Ad hoc promotions do not confer vested rights; cancellation of such promotions without notice is permissible if conditions allow it.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the orders of the third respondent Rc.No. 1184/2020/M2-A, (S.O.No. 26/2021/M2-A) dated 12.07.2021 abruptly cancelling the promotions given to the petitioners on 17.11.2020 as Deputy Range Officers and reverting them as Forest Section Officers without following the procedure and rules, by declaring the said orders as arbitrary, vindictive, illegal, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Rules 23 and 24 of TELANGANA STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1996 and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; to direct the respondentsto continue the petitioners as Deputy Range Officers and pass…”

2. Heard Sri S. Krishna Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 was initially appointed in respondent No.1 Department as a Forest Beat Officer on 18.12.1992 and was later promoted as Forest Section Officer on 02.06.2016, and petitioner No.2 was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 26.02.2013, but the said post was later converted as Forest Section Officer on 28.09.2016. As such, both the petitioners were shown at Sl.Nos.24 and 26 respectively in the seniority list of Forest Section Officers. It was further submitted that since some of the seniors of the petitioners, including those placed at Sl.Nos.8 and 9 in the seniority list, were facing disciplinary charges/ACB cases, respondent No.3 had taken up the case of the petitioners herein for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer during the panel year 2020-21, and called for their ACRs vide letter dated 16.10.2020. Consequently, after considering the credentials of the petitioners, respondent No.3 issued proceedings No.1184/2020/M2-A dated 17.11.2020, promoting the petitioners as Deputy Range Officers. Thereafter, the petitioners joined in the promoted post and their pay was fixed under FR 22 (B), and they were also shown at Sl.Nos.65 and 66 respectively in the seniority list of Deputy Range Officers.

4. It was further submitted that while the things stood thus, respondent No.3 issued the impugned orders vide proceedings Rc.No.1184/2020/M2-4 dated 12.07.2021 (served on the petitioners on 06.08.2021), abruptly cancelling the promotions given to them, without assigning any reasons for such cancellation. However, learned counsel contended that prior to the issuance of the impugned order, no notice was also issued to the petitioners. It was further contended that respondent No.3, who issued the promotion orders dated 17.11.2020, himself cannot review his order and cancel the promotions given to the petitioners. As per Rule 33 of the TELANGANA STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1996, the power to review and revise a promotion order lies with an appellate authority, that too, within a period of six months from the date of such promotion order. Therefore, respondent No.3 lacks jurisdiction and authority to issue the impugned orders. Further, since the statutory period/limitation period of six months has elapsed, even the appellate authority may not issue the reversion orders. It was further submitted that Rules 24 and 25 of the TELANGANA STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1996, empowers the State Government to waive the period of six months mentioned in Rule 23 and review the promotions but it is