SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA 
T. MADHAVI DEVI, J.
B.Vijaya Lakshmi - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Special Chief Sectratary - Respondent
Writ Petition (TR) No.6273 of 2017 And Contempt Case No.148 of 2021
Decided On : 09-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V JAGAPATHI
For the Respondent: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION SER

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.

Headnote:(A) A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rule 33 - Seniority - The petitioner challenged the final seniority list of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering, asserting that the 3rd respondent was improperly placed above her. The court found that the seniority list was prepared in contravention of statutory provisions, thus allowing for interference. (Paras 8, 9)

(B) Seniority Determination - The court emphasized that seniority should be determined by the order of merit fixed by the appointing authority at the time of appointment, not merely by the date of joining. (Paras 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner and the 3rd respondent were appointed as Lecturers in Chemical Engineering in 2001. The petitioner claimed seniority based on earlier lists, while the 3rd respondent was placed above her in the final list communicated on 17.08.2016 and reiterated on 28.12.2020.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the seniority list was prepared in violation of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and thus could be interfered with.

Issues: The main issues included whether the seniority list was prepared correctly and if the objections raised by the 3rd respondent were considered.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that seniority must be determined by the appointing authority's order of merit, and violations of statutory rules render the seniority list arbitrary.

Result: W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017 is dismissed.

ORDER :

W.P. (TR) No.6273 of 2017

In this Writ Petition (TR), the petitioner has challenged the Memo No.G/10569/2015 dt.17.08.2016 being the final seniority list of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering working in the Government Polytechnics, Telangana for the panel year 2015-16 issued by the 2nd respondent, in which the petitioner’s objection to the provisional seniority list placing the 3rd respondent above the petitioner herein has been rejected, as illegal and arbitrary. Subsequent to the filing of O.A.No.3246 of 2016 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 have issued the proceedings dt.28.12.2020 reiterating their stand of final seniority list dt.17.08.2016. Therefore, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 for amendment of the prayer and this Court, vide orders dt.14.11.2024, has allowed the said Application. Therefore, in this Writ Petition, the challenge is to both the final seniority lists published on 17.08.2016 and also dated 28.12.2020.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition (TR) are that the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent were selected to the posts of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering against roster point No.2 under SC (W) category and roster point No.4 under BC-A (W) category respectively and were posted in J.N.Government Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.G4/27776/2000 dt.08.01.2001 with a direction to join duty on or before 07.02.2001 as per Rule 11(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The petitioner claims to have joined on 31.01.2001, while the 3rd respondent has joined on 29.01.2001 and both of their services were regularised and they were declared as approved probationers within the time. Vide G.O.Ms.No.38 dt.01.04.2008, non-local persons including the 3rd respondent were repatriated to their local area duly protecting their seniority in the cadre, but the 3rd respondent was not only appointed in J.N.Government Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, but her services were also regularised from the date of her initial appointment and therefore, the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.38 dt.01.04.2008 do not have any effect to the service conditions of the 3rd respondent. It is stated that vide Memo dt.21.08.2008, provisional seniority list of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering in Government Polytechnics in Zone-VI was communicated by the 2nd respondent, in which the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.1 and the 3rd respondent was shown at Sl.No.2 and vide another Memo dt.24.10.2008, another provisional seniority list of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering in Government Polytechnics in Zone –VI was again communicated, in which the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.1 and the 3rd respondent was shown at Sl.No.2 and objections were called for. It is submitted that vide Circular Memo dt.27.04.2009, the 2nd respondent communicated the final seniority list of Lecturers in Chemical Engineering in Government Polytechnics in Zone-VI and the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.1 and the 3rd respondent was shown at Sl.No.2 and it was specifically mentioned that the 3rd respondent has not submitted any objections to the said provisional seniority lists and the list of all the Lecturers working in all the Government Polytechnics was communicated to the Principals and requested to furnish information regarding qualifications, etc., for considering promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer. In the meantime, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.17, Higher Education (TE) Department, dt.17.06.2016 in which one Ms.N. Suryakumari, Senior Lecturer in Chemical Engineering, J.N.Government Polytechnic was promoted as Head of the Section with immediate effect and on promotion she was re-posted to J.N. Government Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad and therefore, one vacancy in the cadre of Senior Lecturer in Chemical Engineering arose in J.N.Government Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

3. It is submitted that vide Memo dt.25.06.2016, another provisional seniorit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top