SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 599

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
V.Ravi Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.32266 of 2016
Decided on : 18-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr G. Raman Goud

IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the eligibility and training status of candidates for promotion, as well as the authority's discretion in promoting fully qualified candidates during the panel year.

Headnote:

Promotion - Seniority Dispute - Andhra Pradesh Forest Subordinate Service Rules - Rule 5, Rule 6(h)(i), Rule 8 - Telangana State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rule 6(b), Rule 5 - [FOREST OFFICER PROMOTION] - [Andhra Pradesh Forest Subordinate Service Rules 5, 6(h)(i), 8; Telangana State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - 6(b), 5] - The court discussed the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2000 and Telangana State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, particularly focusing on the eligibility criteria for promotion, method of appointment, and preparation of promotion panels. The court emphasized the importance of considering the training status and eligibility of candidates for promotion, as well as the authority's discretion in promoting fully qualified candidates during the panel year. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of these rules and the factual circumstances of the case.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Forest Section Officer, challenged the promotion of junior officers to the position of Deputy Range Officers, alleging violation of seniority rules. The respondents argued that the petitioner was ineligible for promotion due to ongoing training.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was undergoing training during the panel year and, therefore, was not eligible for promotion as per the relevant rules. The court upheld the promotion of junior officers based on their eligibility and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues: The main issue revolved around the promotion of junior officers over the petitioner, based on the interpretation of seniority rules and eligibility criteria for promotion.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the promotion of junior officers was in accordance with the rules, considering the petitioner's training status and the eligibility of other candidates during the panel year.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court found no illegality in the promotion orders. No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 & 6 and learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief:

    “To issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in nature of a Writ of Mandamus (a) Declaring the action of third respondent in issuing the impugned order in Rc. No. 145/2016/M2(i) dated 31.08.2016 and consequential orders in Rc.No.145/2016/M2(ii)dated 31.08.2016 and communicated by the 4th Respondent vide Rc.No.293/S1/2016 ignoring and overlooking the petitioner who is senior according to the seniority list communicated by the respondents as on 01.01.2015 and promoting the unofficial respondent as on 01.01.2015 and promoting the unofficial respondent 5 and 6 as Deputy Range Officers who are junior to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, against rules and to set aside the same; and (b) Consequently, direct respondents to promote petitioner as Deputy Range Officer according to the seniority list as on 01.01.2015.

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, as per writ affidavit filed, is as follows:

    a. The Petitioner has Joined in the service as Forester (Forest Section Officer) on 20.12.2008 and has been working in the said ever since and had also completed his one year training of Forester at Andhra Pradesh Forest Academy, Dhulapally.

b. Respondent had issued the seniority list vide “GENERAL ESTABLISHMENT – CUM – INTER-SE-SENIORITY LIST OF FORESTERS (FOREST SECTION OFFICERS) OF NIZAMABAD CIRCLE” dated 01.01.2015 and the petitioner was placed at Serial No.4.

c. 3rd Respondent vide Rc.No.145/2016/M2(i) dated 31.08.2016 promoted 3 (Three) Foresters who were placed at Serial no. 2, 11 and 14 as Deputy Range Officersand posting orders were issued vide Rc.No.145/2016/M2(ii) dated 31.08.2016.While the Forester at Serial no. 2 is a senior of the Petitioner, the Foresters at Serial no.11 and 14 have been promoted as Foresters as 10.09.2009 and 29.04.2010.

d. According to Rule 5 of The Andhra Pradesh Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2000 the method of appointment to the category of Deputy Range Officer from Forester is by way of promotion only and the appointing authority is Conservator of Forests of the concerned territorial circle and required qualifications are mentioned in detail in Section 5.

e. According to Rule 5 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Subordinate Services Training Rules, 2012, the trainees from the cadre of Forest Selection Officer shall be selected based on the Circle seniority list and;

f. According to Rule 7 of The Andhra Pradesh Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2000 minimum service (for promotion/appointment by transfer), no person shall be eligible for promotion unless he has put in not less than 3 years of service in the category from which promotion and transfer is made.

g. Rule 8 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules states, for appointment to a higher post either by promotion from one category to another within a service or by appointment by transfer from one service to any other service, a member of a service or class of a service, shall have satisfactorily completed his probation in the category from which he is proposed to be promoted or appointed by transfer of such higher position and the Deputy Range Officer post is a non-selection post.

h. According to Rule 6(h)(i) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. 1996, For non-selection posts referred to in sub rule (b) of Rule 5, the appointing authority shall prepare a list of eligible employees every year from 1st September of the year to 31st August of succeeding year after considering the record sheet and qualification prescribed for the said post in relevant Special Rules for promotion to next higher category of non-selection post.

i. Rule 5(b) – Non selection posts – Non Gazetted should be tre

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top