The court established that objections against provisional seniority lists must be considered prior to finalization, affirming principles of fairness and the inapplicability of ad hoc promotions for seniority.

ORDER :

(PULLA KARTHIK, J.)

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief :

“… declaring the action of the Official Respondents more particularly the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in finalizing the Provisional Seniority List of Senior Assistants of Rangareddy District in pursuance of Proceedings in File in Lr.No.A1/2328/2024, dated 06.11.2024, in order to finalize the said Seniority List of Senior Assistants of Ranga Reddy District, without considering the objections as arbitrary, ex-facie illegal, discriminatory, highhanded, by giving colourable of exercise to their statutory powers and against the principles of equity guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently may direct the Official Respondents more particularly the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 to consider the Petitioner’s objections dt.08-11-2024 including finalizing the Provisional Seniority List of Senior Assistants of Rangareddy District by considering the regularization date as promotion date instead of adhoc promotion date as their regular promotion date in the cadre of Senior Assistants for finalizing the Seniority List for considering Promotion to the cadre of Naib Tahsildar, in the Interest of Justice ….”

2) Heard Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6, and Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 21.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner worked as Village Revenue Officer (VRO) and thereafter promoted as Senior Assistant on 15.06.2017 in respondent No.4 office. Though, he is fully qualified for promotion for the post of Senior Assistant, he was not considered either for adhoc promotion or regular promotion before 10.10.2016 and was considered for regular promotion on 15.06.2017 whereas the case of respondent Nos.7 to 21 was considered for adhoc promotion and the same affected the seniority of the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that respondent No.6 has given adhoc promotion to all the Junior Assistants subject to acquiring the qualification of Revenue Examination of Survey Training. But, some of the candidates including the unofficial respondents herein have not cleared the required qualification of Survey Training on the requisite date, besides some of them who have appeared in the said examination were also failed. It is further submitted that originally, some of the unofficial respondents herein including other candidates were initially appointed as Junior Assistants after getting selection through Group-IV services and allotted to their respective Districts, which are now included in Zone-6 and 7. Consequently, they were appointed to the said post w.e.f.01.07.2013. Further, some of the unofficial respondents herein were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant as per Rule 10(b) of TELANGANA STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1996, by respondent No.6, vide order dated 10.10.2016, on adhoc basis with specific conditions that services of the promotees in the cadre of senior assistant will not be counted for seniority till acquisition of requisite qualifications i.e. pass of survey training examination. Further, it is a well settled proposition of law that the adhoc promotions are considered where exigencies of public service insists such arrangements and even consideration of seniority do not enter into it. The incumbents continue to hold their substantive lower post and only discharges the duties of the higher post essentially as a stop-gap arrangement, and the unofficial respondents cannot seek any seniority on such service. Therefore, the plea of the respondents to consider da