1. Promotion to Principal of Government Medical College — Refusal to join — Employee invoked Rule 11(b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 258
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, C.J., G.M.Mohiuddin, J.
Dr.K.Ravi Shekar Rao - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department and others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.1192 of 2025
Decided On : 17-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Srinivas Bobbili.
For the Respondent: Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader
For the Appellant : Sri L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Srinivas Bobbili.
For the Respondent: Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader
A statutory right to forego promotion under service rules cannot be overridden by a general plea of public interest or post-hoc justifications, and similar administrative posts must be treated equally under such rules to prevent arbitrary discrimination under Article 14.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rule 11(b) - Right to forego promotion - An employee who does not join a promoted post within the stipulated fifteen days loses the promotion right for the current panel year - The rule contemplates the possibility of an employee choosing not to assume a higher post and prescribes a specific consequence, thereby providing a statutory right to forego promotion; such a provision cannot be interpreted to allow the Government to compel acceptance of the promotion. (Paras 15, 16, 17)
(B) Administrative Law - Public Interest vs. Statutory Rules - General invocation of public interest cannot override an express statutory provision where the rule-making authority has consciously provided a framework for declining promotion - Executive or administrative instructions cannot supplant statutory rules. (Para 22a)
(C) Administrative Law - Reasons for Administrative Action - An administrative order must stand or fall on the reasons contained within it - Post-hoc justifications raised for the first time in a counter-affidavit cannot be relied upon to sustain an administrative action that lacks such reasons in the original order. (Paras 22b, 22c)
(D) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Doctrine of Parity - Similarly situated persons must be treated alike - Denying the benefit of a service rule to an employee promoted to one administrative post while granting it to others promoted to different administrative posts, without any intelligible differentia or rational nexus, is arbitrary and discriminatory. (Paras 21, 24)
Facts of the case:
An employee serving as a Professor was promoted and posted as Principal of a medical college. The employee submitted representations expressing unwillingness to accept the post and sought to forego the promotion under Rule 11(b) of the relevant service rules, citing academic responsibilities and personal hardships. While a Single Judge granted relief to other similarly situated employees promoted to the post of Superintendent, relief was denied to the appellant on the grounds that the post of Principal is a teaching post and that the state demonstrated a public interest in the posting to ensure compliance with regulatory norms.
Findings of Court:
The post of Principal, while drawn from the teaching cadre, is an administrative position and is distinct from the teaching faculty as per regulatory frameworks and service rules. Rule 11(b) provides a clear statutory right to decline promotion. The state's reliance on public interest was found to be a post-hoc rationalization as the original promotion order contained no such reasons. Furthermore, the distinction drawn between the posts of Principal and Superintendent for the purpose of applying the service rule was found to be without rational basis.
Issues: Whether an employee promoted to an administrative post can be compelled to accept such promotion against their will, or whether the statutory framework under Rule 11(b) of the 1996 Rules permits the employee to forego the promotion by declining to join the post.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory rules providing a mechanism to decline promotion cannot be overridden by a general plea of public interest. When a rule explicitly defines the consequence of non-joining, the state cannot compel an employee to accept a promotion. Moreover, if relief is granted to employees in other administrative roles under the same rule, denying the same to another employee in a similar administrative role violates the principle of parity under Article 14.
Result: Writ Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued statutory right to forego promotion; State argued public interest in posting to newly established medical colleges. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Post of Principal is administrative, not teaching; public interest cannot override express statutory rule; differential treatment is arbitrary. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. Rule 11(b) permits an employee to forego promotion by not joining; the State cannot compel acceptance contrary to the statutory scheme. (Para 16 , 17 , 29 )
5. Writ appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; appellant permitted to forego promotion under Rule 11(b); promotion order set aside. (Para 30 )
6. Can an employee be compelled to accept a promotion against his will under Rule 11(b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996?
No. The rule permits an employee to forego a promotion by not joining, with the only consequence being forfeiture for the current panel year. The State cannot compel acceptance. (Para 16 , 17 , 29 )
7. Is the post of Principal of a Government Medical College a teaching post or an administrative post?
It is an administrative post under the NMC Regulations, 2023 and the Andhra Pradesh Medical Education Service Rules, distinct from teaching faculty like Professors. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
8. Can the doctrine of public interest override an express statutory rule like Rule 11(b)?
No. Public interest cannot be invoked to override an express statutory provision where the rule-making authority has consciously provided a framework for declining a promotion. (Para 22 )
9. Is differential treatment between employees promoted to Superintendent and those promoted to Principal valid for denying the benefit of Rule 11(b)?
No. Both posts are administrative; no intelligible differentia exists, and such differential treatment without rational basis violates Article 14. (Para 21 , 23 , 24 , 27 )
10. Can an administrative order be justified by reasons raised for the first time in a counter-affidavit?
No. An administrative order must stand or fall on the reasons contained in the order itself; post-hoc justifications are impermissible. (Para 22 )
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Srinivas Bobbili, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and perused the record.
2. This writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assails the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20111 of 2025. The appellant (3rd writ petitioner), calls in question the refusal of the learned Single Judge to grant him the relief of foregoing his promotion to the post of Principal, Government Medical College, Mahabubabad, under Rule 11(b) of the TELANGANA STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Rules’).
3. The grievance of the appellant essentially stems from the dismissal of the writ petition as regards him, while similar relief was granted to certain other petitioners in the same writ proceedings.
Factual matrix
4. The appellant is a Professor of Ophthalmology at Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad. By G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.07.2025, issued by the Government of Telangana, the appellant was promoted and posted as Principal, Government Medical College, Mahabubabad.
5. Upon issuance of the said promotion order, the appellant submitted representations expressing his unwillingness to accept the post and sought permission to forego the promotion. In his representations, the appellant stated that he was discharging important academic responsibilities in the Department of Ophthalmology, including supervision of six postgraduate students, and also referred to certain personal circumstances relating to the age and serious health condition of his 86 years old mother. Despite this, the authorities insisted the appellant to join the promoted post.
6. The appellant along with five other professors, who were similarly aggrieved by their respective promotional postings, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20111 of 2025.
7. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 26.09.2025, partly allowed the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge set aside the promotions of petitioners 2, 4, 5, and 6, whereas the writ petition was dismissed in respect of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3. The learned Single Judge distinguished their cases on the ground that they had been promoted to the posts of Principal, which is a teaching post, and that the State had demonstrated the existence of public interest in posting them to newly established medical colleges to ensure compliance with the norms of the National Medical Commission (NMC).
8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
9. Learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant assailed the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge and has advanced his submissions as under:
i) That the learned Single Judge committed an error in treating the post of Principal as a teaching post. Placing reliance on the National Medical Commission (NMC) Regulations, 2023 (for short ‘2023 Regulations’) and the Minimum Standards for Establishment of Medical Colleges, it was submitted that the Principal is the administrative head of the institution and is not counted as part of the teaching faculty for determining the teacher–student ratio.
ii) That the role of the Principal is supervisory and administrative, distinct from the teaching cadres of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor.
iii) That Rule 11(b) of the 1996 Rules expressly permits an employee to forego a promotion by not joining the promoted post within the stipulated period of fifteen days. The consequence of such non-joining, is only the forfeiture of the promotion for the concerned panel year, and the rule does not empower the Government to compel an employee to accept the promotion or to treat the refusal as misconduct.
iv) That the learned Single Judge erred in invoking the concept of public interest to ove
