b), which I I 12 PK, J W.P.No.27060 of 2017 w P.No.39287 of 2018 W.P.No.327 oJ 2022 directly addresses the aspect of seniority of the individuals who are transferred at their own requests.

15. Further, the fact thaL the petiLioner was senior in the catcgorv of Secondary Gradc Teacher is irrelevant by virtue of Rule 35 (b), u,hich governs the seniority in case of a transfer at the individual,s orvn request. Thus, it can be constmed that the unofllcial rcspondent, having joined <luty thrce days prior to the pctitioner! \ ras rightly placr:d higher in the final seniority list dated 26.Oa.2O15.

16. The petitioner also contended that his name was placccl at Sl.No_ 1 in the Government Memo dated 24.O4.2012, and hence, claims seniority over and above the unofficial respondent and the other two individuals. However, this claim of the petitioner that the seniority must be determined in 1,he order of placement of names in the Govcrnment Mcmo is untenable in law. It is a well-settled principle that mere placcment by way of seriai number in a Government order or Memo does not creatc a vested right of seniority, unless the order expressly states that the arrangement of lhe individuais is done on the basis of merit or seniority, which does not reflect in the present case. 'I i I I I PK, J W.P.No.27060 of 2017 w.P.No.392a7 of 2018 wP.No.327 of 2022

17. Further, it is to be noted that the Iinal seniority list was issued on

26.04.2015. However, instead o[ promptly cha,llenging the same, the petitioner lrled the present writ petition in the year 2017, i.e., wiLh a delay almost two years, for which, no reasons are assigned. Moreover, the present writ petition is hled without hrst availing the statutory remedy of appeal as available under Rule 26 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Therefore, this Court finds no justihable reason to entertain the r,l,rit petition.

18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present case, and thus, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

19. Insofar as W.P.No.39287 oI 2OlB is concerned, it has been hled by the petitioner challenging the promotion of the unofhcial respondent as Assistant Project Off,rcer vide proceedings dated 30.08.2019 as illegal, improper and violative of Rule 33 (b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules. 1996.

20. Here, it is relevant to refer to Rule 33 (b) of the Andhra pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, which is extracted hereunder: I 14 PK, J W.P.No.27O60 o12017 W.P No.39287 o[ 2018 V/.P.No.327 of 2022 "33. Seniorrty: (b) The appointing authority mav, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultareously to a sen.ice, Iix cither for the purpose of safisfying the rulc of rescrwation of appointments or for any other reason the order of preference among thcm, and rvhere such ordcr has been fi-xed, seniority shall be determrned in accordance with it."

21. The above Rule applies to the cases where two or more individuals are appointcd simultaneously to a service through a cornmon proccss of direct recruitment or promotion, and where thc ordcr of placement in the appointmcltt order deLermines scniority. As a -judicated by this Court in the earlier qrrit petition, i.e., W.p.No.27O6O of 2017 , the appointments were made not through a selection process, but were affectcd b)' tra,sfer on the request of the individuals. Neither in the Government Memo dated Ol.O3.2Ol2 nor in the appointment order dated 24.04.2O12, it was mentioned l_hat the order of placement of the individuals Lherein forms the basis for seniority. Moreover, iL .u,as categorically m.ntioned in the said or<lers that the appointees shall take the last rank in the category of Supervisors in the Adult Education Department. As such, Rule 33 (b) of the Telangala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, has no application to the case on hand. 22 Therefore, the present writ petition is also liab1e to be dismissed 15 PK, J W.P.No.2706O of 2017 w.P.No.39287 of 2018 W.P.No.327 of 2022

23. In W.P.No.327 of 2022, the petitioner, after his promotion as Assista,t Project ofhcer, is chalenging the action of the official respondenrs in considering rhe promorions ro the posrs of projccr oflicer and Deputy Director, claiming that his alleged seniority as per the order o[ placement in the proceedings dated 24.O4.2O12, is being ignored.

24. Since the issue of seniority has already been adjudicated and decided in the earlier writ peLitions, this court is of thc view that this u,rit petition is also liabie to be dismissed. 25 For the aforementioned reasons, all the Writ petitions are hereby dismi ssed Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR ke' SECT ION OF FICER To, One CC to Smt. A V S LAXMI Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Services-l, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRl. GADDAM SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC] 2 3 4 KKS GJP Two CD Copies oA- 1r' I HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 1 -lJ\. 23 ;, .. 2.. \\ L;i: '^ ',-' a. L') -L .+ o COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.27060 of 2017,39287 of 2018 and 327 ol 2022 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS (p- Zo 6 L)