Promotions cannot be revoked after a long tenure based on retrospective criteria, and settled seniority must be respected unless substantial justification is provided.

ORDER :

1. Since the lis involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. For convenience sake, the facts narrated in Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2019 are taken up for consideration.

3. Proceedings of the 3^rd respondent - Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer dated 06.11.2019 reverting petitioner as Assistant Technical Officer from the post of Technical Officer are challenged in this Writ Petition.

4. The facts which are germane for consideration are: Petitioner is stated to have been appointed as Tracer/Technical Assistant in 2005 based on ITI DM Civil qualification and subsequently, was promoted up to the post of Junior Technical Officer in 2007, Assistant Technical Officer in 2009 and Technical Officer in 2014. While so, the 2^nd respondent - Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.), Irrigation and CAD Department issued Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017 to the effect that promotions given to Technical Assistants without insisting for qualification prescribed for the post vide Government Memos dated 01.01.2008 and 06.08.2016 is against Rules, hence, cancelled the promotions issued earlier and reverted all such individuals to the post of Technical Assistant after a lapse of ten years and further promotion orders were cancelled with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017, a group of individuals filed Writ Petition No. 30249 of 2017 wherein this Court granted interim suspension on 11.09.2017 of the Circular Memo and the respective Reversion orders and the said interim order was extended until further orders on 16.10.2017.

While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued notice in memo dated 07.02.2018 calling for objections; aggrieved by which and the Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017, petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 10172 of 2018. This Court by order dated 02.04.2018 granted interim suspension for two weeks. Subsequently, petitioner is stated to have submitted explanation to the notice dated 07.02.2018 on 05.09.2019 and 02.11.2019 stating that as per Rules in vogue, his promotion from the post of Technical Assistant was as per G.O.Ms.No. 2466, dated 06.09.1956 and Memo dated 13.05.1967 and requested the 3rd respondent to consider his case and rescind the proposed reversion orders. However, without taking the same into consideration and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which held reversion after a long period of time bad, passed the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 reverting him to the post of Assistant Technical Officer. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent issued special Rules in the form of Telangana Irrigation Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 2018 vide G.O.Ms.No. 31, dated 25.04.2018 with prospective effect. Challenging the said G.O., petitioner along with others filed Writ Petition No. 32503 of 2018 and the same is pending adjudication. It is stated, in view of the interim suspension of Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017 in Writ Petition No. 30249 of 2017, petitioner was continuing in the post as Technical Officer until the impugned proceedings were passed and now the 3^rd respondent cannot take shelter of a suspended memo and issue the impugned proceedings.

Petitioner states that G.O.Ms.No. 2466, dated 06.09.1956 clearly recognizes a pass in draughtsmanship (civil) course under the revised syllabus introduced from July 1952 as sufficient qualification for appointment as Draughtsman II (Junior Technical Officer), Draughtsman III (Assistant Technical Officer) when LCE are not available and the said G.O. was further clarified vide Memo dated 13.05.1967. Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017 refers to a clarification issued by the Government in Memo dated 01.01.2008 wherein Technical Assistant (Tracers) who put in not less than ten years experience in the cadre of Tracer can be promoted to the category of Junior Technical Officer (DM Gr.III) without insisting for qualifications for the post. In view of the same and also in view of