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) 930

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Pulla Karthik, J. 
Dr.P.Krishna Malakonda Reddy – Appellant 
Versus 
State of Telangana - Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 20489 of 2025
Decided On : 26-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRINIVAS BOBBILI
For the Respondent: GP FOR SERVICES I

A faculty member has the right to forego a promotion under State and Subordinate Service Rules, preventing compulsory acceptance of a position, underscoring legal protections against arbitrary administrative actions.

Headnote:(A) State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rule 11(b) - Promotion and transfer of medical faculty - Petitioner, a senior Professor of Cardiology, challenged the transfer to a non-teaching post post-promotion, arguing it violated procedural rights and natural justice principles - Court found the petitioner had rightfully opted to forego the promotion, thus preventing compulsory acceptance, and the government failed to demonstrate public necessity for the transfer - Impugned order set aside. (Paras 3, 9, 12, 14)

(B) Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - Right to fair administration - Court noted the arbitrary transfer undermined public interest and educational integrity - Respondents' action deemed discriminatory. (Paras 2, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, working as a Professor and HOD of Cardiology, sought a transfer during routine promotions but faced a mandatory transfer to a non-teaching role without proper consideration of his request or legal rights, arguing that the imposition of this position was unjust and against the Rules.

Findings of Court:
The transfer and promotion were ruled illegal and arbitrary, with the order compelling acceptance of the post quashed, affirming the right to relinquish the promotion.

Issues: Main issues concerned the legality of enforcing a transfer and promotion when the faculty member opted to forego such promotion and the implications of public interest stated by the Government.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that the right to forego promotion was significant under the governing Rules, invalidating the need to enforce the transfer, and stated that actions taken under the guise of promotion must align with true public interest.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's background and issues with promotion. (Para 2)
2. arguments regarding the right to forego promotion. (Para 3)
3. government's rationale for promotions based on administrative necessity. (Para 4)
4. issues related to non-teaching promotion. (Para 6 , 10)
5. legal implications of failing to join promoted post. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
6. critique of the public interest justification for promotions. (Para 11 , 12)
7. final decision to set aside the government order. (Para 13 , 14)

ORDER :

PULLA KARTHIK, J.

Heard Sri L.Ravi Chander, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Bobbili Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.

2) The case of the petitioner is that he is presently working as senior-most Professor of Cardiology at Osmania Medical College i.e. respondent No.3 College and serving as Head of the Department of Cardiology. Further, he has successfully completed DM (Cardiology) and chose to serve in the Government sector. Further, as a Super Specialist in Cardiology, he treated thousands of heart patients who could not afford private healthcare. Further, during Covid-19 pandemic also, he rendered dedicated service and successfully treated numerous Covid-19 patients. While so, during general transfers-2024, the petitioner requested the respondents to transfer him to Warangal. However, as his services are very much essential in respondent No.3 hospital as he is the senior-most Doctor in the Super Specialty of Cardiology for PG Teaching and patient care, the respondents have retained him in respondent No.3 Hospital. It is further averred that by showing the name of the petitioner, respondents made the National Medical Council to allot cardiology seats. While so, respondent No.1 having decided to effect promotions on a temporary basis to the posts of Additional Director of Medical Education including Principal of a Medical College and Superintendent of a Teaching General Hospital, has directed all the eligible Professors, including the petitioner, to submit Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) of the candidates to be promoted. As the petitioner is keenly interested in teaching and also due to his mother’s health condition, which requires continuous medication and regular follow-up and also due to other personal and family reasons, he submitted an option form dated 28.06.2025 requesting the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Principal in any one of the five medical colleges at Sanga Reddy, Quthbullapur, Vikarabad, Hanumakonda and Nalgonda. However, without considering the said options, the respondents, under the guise of promotion, have transferred the petitioner to a non-teaching post i.e. Superintendent of Government General Hospital, Nizamabad, vide impugned G.O. dated 07.07.2025. But, as the petitioner is not in a position to discharge the administrative responsibilities and also lack of interest in administrative work, he submitted a representation dated 09.07.2025 requesting the respondents to permit him to forego the promotion, retain and continue him in the post of Professor of Cardiology and HOD (Cardiology), Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad. However, without considering his representation, the respondents are compelling the petitioner to accept the promotion, taking steps to relieve him from the post of Professor of Cardiology and HOD (Cardiology), Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, and also to fill up the said post with another person. Therefore, the action of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Rule 11 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules.

3) Learned senior counsel has contended that as per Rule 11 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, all the candidates who are promoted are entitled to forego their promotion and nobod

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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