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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1635

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA 
Pulla Karthik, J.
K. Aruna Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Sri Konda Laxman Telangana State – Respondent
Writ Petition No.3158 of 2025
Decided On : 12-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : POODATTU AMARENDER
For the Respondent: K UDAYA SRI

Post bifurcation, the regulations governing promotions and seniority lists are determined by the newly established university's rules, not by previous regulations of the parent university.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Writ petition filed challenging non-preparation of a combined seniority list for promotions to Superintendents, asserting violation of constitutional rights - Statutory regulations of the prior University do not apply post bifurcation of the State - Promotions were conducted without consideration of seniority, deemed arbitrary and unjust. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 14)

(B) Promotion Regulations - Examination of promotion eligibility categorized by service regulations post bifurcation clarifies feeder categories for promotions are not universally applicable across reorganized states; criteria must align with current regulations of the functioning university. (Paragraphs 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners claimed unfair treatment regarding their promotion due to lack of a seniority list after bifurcation, arguing they are entitled to promotions based on prior regulations and their service history. (Paras 4, 6)

Findings of Court:
Court denied the petitioners' requests for promotion, clarifying seniority lists must align with regulations applicable in the respondent University after bifurcation, hence previous regulations were not binding. (Paras 13, 14)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the Senior Technical Assistants could be included in a common seniority list for promotion to Superintendent at the newly established University. (Paras 12, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the reorganization of the state required independent operational regulations, and procedures by the new University govern promotions, rendering petitioners' claims based on outdated regulations inadmissible. (Paras 10, 13)

Result: Writ petition disposed of; representations to be considered. (Paras 15, 16)

Table of Content
1. eligibility for promotion and seniority lists (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments about legality and seniority issues (Para 2 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. analysis of regulations and promotion criteria (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. importance of applicable regulations in promotion (Para 13 , 14)
5. court's directive for handling representations (Para 15 , 16)

ORDER :

Pulla Karthik, J.

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to declare the action of the 1st Respondent in not preparing the common seniority list of Senior Assistants/Senior Technical Assistants (Finance) and Senior Technical Assistants (Administration) and proceeding with the promotions to the posts of Superintendents, ignoring the seniority of the Petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially, direct the Respondents to prepare a common seniority list of Senior Assistants, Senior Technical Assistants (Finance) and Senior Technical Assistants (Administration) as was done by the Parent University (YSRHU, AP) vide Letter.No.6056/H&S/Horti/A1/2011 dt:04.02.2020 and Circular Memo No.1570/Ser(NT)/2020 dt:28.02.2020 and regulations made by the State of A.P., vide G.O.Ms.No.72, Agriculture & Cooperation (H & S) dt:22.12.2023 and further direct the Respondents to promote all petitioners to the post of Superintendent form the date of their eligibility and seniority, with all service and monetary benefits and to pass…”

2. Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a recruitment Notification vide Advt.No.6/RC/2009 dated 16.12.2009, was issued by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Horticulture University, inviting applications for various posts, including Senior Technical Assistants (STA) Finance and Senior Technical Assistants (STA) Administration. The said Notification was published in respect of (8) posts of STAs, i.e., (4) STA Finance and (4) STA Administration, and the same was clarified by way of a Corrigendum dated 16.03.2010, holding that both the posts would fall under the common category of Senior Assistants, for all purposes. Accordingly, in pursuance of the said Notification, the petitioners were appointed as STAs and joined duty on 21.10.2010 and 25.10.2010, respectively, and they have been discharging their duties with utmost dedication and devotion. It was submitted that the services of the petitioners were regulated by Dr. Y.S.R. Horticulture University – Officers (other than University Officers) Service Regulations, 2011, which stipulates that the post of Superintendent (Category-I) shall be filled in by promotion from a common seniority list of Senior Assistants/STA Administration/STA Finance in the Administrative Office/Research Stations/Colleges/ Polytechnics, after passing the Accounts Test for Sub-Ordinate Officers Part-I and Part-II. It was submitted that the petitioners, whose services were regularized by the date of their appointment, vide proceedings dated 05.06.2013, are fully qualified and eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent.

4. It was further submitted that prior to the aforesaid recruitment notification, the Government had sanctioned several teaching and non-teaching posts, including (53) posts of Senior Assistants vide G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 25.02.2009. However, on 23.01.2013, a tentative seniority list of Senior Assistants was prepared, without preparing a seniority list for common categories. As such, the petitioners filed W.P.No.3032 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.02.2013, holding that the creation of STA posts is under consideration and that the promotion stage has not come. Thereafter, the Government issued orders vide

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top