HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 21624 OF 2021

O R D E R:

Petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the action of the State Government in issuing Memo No.73 dated 24.07.2021 and Memo No.1356 dated 24.07.2021, in particular Para 5 thereof, by which the Government contemplated a review of promotions granted after 02.06.2014. Under Memo No.73 dated 24.07.2021, review was directed in respect of the categories of Additional Secretary to Government, Joint Secretary to Government, Deputy Secretary to Government and Assistant Secretary to Government, while under Memo No.1356 dated 24.07.2021, review pertained to promotions to the category of Section Officers effected after 02.06.2014. The purported basis for this exercise was the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 11.12.2018 in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2016; however, petitioners contend that the impugned action, instead of being a faithful implementation of that judgment, is in clear violation of the constitutional provisions, mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases as well as by this Court.

2. It is the case of petitioners that their promotions were effected under G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 14.02.2003 and G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 20.02.2009, which provided for reservation in promotion with consequential seniority to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. They assert that after the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2016, the State constituted a Committee, collected cadre-wise data and affirmed before this Court in contempt proceedings that the exercise prescribed in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India1 had been duly undertaken.

2.1. According to petitioners, once this exercise was completed and promotions were granted on that basis, the right to consequential seniority became a constitutional incident of promotion and could not be unsettled by an executive fiat. They urge that Para 5.2 of Memo No.1356 dated 24.07.2021, by providing that after adequacy is achieved seniority shall revert to the feeder cadre, effectively revives the "catch-up" principle which had been legislatively abrogated by the 85^th Constitutional Amendment. They also contend that their objections to the provisional list were rejected by order dated 27.08.2021 without reasons, which vitiates the decision-making process.

(2006) 8 SCC 212

3. Learned counsel for petitioners Sri Jogram Tejavath draws attention of this Court to the constitutional background and case law. He draws attention of this Court to the constitutional background and case law. It is contended that this Court in its order dated 11.12.2018 in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2016 upheld G.O.Ms.No. 26, dated 20.02.2009 with regard to consequential seniority to the individual who got promoted under Rule of Reservation. In the said judgment, it was advised to review the promotions which were considered earlier in the State. According to learned counsel, the intention of this Court is to review the matter where consequential seniority is not considered, but the State Government had misinterpreted and revised the seniority status that if the adequate is raised in the particular cadre, the promotions’ should be considered based on the initial category seniority which is quash against the above said order. Promotions which were considered earlier degrades the SC/ST candidates against the constitutional amendment and verdict of the Supreme Court of India. Learned counsel accuses that the Law Department and Finance Department have not followed the said procedure and they have followed the consequential seniority.

3.1. Learned counsel further argued that fixing or revision of seniority up to 01.06.2014 has to be done by the unified Andhra Pradesh but not by Telangana, so the revision of seniority done in the various cadres in the Telangana is null and void. Revision of seniority based on the order till 01.06.2014 has to be