Telangana High Court
B. Govardhan vs The Government Of Telangana on 15 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION (TR) No.2626 of 2017
DATE:15.04.2026
Between:
B.Govardhan and others
....Petitioners
1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal
Secretary, School Education Department and two others
...Respondents
ORDER:
1. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned Proc.Rc.No.C3/1844/2013, dated 10.12.2013 issued by the respondent No.3 and sought a direction to the respondents to fix up the seniority of the petitioners with their batch mattes i.e. DSC-2002 as per their ranking in DSC-2002 and effect promotions to the next higher posts.
2. Heard Sri R.Rajashekar Rao, learned Counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I and perused the record. 2
SK,J
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are presently working as Hindi Pandit Grade-II in Mahabubnagar District. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Notification in the year, 2002 for filling up the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTs), School Assistants and Language Pandits, including Telugu Pandit Grade-I & II and Hindi Pandit Grade-I & II. However, the petitioners were denied participation in the selection process on the ground that they possessed Hindi Sikshak Certificates obtained from institutions located outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Respondent No.2 issued proceedings in Rc.No.3276/ RC-3/2002, dated 23.05.2003, declaring that candidates possessing Hindi Sikshak Certificates from institutions outside Andhra Pradesh were not eligible for appointment as Hindi Pandits Grade-I & II. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners filed O.A. No.5147/2003 before the then A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 3 SK,J 'APAT'), which allowed the application and set aside the Memo dated 23.05.2003. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Rt. No.681, Education (SE-SER.VII) Department, dated 03.11.2005, permitting Respondent No.2 to appoint candidates who had applied under DSC- 2002, were selected and had undergone training during the period from 17.08.1995 to 16.06.2000. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the petitioners were appointed as Hindi Pandit Grade-II, while Petitioner No.1 was appointed as SGT due to non-availability of vacancies in the Hindi Pandit category, based on the ranking in the selection process.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that due to prolonged litigation, the appointments of the petitioners were considerably delayed. The respondent No.3 issued appointment orders to certain selected candidates between the years 2006 and 2010, based on the same DSC-2002 selection 4 SK,J process. However, while filling up the posts of Hindi Pandit Grade-I, the respondent No.3 attempted to determine seniority based on the dates of joining as Hindi Pandit Grade-II, instead of preparing a seniority list in accordance with the merit ranking obtained in DSC-2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the then APAT seeking a direction to the respondents to prepare the seniority list of Hindi Pandit Grade-II based on their ranking in DSC-2002, in accordance with Rule 33(b) read with Rule 34 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The Tribunal initially granted interim directions to consider the representations of the petitioners in light of the said rules and subsequently disposed of the O.A. by making the interim orders absolute. In spite of the same, the respondents have not passed any orders on the representations, compelling the petitioners to file Contempt Application No.1268 of 2013. Upon receipt of 5 SK,J notices in the contempt proceedings, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioners through an order, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition (TR).
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned order is contrary to settled principles of law, as seniority among direct recruits must be determined based on the merit ranking obtained in the selection process, subject to reservation and roster rules and not on the basis of the dates of joining duty. As per Rule-33 (b) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for brevity the 'Rules, 1996) mandates preparation of seniority lists based on the ranking in the selection process. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable and the requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.
6
SK,J
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of their contention placed reliance on the following Judgments.
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. G.Ramakrishna and others 1
2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs., Maruthi, and others 2
7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader basing on the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents submits that the petitioners, who are Language Pandits (Hindi) holding certificates from institutions at Bangalore/Bellary, Raichur/Yadgir, Gulbarga, Basavakalyan in the State of Karnataka, and Parlakhemundi, were appointed only pursuant to litigation before various Courts and in terms of G.O.Rt. No.681, Education Department, dated 03.11.2005. Their appointments were made during the years 2006 to 2009. 1 2022 (3) ALD 187 (TS) (DB) 2 Unreported Judgment Of this Court in WP No.10225/2011 Dated 03.09.2022 7 SK,J
8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the petitioners are seeking notional seniority on par with candidates appointed earlier. However, as per Rule-33 of the Rule, 1996, the seniority can be counted only from the date of entry into service. The petitioners, having joined service after 2006, cannot claim seniority from the year 2002, when they were not borne in the service.
9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that in terms of Rule-33(a) of the Rules, 1996 seniority in a service, class, category, or grade shall be determined by the date of first appointment to such service, unless reduced as a measure of punishment. Accordingly, the integrated seniority list has to be prepared based on the date of first appointment. Since the petitioners entered service only from 2006 onwards, their seniority can be counted only from their respective dates of joining and in view of the same they are not 8 SK,J entitled to claim seniority prior to their appointment and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
10. The learned Government Pleader in support of their contention placed reliance on the following Judgment:
1. State of Uttarakhand and another Vs. Archana Shukla and others3
11. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record this Court is of the considered view that in pursuance to the DSC Notification, 2002, the petitioners were appointed as Hindi Pandit Grade-II during the years, 2006 to 2009 in implementation of the orders of the then APAT as well as the orders this Court and as per G.O.Rt.No.681, Education (SE-SER.III) Department, dated 02.11.2005. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities are not fixing the 3 Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Dated 20.07.2011 in Civil Appeal No.1474/2007 9 SK,J seniority of the petitioners on par with their batch mates selected in DSC-2002 and the respondents passed impugned Orders on the ground that the seniority of the petitioners will be counted from date of their joining duty as per Rule. 33 (a) of the Rule, 1996.
12. The contention of the petitioners is that in view of the direction of the then APAT, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.681, Education (SE-SER.VII) Department, dated 03.11.2005 and the appointment orders were given to the petitioners during the years 2006-2009 though they were selected in the year 2002 and there is no fault on their part and in view of the same, the seniority of the petitioners has to be counted on par with their batch mates as per Rule-33(b) of the Rules, 1996.
13. Rule-33 (b) Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, reads as follows: 10
SK,J "33. Seniority :
(a) xxxx
(b) The appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any other reason the order of preference among them; and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it:
Provided further that the order of merit or order of preference indicated in a list of selected candidates prepared by the Public Service Commission or other selecting authority, shall not be disturbed inter-se with reference to the candidates position in such list or panel while determining the seniority in accordance with this Rule and the notional dates of commencement of probation to the extent necessary, shall be assigned to the persons concerned, with reference to the order of merit or order of preference assigned to them in the said list.
14. As per the above said Rule, the candidates selected through one recruitment, their seniority has to be fixed as per their merit. Moreover, in the proviso to the said Rule it is clearly mentioned that if there is any dispute, the order of merit or order of preference indicted in a list of selected candidates prepared by the Public 11 SK,J Service Commission or the Selecting authority, shall not be disturbed inter se with reference to the candidates position in such list or panel while determining the seniority in accordance with the rule and notional dates of commencement of probation to the extent necessary, shall be assigned to the person concerned, with reference to the order of merit or order of preference assigned to them in the said list. The said Rule squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. In view of the same, the respondent authorities cannot disturb the inter se seniority as per the merit of the petitioners in DSC-2002.
15. The appointment orders were given to the petitioners during the years 2006-2009 due to administrative reasons on the part of the respondents. On this aspect the Judgments relied on the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs., G.Ramakrishna and the Government of 12 SK,J Andhra Pradesh Vs., Maruthi and others, (supra 1 and 2) squarely apply to the facts of the instant case.
16. The Judgment relied on by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in State of Uttarakand and another Vs. Archana Shukla (supra 3) not apply to the facts of the case.
17. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 10.12.2013 is liable to be set aside and the respondents have to fix up the notional seniority of the petitioners on par with their batch mates i.e. DSC-2002 as per their ranking in the said DSC.
18. In view of the above finding, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 in Rc.No.C3/1844/2013,dated 10.12.2023 and the respondents are directed to fix the notional seniority of the petitioners on par with their batch mates i.e., DSC-2002, as per their ranking in the 13 SK,J DSC-2002, , within twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:15.04.2026 trr