THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Writ Petition No.20900 of 2025

ORDER:

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

Heard M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.Naren Rudra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, and Ms. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-III, appearing for respondent No.2.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the ORDER ROC.No.30/2025-BSPL., dated 21.05.2025, passed by respondent No.1 / High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad as arbitrary, contrary to the material available on record and also contrary to the proceedings of respondent No.1 in ORDER ROC.No.2773/2021-B.SPL., dated 18.06.2022, and ORDER ROC.No.2751/2018-Vigilance Cell, dated 13.02.2020. In addition, there was also a prayer made by the petitioner to consider his name for promotion to the cadre of District Judges (Entry Level) from the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division) under 65% quota for the year 2025 and for which notification has already been issued by respondent No.1.

3. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the persons junior to him and persons immediately senior to him have been included for being considered to be promoted to the District Judges (Entry Level) cadre and there is no impediment whatsoever coming in the way for respondent No.1 in not including the name of the petitioner also for the said post.

4. From the instructions received from respondent No.1, it is revealed that perhaps the name of petitioner got left out for the reason that he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and on account of which he was not promoted along with his batchmates in the Civil Judges (Senior Division) cadre on 23.09.2019.

5. However, perusal of the records would show that the Vigilance Cell of the High Court vide order dated 13.02.2020 dropped the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner after administering an unrecorded warning to the petitioner. Subsequent to the dropping of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner stood promoted to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre vide order dated 31.03.2021. Subsequent to the petitioner having being promoted w.e.f.

31.03.2021, he made a representation to respondent No.1 seeking for restoration of his seniority in the light of dropping of the departmental enquiry initiated against him. The respondent No.1 after due consideration of his representation and request for restoring of his seniority, vide order dated 18.06.2022, restored his seniorityin the category of Civil Judges (Junior Division).

6. As a consequence of the restoration of his seniority, for all practical purposes, the petitioner’s seniority has to be reckoned at par with his batchmates. However, when the respondent No.1 on 18.03.2023, published a list of eligible Officers who have completed five (05) years of service as per Rule 4.2(A)(III) of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023, the petitioner’s name was not listed on the ground of the petitioner actually not having served five (05) years as Civil Judge (Senior Division). Meanwhile, the petitioner and similarly placed Officers have made a representation to respondent No.1 requesting their names also to be listed in the list of eligible Officers for promotion to the District Judges (Entry Level). However, the petitioner’s request stood rejected on 29.04.2025, leading to filing of the instant writ petition.

7. At this juncture, what is foremost required to be seen is the order dated 18.06.2022 passed by respondent No.1 fixing the seniority of petitioner as a consequence of dropping all the charges levelled against him. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order dated 1