HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRI T PETI TI ON No.45563 of 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri G.V.L. Murthy, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for TG ZPP, appearing on behalf

of respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer

as under:

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the impugned proceedings Rc.No.B4/ 265/ 2019 dated 06/04/2021 issued by the 3^rd respondent whereby rejecting the claim of the petitioners seniority is illegal and contrary to Rule.33 of TS Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and set aside the same and consequently declare that the seniority of the petitioner is to be determined from the date of assuming the promotion as the Senior Assistant i.e., 26/03/2011 according to Rule.33 with all

consequential benefits and pass...”.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is that the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant but the District Selection Committee selected the petitioner for the post of Typist and allotted the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent unit. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 26.03.2011. As per the seniority list of senior assistants dated 03.07.2017 the name of the petitioner is shown at serial No.55 instead of 53 and in another seniority list dated 05.07.2018 the name of the petitioner is shown at serial No.115 instead of 44 and in further seniority list the petitioner’s name is shown at serial No.117 instead of 58. As per Rule 33 (a) of the Telangana State & Subordinate Service Rules the seniority of the petitioner will have to be fixed at serial No.53 or at 44 or at 58 respectively but the respondents fixed the seniority of the petitioner at serial No.55, 115 and 117 respectively. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD.

DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON:

5. During the course of hearing, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents brings to the notice of the Court that there is an identical prayer seeking review and revision of petitioner seniority by revising and re-fixing petitioner’s seniority at serial No.42 of the list and further to determine the seniority of the petitioner from the date of promotion as Senior Assistant i.e. on 26.03.2011 on par with the other candidates appointed as Senior Assistants according to Rule 33 (a) of the Telangana State & Subordinate Service Rules which deals with the determination of seniority, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner cannot pursue two parallel remedies at the same time.

6. A bare perusal of the record indicates a copy of the appeal petition dated 29.11.2018 preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Panchayath Raj & Rural Development, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana and the same having been acknowledged by the said office on 29.11.2018. But however, the said fact had not been stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition which was filed in December, 2022 before this Court. I n view of the fact that the said appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 29.11.2018 is pending before the 2^nd respondent as on date, this Court opines that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

7. The writ petition is however disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the said appeal/ representation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2018 addressed to the 2^nd respondent herein which had been acknowledged by the office of 2^nd respondent on 29.11.2018 seeking revision of the seniority of the petitioner determining the seniority