Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17593
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
J.Kavitha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.12862 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Bobbili Srinivas
For the Respondents: learned Government Pleader for Services-I
The court directs promotion consideration based on established rules and service duration, emphasizing fair treatment in employment practices.
Headnote:This Writ Petition seeks to declare the action of the respondents in denying the petitioner's promotion to Motor Vehicle Inspector under SC/SC(W) category as illegal, despite existing vacancies. The petitioner claims entitlement under Rule 7 of Telangana Transport Service Rules, 1993, based on completed service. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation for consideration by the authorities. 'With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. non-consideration for promotion despite existing vacancies. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's right to fair assessment based on established rules. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. final directives issued for resolution of promotion request. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector under SC/SC(W) category though there are SC/SC(W) vacancies in the panel years 2017-18 to 2024-25 as illegal, and consequentially direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as MVI under SC/SC(W) category in the appropriate panel year with all consequential benefits, including notional seniority, notional pay and further promotions along with arrears of pay.
2. Heard Sri Bobbili Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and was selected as an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (AMVI) in pursuance of regular selection process conducted under the Notification No.21/2012, dated 29.12.2012 and appointed on
30.06.2014.
under our Notification No.21/2012 dt.29.12.2012, only two SC (W) candidates i.e. the petitioner and one Smt. R. Vijaya Lakshmi were appointed. Though, both of them secured 121 marks, as the said Smt. R. Vijaya Lakshmi is elder to the petitioner, she is being shown as a senior to the petitioner in the cadre of AMVI.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Rule 7 of Telangana Transport Service Rules , 1993, all AMVIs, who are approved probationers and who completed three years of service as AMVIs, are entitled for promotion to the post of MVI. Therefore, they are entitled to be promoted as MVI w.e.f. 30.6.2017. Though there are SC/SC(W) vacancies in the cadre of MVI in the panel years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the petitioner was not promoted as an MVI against the vacancies reserved for SC/SC(W). But, Smt R. Vijaya Lakshmi, who became senior to the petitioner, due to her date of birth, is given promotion as an MVI on 07.12.2020. Though petitioner is also eligible for promotion as an MVI along with Smt. R. Vijaya Lakshmi, respondents denied promotion to the petitioner.
petitioner makes a representation, the respondent authorities would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for respective parties, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, direct the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being made, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks therefrom.
8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
