Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
PULLA KARTHIK
N. Uday Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
PULLA KARTHIK, J.
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , is filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS by declaring the final seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.74 Home (Ser.I) Department dated 29.12.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the rules and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be placed at Sl.No.96 instead of Sl.No.176 and further consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion and pass…”
2. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.3. In spite of service of notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5, there was no representation on their behalf.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a notification in the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh, vi
The seniority list must adhere to the rota-quota system, and ad hoc promotions cannot be counted for seniority unless conducted per established rules.
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Seniority cannot be granted to employees not borne in the cadre; it must reflect the actual date of joining. A fresh seniority list should be prepared following Supreme Court rulings.
The court held that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long period, emphasizing the principle of res judicata and the limits of administrative power in altering promotion dates.
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
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
