##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT YDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

W.P.No.19604 of 2024

Date: 29.12.2025

Between:

Smt.D.Usha Rani

… Petitioner

And

The Registrar Administration, High Court for the

State of Telangana at Hyderabad and others.

…Respondents

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.R.Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.K.V.Raman,

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and perused the record.

2. The present Writ Petition which has been filed by the petitioner claiming

for rectification of gradation list published by respondent-authorities and also

subsequent promotion granted to respondent No.4 ahead of the petitioner inspite

of petitioner being senior.

3. The respondents down the line having filed their counter, today, when the

matter is taken-up for hearing, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1, 2 3

informs the Bench that in the gradation list, there was an error detected and the

petitioner admittedly was senior to respondent No.4, which subsequently stood

rectified vide order dated 28.08.2023 and the petitioner has been placed over and

above respondent No.4.

2

4. The second grievance of the petitioner was that promotion that was

granted to respondent No.4 ahead of the petitioner. The promotion to respondent

No.4 was granted on 26.12.2023. Upon a query put to the counsel for

respondents as to why the petitioner’s claim for promotion was overlooked, it has

been informed that the petitioner was undergoing disciplinary proceedings when

promotion process was initiated, where the departmental enquiry was conducted

for alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner being public servant.

Subsequently, departmental enquiry concluded and punishment of ‘CENSURE’

passed against the petitioner on 02.11.2022. In terms of the Rules governing the

field, the petitioner would not have been entitled for considering for promotion

for a period of one year from the date of passing minor punishment. The

punishment was issued on 07.11.2023, the petitioner could not have been

considered for promotion till 07.11.2024 and thereafter, whenever vacancies arise

and promotions takes places, the petitioner would be considered for next

promotion in accordance with law.

5. The aforesaid factual matrix is not disputed by learned counsel for the

petitioner, so far as the petitioner being faced with the departmental enquiry when

promotion process was initiated and the petitioner being subsequently punished

with a minor punishment of ‘CENSURE’ passed on 07.11.2023. In view of the

same, we do not find any strong case made out by the petitioner as of now.

6. So far as the promotion granted to respondent No.4 is concerned and

as regards the grievance of the gradation list is concerned, the same stands

already rectified and the petitioner’s seniority having been restored.

3

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stood dismissed. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________

P.SAM KOSHY,J

______________________________

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO,J

29.12.2025

nvl