Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
PULLA KARTHIK
P.Srinivas Babu Bobbili – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
PULLA KARTHIK, J.
Since the lis in these writ petitions is inter-connected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2.1. W.P.No.27060 of 2017 is filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an order or direction Or Writ, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring impugned orders issued by the 2nd respondent vide Proc.Rc.No.262/A2/DAE/TS/2014 dated 26-08-2015 fixing the seniority of the unofficial respondent over and above me as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the provisions of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Courts and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same so far as the unofficial respondent and the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner over and above the unofficial respondent with all consequential benefits and pass…”
2.2. W.P.No.39287 of 2018 is filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in promoting
Seniority for transferred employees is determined by the date of joining in the new department, not by prior seniority in the former position.
Seniority once settled cannot be unsettled after a long delay, and an order given in ignorance of the terms of a Statute or a rule having the force of Statute is per incuriam.
The seniority list must adhere to the rota-quota system, and ad hoc promotions cannot be counted for seniority unless conducted per established rules.
Seniority in public service must be determined by the appointing authority's order of merit, and any violation of statutory rules renders the seniority list arbitrary.
The court established that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment, and settled seniority cannot be revised after a significant delay.
Promotion seniority should not be altered based on delays in qualification if it complies with probation rules, affirming the importance of adhering to original seniority assignments.
Established seniority lists must be adhered to unless timely objections are raised; age considerations alone do not override settled seniority.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
