SRt R v. MALLIKARJUNA RAO The Court madr

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 issure a Writ, Order or a Direction, one more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus- a. Declaring the action of the respondents in summarily rejecting the objections put forth by the petitioners to the provisional seniority list notified in the gazette dated 13.09.2017 and issuing the final seniority list dated 25.09.2017 and communicating the same vide the Gazette No. 144 dated 24.10.2017 as arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of lndia and b. Consequently set aside the final seniority tist dated 25.09.2017 anrl communicated vide Gazette No. 144 dated 24.10.2017 and c. Further direct the Respondents to recast the Seniority list in the Cadre of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendents in strict accordance with the rules d. lA NO: 1 OF 20!9 in the affidavit tiled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to revert the petitioner herein from the ln charge posts of Prohibition and Excise Superintendents that they are working in Counsel for the' Petitioners: SRI B.BALAJI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 7: SRt R. V. MALLIKARJUNA RAO The Court madr: the following: ORDER (t ORDER: 1 wp_37O59_20i7 NBK, J 7 The l$ petitioner wari appointed as an Inspector on 18.09. L996, and later promoted to Assistant Superintendent on 18.12.2009. The }nd and 3'd petitioners were simitarly appointed on 13.09.1996, and 18.09.1996, and promoted on 06.11.2010, and 05.01.2010, respectively. They all subsequently attained the post of Superintendent between 22.04.2013, and 25.02-2014. The direction of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, dated 07.03.2010, and confirmed by this Court on 24.01 .z}l4,mandated that seniority be based on merit rather than roster points. Consequently, the seniority list oftlre Inspectors was finalised on O6.Og.ZOt4. Subsequently, a Provisional Seniority List for Assistant Superintendents was notified on 05.01.2015, wherein the petitioners wer€ placed in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 panels, while the directly recruited respondents 3 to 7 ,appointed on 07.05.2012,were placed in the 20ll-12 panel. l.l It is the case of the petitioners ttrat ttre direct recruits atleged that for direct promotees had been erroneously appointed in vacancies nr€ant recruits, thus requesting a review of panel years from 1997-98 onwards- The petitioner counters this by hightighting a longstanding government circular Memo dated May 20,20}4,which stipulatedthatno seniority revision requests for periods over three years old should be considered. However, the fint respondent, the State Government, circumvented this policy. [n a key correspondence, the second respondent (the Commissioner) requested clarification from the first respondent vide a letter dated 04.02.2016, and the first respondent issued Memo dated 22.03.2016. This Memo asserted that since the [nspector seniority tist was finalized on 06.09.2014, as per the High Court 2 wp_37159_201' i'lsl( I order, the 2,004 circular could be ignored, and a review of previous panels, specifically 2002-03 to 2005-06, could be undertaken.

1.2 The petitioner states that the respondent negated the case ofthe petitioners by alleging, through the second respondent's investigatior,, that a deeper review from 1997-98 to 2005-06 revealed a sigrrificant quota violation. The second respondent communicated this finding to the first respondent vide letters dated 30.O7 .2016, afi,27 .102016, asserting that out of 62) total vacancies, 16 should have been filled by direct recruiftnent, and only 46 should have been filled by promotees; however, 50 promotees were actualll' appointed. The core allegation from the respondents was ldlrat 12 promotees h,rd been appointed in excess of their quota and needed to be ."pushed down" to later panel years. Despite the first respondent rejecting the. individual case of Mr. Dasharatha in Memo d^td 28.11.2016, it included a final line instructing the second respondent to utake necessary action," which the second rerpondent interpreted as a mandate to execute the "pushiown" of the 12 promotees. This interpretation led to the issuance of a Provisional Seniority List on 21.08.2017, which was communicated vide Gazette No. 127 dated 13.09.11017. This list dramatically altered the petitioners' positions, moving them from the 2009-10 and 2010-l I panels to the 2Ol2-13 panel and changing their dates of regularizationto 23.04.2013. The petitioner describes this as a proc{)ss marked by "undue haste," evidenced by an errata in Ga"r,ta No. 128 on 14.09.2017, correcting the regularization date, and a further notification irt Gazefte No. 257 on 15.09.2017, which abruptly reduced the objection period from l5 days to just 7 days. The petitioners sutmitted detailed objections on 23.09.2017, arguing that the list unsettled three settled seniority lists, containal computational errors regarding carry-forward and substantive vacancies, and ignored a key principle from oA No. 2l of l9g7 that seniority "skuld be fixed by date of appointment to substantive vacancies. However, the 3 wp_37059_2017 NBK, J \ j \i I petitioner alleges that the second respondent summarily rejected these objections on that very same day, 23.09.2017, leading to the impugned Final Seniority List on Z5.Og.2Ol7. The petitioner's primary allegation is that this entire process was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice, while the respondent's key counter-allegation, as presented by the petitioner, was that a historical quota imbalance necessitated this corrective measure' justifying the revision of two decades of seniority.

2. Heard Mr. B. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise. Perused the record.

3. This Court, white admitting the writ petition on 06.1 l.2OL7,passed the fotlowing interim order in WPMP No-46017 of 2017 ' 'lHeard learned counsel for the petitioners and,Sri R. Y.Mallilrarjuna Rao, learned counselfor the caneators' Petitiorurs ore challenging tlrc final seniority list of Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent of MultizoneJll dated 25.09.2017 pubtished in the Gazette dated 24.10.2017 prepared by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise' Extensive submissions ore made by learned counxlfor the petitioners on the merits of the method adopgs4 in determin@ the seniority and the procedure Totlored in takiig up the exercise of detcrmination of sentority andfinal orders passed after tlrc obiectiota werefiled by the petitioners Brie/ty noted petitioners were promoted os 4oy!!"! lycise Superintendents, it appears, against thevacancies to belilledup by the direct recruitment. Direct recruitees appointed against tlrc vacancies for the year 201 2 contended that said vacancies were earlier occupied by the petitioners. The tnter se seniority now determircd is between the promotees and the direct recruitees. By virtue of tlre present determination under taken by the Commissioner, the promotees are shown below the direct recruitees adjusttng agaitut the vacanctes as available to the Promotion quota' The issue whether seniority was proryrly determind; wluther the objections of petitioners were vatidty considered; ,ryrfu,, the Commissionir'*o, in/luenced by the observatiotu made by the Government in the case concerning tlrc claim of the o/ficer by name - I I \ 4 '..p_37O59_m17 NS|C.l a. P.Dasharatha and there was no independent application of mind; and wlatlur the Government memo No.l6/Ser.A/93-39, dated 21.4.1999 has application are all matters which require consideration. The suspension of/inal seniority list will have deleterious effect to the servicet and to .fill the promotion posts. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant suspension offirwl seniority list at this stage. Balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioners. Hence, the W.P.LL'.P., is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the exercise that may be undertalrcn in pwsuant to the tmpugnedfinal seniority list shall abide the result of the decision in this writ petition. "

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, on 06.02.2025, sought an adjoumment to ascertain from his client whether the cause ofaction in this writ petition survives. The matter was, therefore, posted for 13.02.2025 under the caption "Infructuous." The matter was again adjoumed to 13.03.2025, ard once more adiourned ta24.03.2025

5. Today, when the matter is taken up, leamed counsel Mr. B. Balaji appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the writ petition may be disposed of bv granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the impugrred proceedings datrd 25.09.2017, published vide Gazette Notification No.l44 dated 24.10.2()17, before the appropriate authorities. 6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, by granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugrred proceedings before the appropriate authorities. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, ifany, shall stand closed. SD/- L.VIJAYA LAJXTII ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana, Revenue (Excise-l) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-22.

2. The Comrnissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Telangana State, Hyderabad-

04. ]l

3. One CC to Sri B.BALAJI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Prohibition and Excise, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri R. V. Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate [OPUC] TJ TKS qA*b f .i \ \ HIGH COURT \ \ DATED i24103l,2025 R WP.No.37059 of 2017 i riE $ rrt(' C)() 2 B [[B li]llr * .Lt-. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION UT COSTS p{ ,dir