Allowed

J. Srinivas v. The High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad

Telangana HC25 Apr 2022WP/5446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 18-05-2018, which imposed a 10-year minimum service condition for Field Assistants seeking promotion to Senior Assistants. The court held this condition arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 21, and contrary to the established 5:1 promotion cycle, as no rule exists to preclude eligibility solely based on

What did the court decide?

The proviso to Rule 10 of Recruitment Rules 2018 requiring 10 years of service for Field Assistants for Senior Assistant promotion was set aside and the Writ Petitions were allowed.

J. Srinivas Vs The High Court for the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

W.P.Nos.26533 of 2018, 19977 of 2020 and 5446 oi 2022

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 26533 OF 2018

¶9

Betwee n :

¶10

Y.Ramakrishna, S/o. Hussain. Aged about 37^years, Occ.^Filed Assistant,^at Principal Junior Civil Judges Court, Siricilla.

¶11

V. Nirmala, W/o. Sathyanarayana, Aged about 42^years, Occ.^{Field Assistant,} at Vll Additional District Court, Karimnagar.

¶12

G. Prathap Rao, S/o. Narsinga Rao,^{Aged about} 41^{years, Occ. Field} Assistant at Prl. Jr. Civil Judges Court, Huzurabad.

¶13

P. Sushmitha, W/o. Neeraj kumar, Aged about 38^years, Occ.^{Field Assistant,} at lAdditional Jr. Civil Judges Court, Huzurabad.

¶14

A. Udaysri, W/o. Raviraj, Aged about 46^years, Occ.^{FieldAsst., at Addl. Jr.} Civil Judges Court Siricilla.

¶15

A. Rajkumar, S/o Shankar, aged about 30^{years, Occ.FieldAsst., at Vll Addl.} District Coud, Karimnagar.

¶16

K. Thirupathi, S/o Yelliah, aged about 33^{years, Occ. FieldAsst., at Sr. Civil} Judges Court, Manthani.

¶17

P. Ir,4urali Manohar Rao, S/o Rajaranjan^{Rao, aged about 40 years, Occ.Field} Assistant, at Prl. Jr. Civil Judges Court, Husnabad.

¶18

J. Jyothindranath, S/o Gal Reddy,^{aged about 35 years, Occ.Field Asst, at} Prl. District and Sessions Court., Karimnagar.

¶19

...PETrrONER(S)

¶20

AND

¶21

1 The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad,^{for the State of Telang} ana and for oud

¶22

the Staie of Andhra Pradesh. rep^{-by its Registra(Judicial),HighC} Building, Hyderabad.

¶23

2 The Registrar^(Ad ministration), High Coutl^{Building,Hyderabad.}

¶24

3 The Principal District Judge, Karimnagar,^{KarimnagarDistrict}

¶25

4 The State of Telangana, Re_p.by its Secretary, Government of Telangana, Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Secretarjat, Hyderabad.

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in issuing G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 18-05-2018 which imposes condition of minimum service of 10 .ears for Field Assistant for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.4 to delete the condition of minimum service of 10 years for Field Assistant for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in G.O.lVls.No. 29 dated 1B-05-2018 and further direct the respondent No.3 to select the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on par with Jr,rnior Assistants and Typists.

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶29

Petition uncler Sectjon 151 CPC praying lhat in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased io direct the respondent No.3 to call the petitioners to the inlerview for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, along with the Junior Assistant/Typist pending disposal of main writ petition.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRl. J. P. SRIKANTH

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRl. SWAROOP OORILLA, SC FOR TAPHC

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR LAW AND LEGISLATURE AFFAIRS

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 19977 OF 2020

¶34

Betw ee n:

¶35

S.Rajasekhar, Son of Sunder Rao, Aged about 53^{years, Occ. Field Asslstant} Working at XVlll Additional Chief Judge Court, At City^{Civil Court at} Hyderabad, Working on Deputation Family Court, City^{Civtl Courtat} Hyd e ra bad.

¶36

) S.Suman Bharadwaj, Son of S.Srinivas,^{Aged about 30 years, Occ:Field} Assistant, XXVII Adiiitional Chief Judge,^{City Civil Courtat Secunderabad.} Working on Deputation in Chief Judge Court,^{City CivilCourt at Hyderabad.}

¶37

lr,4.Anuradha, D/o. M. Sharanappa, Aged about^{41 years, Occ:FieldAssistant,} XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at^Hyderabad.

¶38

4 A.V.Saritha, Wife of B.Appala Narasimha^{Murthy, Aged aboul 42 years,Occ:} Field Assistbnt, XXV Adciitional Chief^{Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.} J.Mahender, Son of late J.Rajalingam,^{Aged about 41 years,} Occ:Field Assistant, XXVII Additional Seni6r Cvil Judge,^{City Civil Courtat H} yderabad. Working on deputationⁱⁿ the Court of^{V JuniorCivilJudge, City Civi} I Court, At Hyderabad.

¶39

1. K. Pavan, Son of late K.Prabhalcar,^{Aged about 39 years, Occ: Field} Assistant, XXVII Additional Chief Judge,^{City Civil Court at Secunderabad.}

¶40

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶41

AND

¶42

1 The Hiqh Court for the State of^{Telangana, At Hyderabad, represented by its} Reqistia(Judicial), High Court^{Building.Hyderabad.}

¶43

2 The Registrar^(Ad ministration),^{HighCourt Building,Hyderabad}

¶44

3 The Chief Judge, Crty Civil Courl at^Hyderabad

¶45

4 Th€; State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Secretary, Government of} Telangana, Legal Affairs,^{Legislative Affarrsand Justice, Secretariat.} Hyderabad.

¶46

...RESPONOENTS

¶47

Petition under Artacle 226 of lf,e^{constitulion of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in the natureof} writ of [/andamus, declaring^{the action of the 4th respondent in imposinga} condition of minimum^{serviceof 10 years for FieldAssistantsfor promotion to the}

¶48

post of Senior Assistant vide G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 1810512018 which is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to delete thecondition of minimum service of 10 years for Field Assistants for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant imposed vide G.o.l,4s.No.29 dated 18t0512018 and further direct the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants on par with Junior Assistants and rypists without insisting for 10 years of servlce as inrpc,sed in G.O.l,4s.No.2g cjated 18/O5i2Ol B.

¶49

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶50

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of senior Assistants on par with Junior Assistants and rypists without insisting for 10 years of service as imposed in G.o.Ms.No.29 dated 18lo5l2oiB or alternately reserve one vacancy out of 5 vacancies for petitioners which falls to the category of Field Assistants, pending disposal of main writ petition.

¶51

IANO: 2OF2 020

¶52

Between:

¶53

1 S.Rajasekhar, Son of Sunder Rao, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Field Assistant Working at XVlll Additionat Chief^-Judge Courr, At'City Civii 6rrt'-;i Hyderabad Working on Deputation F6mily Court, Citi Civif cor; ;i Hyderabad.

¶54

f^{Su1a1 Bharadwal.Son. oJ S.Srinivas. Ageci about3C years Occ Fietd} Assrstant XXVII Additionar chief Judge, city civil court it Secunderabad.

¶55

3 It4 working Anuraciha, on Deputation D/o M sharanappa,,Aged in chief Judge 6ourt, about 41 years, city civii--urt occ: "t-H-Gii6rIi""Fierd Assistant. XXIV Adcirtionat Chief Judge, City Crvit Court at HvderaOaC

¶56

4 A./ Sarrtlra. Wife of B.Appala Narasimha t\4urthy, Aqed aoout 42 years, Occ F.eld Assrstant. XXV Additronal Chief Judge, Crti Civ;t Court at Hyderabad.

¶57

J.lr4ahender, Son of late J.Rajalingam, Aged about 41 years. Occ.Field Assjstant, XXVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Working on depulation in the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Coud. At Hyderabad.

¶58

K. Pavan, Son of late K.Prabhalcar, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Field Assistant, XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

¶59

...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

¶60

AND

¶61

1 The High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad, represented by its Registra(Judicial), High Court Building, Hyderabad.

¶62

2 The Registrar (Administration), High Court Building, Hyderabad.

¶63

.) The Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶64

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Secretary, Government of Telangana, Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶65

Smt.K.lr/adhavi, Occ: Promoted as Senior Assistant, Posted to XXV Chief Judge Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶66

Smt.K.Radha, Occ: Promoled as Senior Assistant, Posted on Deputation^at Vlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Coul1 at Hyderabad.

¶67

Smt.E.Rama Devr, Occ: Promoted as Senior Assistant, Posted on Deputation at ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Couft at Hyderabad.

¶68

8, Sri. B.S.Jagadeep Kumar, Occ: Promoted as Senior^{Assistant,Postedon} Deputation at Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶69

Smt.V.Shanthi. Occ: Promoted as Senior Assistant. Posted on^Deputationto work at Additional Family Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶70

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶71

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court maybe pleasedto} amend the Writ Prayer in the main Writ Petition as under:^{to issue a writ, order or} direction more^particularly one in the nature of^{Writ of lVlandamus, declaringthe} action of the 4th respondent in imposing a condition^{of minimumservice of 10} years for Field Assistants for promolion to the^post of Senior^{Assistantvide} G.O.lr,4s.No.29 dated 18.05.20'1 8 which is^{illegal. arbitrary, discrinrinatory and} violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of^{lndia arrd consequentlyCirect thc}

¶72

respondents to delete the condition of minimum service of l0 years for Fjeld Assrstants for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant imposed vide G.O.li,4s.No.29 dated 18.05.2018 and further direct the 3rd respondent to conslder the petrtioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assjstants on par with Junior Assistants and Typists without insisting for 10 years of service as imposed in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 18.05.2018 by duly setting aside the order No.CCC-HydAW-E1-3268-2020 dated 07.11.2020 and conduct the interview afresh by giving opportunity to the petitioners and thereafter finalize the promotions

¶73

lA NO: 3 OF 2020

¶74

Betwee n :

¶75

,] S.Rajasekhar, Son of Sunder Rao, Aged about 53 years, Occ Field Assistant Working at XVIII Additional Chief^-Judge Court, At City Civil Court at Hyderabad, Working on Deputation F-mily Court, Citl Civil Court at H yd e ra bad.

¶76

2 S.Suman Ufqladwaj, Son of S.Srinrvas. Aged about 30 years, Occ: Field Assistant. XXVII Additional Chref Judge. Ciiy Crvrl Court at Secunderabad. Working on Deputation in Chief Judge Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶77

3 Ir4.Anuradha, D/o. l,4. Sharanappa, Aged about 4't years, Occ. Field Assistant, XXIV Additional Chief Judge, Crty Civit Court at HyOerabbd.

¶78

4 A V Saritha Wife of B.Appala Narasimha lVurlhy, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Field Assistant, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad

¶79

5 J.lt4ahender, Son of late J.Ralatingam, Aged about 41 years, Occ:Field Assistant, XXVII Additional Se,nror Cfvil Judg-e, City Civit CoJrt at Hyderabad. Working on deputation in the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civif Court, At Hyderabad.

¶80

6 K. Pavan, Son of late K.Prabhalcar, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Field Assistant, XXVII Additional Chief Judge, Cit Civil Court at Secunderabad.

¶81

...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

¶82

AND

¶83

The High.Court fo.r the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad, represented by its Registra(Judicial), High Court Buitding, Hydera6ad.

¶84

2 The Registrar (Administration), High Court Building, Hyderabad.

¶85

3 The Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶86

4 The State of Telangana. Represented by its Secretary, Government of ,l,elangana..^{LegalAffairs. Legislative Affairsand Justi'ce. Secretariat,} H yd e ra bad.

¶87

...RESPONDENTS

¶88

Smt.K.lVladhavi, Occ: Promoted as SeniorAssistant, Posted to XXV Chief Judge Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶89

Smt.K.Radha, Occ: Promoted as Senior Assistant, Posted on Deputation at Vlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶90

Smt.E.Rama Devi, Occ: Promoted as Senior Assistanl, Posted on Deputation at ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶91

Sri.B.S.Jagadeep Kumar, Occ: Promoted as Senior Assistant, Posted on Deputation at Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad

¶92

Smt.V.Sharrthi, Occ: Promoted as Senior Assistant, Posted on Deputation to work at Additional Family Court. City Civii Courl at Hyderabad.

¶93

...PROPOSED PARTY RESPONDENTS 5 TO 9 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶94

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to implead proposed respondents 5 to t herein as respondents 5 to Iⁱⁿ W.P.No.19977 oI 2020.

¶95

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶96

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto stay} the promotions for lhe^post of Senior Assistant by^{suspending the impugned} proceedings CCC-HYD/AWlEI1705l2022 dated 11-02-2022 issr-recl by^the respondent No.3, pending disposal of above Writ^petition

¶97

Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRl. J. P. SRIKANTH

¶98

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3^: SRl.^{B. NALIN KUMAR, SC FOR TSHC} Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP^{FOR LAW AND LEGISLATURE AFFAIRS} Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to^{9 : NONEAPPEARED}

¶99

WRIT PET tTlON NO: 5446 OF 2022

¶100

Between:

¶101

J. Srinivas, S/o. Late Jagadeshwar, Aged about 44 years, Occ- Field Assistant Working a1 ll Additional Junior Civit Judge, At Ni2ambad, presenily Working on Deputation At Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

¶102

2 Smt. N. Sushma, D/o. Late N. Bhaskar, Aged about 37 years, Occ- Fietd Asslstant, Working at ll Additional Junror C'ivil Judge, Nizlmbad. presenfly working on Deputation At Senior Civil Judge, Nizambad.

¶103

Sri Syed Rashid Ali, S/o Late Syed Razzak Alr, Age 33 years. Occ- Field Assistant, W.orking in .Special Judge for Fast Tracl the Cases retating to Atrocities_ (Women), Nrzamabad, Presen y working on Deputation," At Principal District and Sessrons Judge at NrzarirbacJ.

¶104

PETTTTONER(S)

¶105

AND

¶106

1 The High Ccurt for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad, represented by its RegistrarArjministration, High Court Building Hyderabad.

¶107

2 The Principal District And Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad.

¶108

3 The State of Telangana, Represented bV its Secretarv, Government of Telangana. Legal Affairs, Legislative Aff-a irs and Justi-ce, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶109

...RESPONDENTS

¶110

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may' be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing G.O.tr,4s.No.29 LAW (LA, LA and J-Home- Courts-B) Department dated 18 05.2018 and G.O.l.4s. No. 37 LAW (LA, LA and J-Home- Courts-B) Department dated 20/05/2021 , which imposes condition of minimum service of 10 years for Field Assistants for promotion to the post of senior Assistant which is illegat, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Cons tution of lndia and consequently direct the 3rd respondent "to delete the condition imposed of minimum service of 10 years for Field Assistants for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant" in G.O.Ms.No.29 LAW (LA, LA and J-Home- Courts-B) Department dated 18.05.2018 and G.O.Ms. No.37 LAW (LA, LA and J-Home_

¶111

Courts-B) Department dated 20-05-2021 and further direct the 2nd respondent to select the petitioners for promotion to the pbst of Senior Assistants on par with Junior Assistants and Typists as staled in the letter and Spirit of the Jagannath Shetty Commission vide G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 08.08.2013.

¶112

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶113

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to call the^petitioners for^promotion to the^post of Senior Assistants on^par with Junior Assistants and Typists as stated in G.O.lt4s.No.100 LAW^(LA, LA and J-Home- Courts-D) Department dated 08.08.2013,^pending disposal of main writ petition.

¶114

Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRl. J. P. SRIKANTH

¶115

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRl. SWAROOP OORILLA,^{SC FOR} TAPHC

¶116

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR LAW AND LEGISLATURE^AFFAIRS The Cou( made the following : ORDER

¶117

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHAND RA SHARMA

¶118

AND

¶119

HON'BLE SRI JUS TICE ABHI NAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶120

W.P.Nos. 26s33 of 2O18 19977 of 2020 and 5446 of 2022

¶121

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sn Jusnce Abunand Kumat Shahtit

¶122

All these Writ petitions are being disposed ol by wav oi common order as the issue raised in these Wnt petitior_rs r:; r.rnc arrcl thc same

¶123

F or thc sal<e o1' conr.enience. tirc thcts rr_i \'. P, No. 1L)977 of 2O2O are hereuncier ciiscussed

¶124

:). 'lhis \/r.ir Pcrition is lileci serl<ing zr Writ ol Illncl:rntus cleclaril-rg the action of the ;lrh respoltdent 1r) imposing zr condition of minimum service of l0 1.ears for Field Assistants for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant vide G.O.Ms.No.29 dt. 1B_05_20i8 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 2 I of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to delete the said condition and lurther direct the 3.,1 respondent to consider the petitioners for

¶125

!\ l, '.^{-/..:: .} ' .! ,

¶126

promotion to the post of Senior Assistants on par with Junior Assistants and \pists without insisting about the condition of minimum service of 1O vears

¶127

Heard Sri J.P. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri B.Nalin Kurnar, learned^Starlciirlg Cour-rsei appearir-rg for respo:rclelrt Nos.1 to 3 a:rrl^thc learned Government Pieader for Larl' and Legislature. appearing for the 4'1' responclent-State

¶128

It has been contended b1, the petitioners titat they are all workir.rg as Field Assistants and they are ftrllr eligibte and qualified to be promoted to the post of^Senior Assistants. It has been contended by the^petitioners that as per the amendment of Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 (for short 'Recruitment Rules 2003') issued in G.O.Ms.No.100 dt.08-08-2013,^the post of Senior Asststant is liable to be filled up among the feeder categorr,' of .Junior Assis[ants^{(Categon'-8), Tvpisrs} (Categon,-9) and Field Assist:rnts (Catcgorr'- 1O) and in a cvcle of six vacancies, five vacatncies u ere to^{lte fillerd r-r1r} from amor-rg .Junior Assistar-rt s / Tvpists artd or-re^va('altcl

¶129

--r-'

¶130

HCJ & AKS J \'.P Nos.265ji 0f2018 & barch

¶131

u ers liabie to be lilled up u'ith Freld Assistants and ac t olciirrqh' thr. cases of Field Assistants u,ere considered lirr plomotiorl to the post of' Senior Assrstants in the cvcle prcscribecl as per the Recruitment Rules.2003.

¶132

6.^'lhe grievarce of the petitioners is that in the Teiangana Juclicial Ministerial land Sr-rbordinate Sen,ice Rules, 2018 (for short 'Recruitment Rules 2018') issued in C.O.Ms.No.2g dt. 18-05-2018, an additional condition was prescribed in respect of 'Field Assistants' stating that until and unless they complete minimum service of ten years in the category of Field Assistants, their cases wiil not be considered lor promotion to the post of Senior Assistants. Learned cournsel for the petitioners has contended that as per t'arlier Recruitment Rule, 2003, ils prescnbecl rn C,O.Ms.No.i00 dt.08-08-2013, the cvcie for promorion to ilre 1;r-.,st oi Senirrr' ,{ssistants i.t'. fr.r r er ci-r' cr cic o1' six |ir I ill lr'l('s lrle' Scnror ,{ssistililt l)osts \'(,rL to lrc Iilic.cl ut thc categor\ ol' eniplot'ees under catcgories B ancl 9 and oltr' tll respect of emplo,vees under categon,- I O i.e. Fieirl Assistants. Though when c1,cle itself prescribes in such a

¶133

'\r,.,.:r.,,, 1ir ..

¶134

1:a,, a ne\' conclition is prescribed stating^{ti-rat t]-rc F ielcl} Assistar-rts shall r-tot eligible^{lot'promoriot'tto cateS,or''-7i.(-} Senior Assistanl utlless the-r'^comple te^{the t't-ttllimrtrl} service of tell years in the categorl'^{of Field Assistantand} the same is creating hardship^{for Field Assistantsto gct} promoted as Senior Assistant.^{The Pal' scale in respect of} Junior Assistants,^'Ilpists and^{Field Assistants is one and} the same and therefore^{prescribingan additionalcondition} in the new Recruitment^{Rules,20 18 i.e. in G.O'Ms.No29} dt.18-05-2018, is illegal^and arbitrary^{and it has been done} only to do favour to^{one set of class ol individuali.e. Junior} Assistants and Typists arrd^{only to deprivepromotiollal} opportunities in favour^{of the Field Assistatlts.}

¶135

Thc lean-red counsel for^{the petitiorlcrshad} contended that irnposrng^{thecot-tclitiot-trn lllell''\} Recruitment Rules, 20I8^{i.e. G O.Ms.No29 dt.I8'05-2018} is illegal and contran' to^{the c1'cle rvhich is prescrrl;eclirl} the earlier Recruitment^{Rules, 2003.} Therefore, appropriate orders be^passed in^{the Writ Petitionsby} setting aside the condition that^{the Field Assistantsshall}

¶136

not be eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants unless they complete minimum service of ten years.

¶137

B. Learned Standing Counsel for the 1 "t respondent had contended that in order to strike balance among feeder categories, the condition of ten vears of rrrnimurn serlrce is prescribed in far,ouLr oi Field Assistants ilirii llrat Ll-rc I:i,--lcl .{ssistartrts are e.u-rrirrq thel. 1;t.or:r,r,.ron Se nior .\ssisLants in cxcess to their c1r-rota anci .Junior AssisLnnts and 1'pists are not able to become Senior Assistants. Therelore, there are no merits in the Writ Petitions and the same ar-e liable to be dismissed.

¶138

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view thal when the prescription of ten years of service only in respect of Field Assistants is made, which is contrary to the earlier cycie prescribed for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants. When there is a c_vcle prescribed iretri'een diffcrent feedc,r categories, there is no necessit,r'to iix another condition of servirrg ten -,eirs of service so ats to

¶139

()

¶140

become eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants. This Court has specifically asked cadre strength of Feeder categories of the Senior Assistants.^The learned Standing Counsel couid not furnish^the information. In the absence of the data of total^cadre strength of Junior Assistants, Typists and^{Field Assistants,} no such prescription u,ould have been made in the^service rules stating that the Field Assistants must 1lt-lt^{it-t tt tl} r-ears sen'ice and thereafter otrlt , their^{casesri otllcillt'} consiclerecl lor tire 1)c)sL of Seniol' Assistants.^{\'herl tllt} cvcle itsell prescribes tl-re rario 5:1 arld^{incvclc oi slr} vacancies of Senior Assistants, five are to be^{lille d u'rt lr} Typists/Junior Assistants and one to^{be filled} up^{w'ith Field} Assistants, there is no further necessity for insisting^that only Field Assistants alone should complete^{ten years'} service to become eiigible^{for promotion to be post of Senior} Assistants. The said condition is arbitrary^{and taking} ar,r,ay the promotional rights of Field Assistants.

¶141

l(1. Therelore. the proviso to Rltlc^{ir oi tll.} Re c.rlritt.nr-r-rl IlLrlt,s. lCtll tn^{titr(.i11.r{(rt-\ 7.,'. 1., t-,:rt :.,}

¶142

I I^.,

¶143

,. onc1ilion that tht Flelcl .\ssistants shall not bc elicible lirr

¶144

pror:roLiotr to cat(.qor''.7 i.t. Senior Assrsttrrrts rinless thcr

¶145

.^(rrirJ)lt'1{ litt, : I i r t I I t t-i L r r r I st,rVj<.e Of tc.n veirts in tl.tr clrteeor-i |1 i'ir'lrl r:;sis1:rr.rls rs sct Sidc. A,,.ci_rrclingh. :rll Litc \'r.it lje',iLior-rs are aliou ed. There shall be no order as Io costs

¶146

I 1. Pending miscellaneous applications, if anv,

shall stand closed.

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO

JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶151

SEcfltfu-oFFIcER

¶152

To.

¶153

1 The Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana, High Coud Building, Hyderabad.

¶154

The Registrar (Administration), High Court Building, Hyderabad.

¶155

¶156

3 The Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, Karimnag-ar bistrict. 4 The secretary, Government of rerangana, Legat Aifairs. Legisrative Affairs and Justice, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶157

5 The Chief Judge, City Civil Courl at Hyderabad.

¶158

6 The Principal District And Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad.

¶159

7 One CC to SRt. J. P SRIKANTH, AdvoCate. tOpUCl

¶160

B One CC to SRl. B. NALIN KUMAR, SC FOR TSHC jOpUCl L T'VO CCS IO GP FOR LAW AND LEGISLATURE AFFAIRS, i.Iigh COUrt fOr thc State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 1011 Two one CCs cc ro to GP sRl. FOR SWARoop SERVICES ooRtLLA, lll, High Court sC ron for TAPHC. the State iopuclof TLlangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶161

Two CD Copies

¶162

¶163

One Spare Copy

BS N>

HIGH COURT

DATED:25 tO4tZO2Z

COMMON ORDER

1 H I j TA 14:
o
!) O2 JUll 2E?7 f
t:
C

¶170

U:^!:;rr'rt;3^{or 2018,} 1ssl7 or 2o2o and

¶171

f,,ir"?#j | : JH EswR, r P E ,, r o N

¶172

( \e

J. Srinivas v. The High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Srinivas v. The High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Linga Das, Vs D. Prabhakar and 6 Ors.

N.Mohan, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Rapolu Bhaskar Netha Vs The State of Telangana

The District Collector, Khammam and 2 Others Vs Madem Hanumanthu and 6 Others

Telugu Buchamma and 19others Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

The Forest Divisional Officer and 6 Others Vs M/s Balaji Metal and Sand Manufacturer (P) Ltd. and 12 Others