Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 410
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Sri.G Venkateshwarulu - Appellant
Versus
State Of TG PRL.SCY Finance Hyd And Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 32816 Of 2016
Decided On : 25-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V VENKATA KUMAR
For the Respondent: GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE
The court ruled that delays in passing departmental tests due to external factors should not affect the seniority of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rules 16(a), 16(b), 16(h), and 17(b) - Regularization of services - The petitioner’s probation was extended due to failure to pass departmental tests within the prescribed period, attributed to external factors including agitations - The court held that the delay in passing tests was not the petitioner’s fault and ruled that seniority should not be affected by the timing of passing the tests. (Paras 1, 7, 9)
(B) Principle of Natural Justice - The court emphasized that actions taken against the petitioner were arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, as the delays were involuntary. (Paras 2, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Senior Assistant, had his probation extended due to not passing departmental tests within the required timeframe, which was complicated by external factors such as agitations and scheduling conflicts.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s probation should be treated as commencing from the date of his initial appointment, thus preserving his seniority.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the probation extension and the impact of external circumstances on the petitioner’s ability to pass departmental tests.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s seniority should not be adversely affected by the timing of passing the tests, as the delays were beyond his control and did not reflect a lack of effort.
Result: Writ Petition allowed, treating the date of declaration of regularization and commencement of probation as 07.09.2010.
ORDER :
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
The 2nd respondent - Directorate of Insurance issued proceedings dated 08.09.2016, impugned in this Writ Petition, whereby and whereunder the services of petitioner – Senior Assistant , District Insurance Office, Khammam (Zone- V) have been regularized in the category of Senior Account with effect from 07.09.2010 and placed on probation for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years with instructions to pass the requisite departmental tests during the period of probation. It is stated that petitioner completed two years or probation by 06.09.2012 but he could not pass the requisite departmental tests during the said two year period, as such after obtaining explanation from the individual, probation was extended for a period with effect from 07.09.2012 in terms of General Rule 17(b) of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The said extended period of probation has also been completed by 06.09.2013, however, petitioner acquired departmental tests by 10.02.2014 i.e. beyond five months after the extended period of probation. Therefore, his case has been referred to the government which advised to take action as per Rule 16(h) for declaration of their probation considering the date of publication of result of last examination which would be two years anterior to the said date for commencement of probation. Therefore, the date of commencement of probation and the date of declaration in respect of petitioner is fixed under Rule 16(h) as 23.02.2012 FN and 23.02.2014 FN respectively. Consequently, seniority would be determined in the category of Senior Accountant in Zone-V with effect from 23.02.2012.
2. The grievance of petitioner is that the date mentioned in the impugned proceedings is not the date of regularization of services and commencement of probation and the change of date would deprive his allowances and also seniority in service. According to petitioner, his appointment was conditioned that he should clear departmental examinations under the Service Rules within three years ie. with an appearance of six departmental tests or two tests in a year. While two sessions of departmental tests are mandatory in a year or six departmental tests sessions in three years, the Government could conduct only four departmental tests within a period of 2010 to 2013 due to Telangana agitations during that period. Apart from the above, he was also put to another inconvenience ie. he should mandatorily appear for Accountant test Sub-ordinate Part-II and Departmental tests for the Employment of Andhra Pradesh life Insurance Paper-I, though he applied for two tests, could not appear to one of the Test Paper-I, due to the same date and timing, as such, petitioner mandatorily needed to appear and pass in another session of Departmental Test. Petitioner was deprived of two sessions due to Telangana agitation and one session due to the time table scheme of Departmental test by the APPSC which deprived him to pass the department test in the given probation period under 16(a) and 17(b) under the rules of AP Sub-ordinate service rules, 1996.
In case the departmental Exams are not cleared within three years, the service to the probation will fall under 16(h) along the Governors Rule 31 for the probation but not to the seniority. Petitioner cleared the tests vide Notification No. 09 of 2013 with the results declared on 10-02-2014 which is nothing but the Fifth session of Departmental Tests to his appointment. As such, respondents over-looked the number of Sessions of departmental test to the period of Probation and not considering the agitations of Telangana, and the above time table scheme in considering the appointment of seniority i.e. from 07.09.2010 to 23.02.2012. Respondent 2 and 3 applying Rule 16(h) for extension of probation only provided for the continuation of services of the individual but not for deprivation of seniority in the circumstances of involuntary losing of session
