Allowed

P. Mohan Murali v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC2 Sept 2025WP/331/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Deputy Director in a State dairy federation, whose name was approved by the DPC in December 2019 but never promoted, sought mandamus against the non-granting of promotion despite acknowledged representations. The court relied on an Apex Court judgment affirming the right to be considered for promotion and allowed the writ.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 13.12.2021 and 19.09.2022 for promotion to General Manager cadre within two weeks, with personal hearing, communicating the decision;

P. Mohan Murali Vs State of Telangana and another — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t3zi[l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 331 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. lvlohan Murali, S/ o. P. John, Aged about 57 years, Occ Deputy Director, State Dairy Development Co- op. Ltd, Working at Sangareddy Milk Shed, Sangareddy District, Telangana State.

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 State of Telangana and another, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy ll Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Telangana State Dairy Development, Co- operative Federation Ltd. , Rep. by its Managing Director, Lalapet, Hyderabad - 500017.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Artrcle 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 2nd respondent in non- granting promotion to the post of General Manager category to the petitroner in pursuance of the considered and approval of the Departmental Promotion Committee I,4eeting (DPC) held on 30. 12. 2019 as an illegal, ex- facre, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, inequity, unlawful, u nconstitutiona I and against to the principles of natural^justice and rn violative of the APDDCF Services Rule, 1976 and in violation of Article 14, 16,21 and 300- A of the Constitution of lndia and against to the Catena of Constitutional Bench Judgments of an Apex Court and this Honble Court and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to grant the promotion to the petitioner from Deputy Director to General lt/anager category with consequential benefits.

¶15

i'Y

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Sectron 151 CpC praying that in the c rr.umstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cor-.1 may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner, dated 13. 12. 2021 ar-rd 19. 09. 2022 to grant promotion of the Seneral Manager in pursuance of the Departmental promotion committee [/eet nrl (Dpc) held on 30. 12- 2019 and approved the promotion of the petitioner from - : Deputy Director to General Managerr, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No..l : Gp FOR ANIMAL HUSELNDARY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI BHARATH REDDY

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

¶24

HON'BLE^{MRS. JUSTICE SUR.EPALLI NANDA}

¶25

WRIT PE'IIUOIL No.331 OF 2023

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Animal^{Husbandry appearing} on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Bharat Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of^{respondent No.2.}

¶28

2 Tha rtat tratner a nfl roarh ed t his C^{rnl t} rt kin .at h

¶29

oraver as under:

¶30

"..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declarlng the action of the^2"d respondent in non-granting^promotion to the post of General Manager category to the petitioner in^pursuance of the considered and approval of the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting^(DPC) held on 30.12.2019 as an illegal, exfacie, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjusf, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, inequity, unlawful, u nconstitutiona I and against to the principles of natural justice and in violative of the APDDCF Services Rule, 1976 and in violation of Article 14, 16,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and against to the Catena of Constitutional Bench Judgments of an Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to grant the promotion to the^petitioner from Deputy Director to General Manager category^with consequential benefits and^pass such other order..."

¶31

¶32

SN. J 2 \'P -l.r I 2021

¶33

¶34

The case of the^petitioner in brief^{is that tf e petitionerwas} initially appointed as Processing Supervisorⁱⁿ th,l^{2nd respondent} organizat on on 05.05.1993. Subsequently, th,r^{petitioner got} proceedings promoted as Deputy Director vide No.495/Per.I/87/2072 dated 79.03.2012 ai'r(r^posted at Khammam Milk Shed, Khammam, since then th:l^petitioner had been discharging his services in the 2nd^respond -'r't organization in various capacities till today.

¶35

It is further the case of the petitiller that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held rln 30.12.2019 approved the^petitioner's name For the^post of Ceneral^Manager Category, but since then to till date, the^petition(tr had not been promoted to the post of General Manager. The pe t :ioner made a representation dated 1.3.72.2021 and 19.09.2Q22 to the 2nd respondent organization, but the 2nd respondent f a,l not initiated any steps to promote the petitioner as Geni:ral Manager Category, even after lapse of three years ol Departmental Promotion Committee meeting (DPC) held on 30.12.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4 RUS T E E ORD:-

SN. J wP 3l I 2021

DISCUSSION^AN D CONCLUSION:

¶40

The limited relief as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the^petitioner for promotion to General Manager Cadre in the Co-operative Federation.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that^inspite of^petitioner's detailed representation dated 13.72.202L which had been acknowledged in December 2021 itself by the 2"d respondent herein and another detailed representation dated 19.09.2022 which had also been acknowledged by^{the2nd respondent,} no steps had been initiated for considering the^petitioner's request for^promotion as General Ma n ager.

¶42

7 It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a senior officer discharging his duties as Deputy Director for more than a decade in various^posts and also had been awarded 'Best Officer'from District Collector and Managing Director for 5 times and^petitioner was alsoⁱⁿ the Panel for^promotion at serial No.3, The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting held on 30.72.2019 had recommended Panel of candidates to be promoted to the post of General Manager way back in December,

\ ---'1

5N. J \,t) ]]I 2021

-I

2019 itself. However the petitioner,s case fo- promoting the petitioner as General Manager had not been co.rsidered as on date

¶48

A bare perusal oF the Minutes of th,r Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting (DpC) held on 3().t2.2019 which had recommended a Panel of candidates for pr.crnotion to the post of General Manager's in the scale of Rs.52trtl0 _ tO32gO/indicates the petitioner's name Sri p.Mohan Murali at serial No.3 of the said Panel pertaining to General Manager,,; (procurement & Production).

¶49

A bare perusal of the record indicat(,s that the representation of the petitioner dated 13.12 ZO2l seeking consideration oF the petitioner's case for promot on to General Manager cadre having been acknowledged by tht: cffice of the 2nd respondent on 13.12.2021 itserf and arso ,€ Dresentation dated 19.09.2022 with a similar request h,rving been acknowledged by the office of the 2nd respondent in September, 2022, but however no action had been taken by thc r-espondents in promoting the petitioner to the post oF Generat yanager as Per^petitioner,s eligibility.

¶50

SN, J wP 33 r 2023

¶51

)

¶52

This C urt oDines that Dromotion is not a fu ndamental rlqht but Riqht to be consider ed for oro m tion however ts a fu nda menta I riqht, since such a riqht brinqs wathi n its tew eff tive I o f and anln consid ration.

¶53

The relevant Da raqraoh of the Judq ment of the Aoex Court in "Union of India and another v. Hemrai Sinoh Chau han and others" dated 23 .03.2010 assed in Civil Ao al No.25 51-52 of 2O1O is extracte hereunder:-

¶54

"3a. It isa na cce l'tcd lc al Dosition t hat the rioht of elioible emolov es to be considered for Dromotion is virtuallv a art of their funda ental rioht^qua ranteed under Art cle 16 of he Constitution. The uara ntee of a fair consideration in matt rs of m un icle rtuall ouara tee of eo ua titvu nd rA rticle 14 f thc Constitution.

¶55

L2. This Court finds no justification on the part of the 2"d respondent in non granting promotion to the post of General Manager category to the petitioner in pursuance of the approval of the Departmental promotion Committee Meeting (DPC) held on 30.12.2019.

¶56

This Court taking into consideration the specific averments made at para 3 of the affidavit filed by the

¶57

¶58

-'!

¶59

SN. J 6 \,t, ll I 202.i

¶60

petitioner in support of the present writ g>r:tition opines that the 2"d respondent had not examinclcl the subject issue till date and therefore, the 2"d respondent is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner f r>r promotion to the General Manager cadre, as put forth by the petitioner vide petitioner's represenl:Eition dated L3.L2.2O21 and L9.O9.2022 addressed to the 2nd respondent herein, in accordance to !aw.

¶61

Takinq into consid ration :

¶62

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumst;rnces of the

¶63

case,

¶64

(b) The submissions made by the learrned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents,

¶65

The writ petition is allowed direct:ir-rg the 2nd respondent to consider the grievance of the Fretitioner as put forth vide petitioner's representations dated L3.12.2O2L and L9.O9.2O22 addressed to the 2n,t respondent herein, pertaining to the petitioner,s promotion to the General Manager cadre, ilt accordance to law, in conformity with principles of naturerl justice by providing an opportunity of personal hea,ring to the

SN. ] wP 33t 2021

petitaoner, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision on the representations dated 13.12.2021 and

¶70

19.09.2022 to the petitioner. However, there shall be no

¶71

order as to costs,

¶72