Telangana High Court
A Sreedevi vs Honourable High Court Of Telangana on 24 July, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Writ Petition No.19972 of 2025
ORDER:(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. G.Ramalakshmi, 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/ High Court for the State of Telangana, andMs. 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 Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with Order ROC.No.30/2025-BSPL., dated 21.05.2025, passed by respondent No.1 / High Court for the State of Telangana and to quash or set aside the same holding it to be arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of the Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In addition, there Page 2 of 9 was also a prayer made by the petitioner to direct respondent No.1 to include the petitioner's name in the list of eligible candidates for participating in the promotion process for the post of District Judges (Entry Level) from the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division) under 65% quota for the year 2025 for which notification has already been issued by respondent No.1.
3. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that 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 petitioner also for the said post.
4. From the instructions received from respondent No.1, it is revealed that perhaps the petitioner's name got left out for the reason that she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings which resulted in punishment of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 26.11.2018. The said order of punishment was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court in Writ Petition No.4187 of 2021, and the Division Bench of this High Court on 23.09.2019, dismissed the said writ petition. The order of punishment and the Page 3 of 9 order of High Court were later challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of S.L.P. (Civil Appeal) No.461 of 2020, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 22.02.2021, allowed the said Civil Appeal in part and modified the order of punishment from withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect to withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced hereunder:
"... ... ... Having regard to the totality of circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interests of justice would be met if the punishment is reduced from withholding of three increments with cumulative effect to withholding of one increment without cumulative effect."
5. The order of punishment was one which was passed on 26.11.2018. Hence, the rigor of the said punishment upon being implemented would remain only till 26.11.2019. Beyond 26.11.2019, the petitioner does not have any impediment or hurdle for being considered for promotion. Meanwhile, on 23.09.2019, just around 2 months before the rigor of minor punishment operating against the petitioner got over, the batchmates were promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division). The petitioner became eligible for promotion after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court modifying the punishment and converting the major Page 4 of 9 punishment into minor punishment and whose effect was only for a period of 1 year. The respondent No.1 considered the case of petitioner and promoted her as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 22.06.2022. However, the respondent No.1, has refused to hold the petitioner eligible for promotion to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) taking the length of service at the Civil Judge (Senior Division) level from 22.06.2022 and therefore held that since she has not completed 5 years of service as Civil Judge (Senior Division), she is not entitled for being called for promotion to the post of District Judge (Entry Level).
6. It is this action on the part of respondent No.1 which is under challenge by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
7. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that, once when the rigor of punishment gets completed on 26.11.2019, for all practical purposes the petitioner has to be treated eligible for promotion and ought to have been granted seniority at least w.e.f. 26.11.2019 and since then the petitioner having completed 5 years becomes eligible for participating in the promotion process as District Judge (Entry Level) under 65% quota from the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division).
Page 5 of 9
8. It was further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court modified the major punishment into minor punishment on 22.02.2021, the respondent No.1 on 02.08.2022 restored the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division) maintaining the seniority that was in the cadre of Civil Judges (Junior Division). Accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to be given seniority in the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division) and her name to be placed in between the Judicial Officers Ms. Sheetal D.B. and Sri C.Vikram. In view of the same, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel was that when respondent No.1 themselves have restored the seniority of the petitioner over and above Sri C.Vikram, the name of the petitioner also ought to had been recommended for promotion and her judgments should also be evaluated and called for interview as well.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Sakthi vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others 1.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contended that since 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1012 Page 6 of 9 the promotion process which is being considered by respondent No.1 is of the level of District Judges (Entry Level), respondent No.1 was of the view that the petitioner in fact should have physically worked as Civil Judge (Senior Division) for the required five (05) years period so as to gain sufficient experience to take on the responsibility at the senior level, and it was for this reason that the petitioner's name was excluded from the list of eligible candidates.
11. The said contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would not be sustainable for the simple reason that, firstly, though the petitioner was initially subjected to disciplinary proceedings, the same got culminated in a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect through initially it was a major punishment which was imposed. The rigor of the punishment ended on 26.11.2019 and the respondent themselves have restored the seniority of the petitioner in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) along with her batchmates.
12. The order of respondent No.1 dated 02.08.2022, restoring the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division), for ready reference is reproduced hereunder :
Page 7 of 9
"... ... ... Accordingly, the seniority of (1) Smt. A. Sreedevi, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, is restored in the category of Senior Civil Judges in between Ms. Sheetal D.B. and Sri C. Vikram. ... ..."
13. The said order would show that the person senior to the petitioner namely Ms. Sheetal D.B. was placed at Sl.No.32 and the person junior to the petitioner namely Sri C.Vikram was placed at Sl.No.33. Now it is in between these two Officers that the seniority of the petitioner has been ordered to be fixed. If respondent No.1 themselves have granted the benefit of seniority to the petitioner by placing her in between the aforesaid two Officers, that would leave this Bench with no doubt as to restoration of the status of petitioner so far as her seniority in the Civil Judges (Senior Division) cadre is concerned. Further, once when the respondent No.1 itself had granted seniority to the petitioner vide order dated 02.08.2022 in the Senior Division cadre and the seniority list also being published, there does not seem to be any good ground available with respondent No.1 not to count the service rendered by the petitioner from 23.09.2019 or at least from 26.11.2019 from when the rigor of punishment got completed.
14. In the said factual backdrop, even if the petitioner's service was to be counted from the date the rigor of minor punishment gets completed on Page 8 of 9 25.11.2019, the petitioner still completes more than 5 years of service as on the date of notification dated 30.04.2025 issued by respondent No.1 for filling up of 50 vacancies in the cadre of District Judges (Entry Level) from the Civil Judges (Senior Division) cadre.
15. Further, what is also to be considered is that even though the major punishment gets culminated by only imposition of minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and the rigor of which gets completed on 26.11.2019, coupled with the fact that respondent No.1 themselves have restored the seniority of petitioner along with petitioner's batchmates in the Civil Judges (Senior Division) cadre, and if such treatment is not given to the petitioner it would still amount to the petitioner getting further penalized even though the disciplinary proceedings ended in a minor punishment. As a consequence, what would result is that even though the disciplinary proceedings ended with a minor punishment and if restoration of her seniority having been accepted and implemented, the juniors to the petitioner would march ahead of her in the career which may have a cascading effect all through the remaining service career of the petitioner.
Page 9 of 9
16. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to allow the instant writ petition and direct respondent No.1 to forthwith include the name of petitioner also in the list of candidates eligible for participating in the promotion process for the post of District Judges (Entry Level) under 65% quota from the Civil Judges (Senior Division) cadre. It has been further learnt that the selected candidates have already been called for interview. Therefore, without any further delay, the respondent No.1 shall take appropriate and immediate steps in subjecting the judgments of the petitioner also for evaluation and thereafter call the petitioner for interview before conclusion of the promotion process which is already undergoing. No costs.
17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, HCJ _________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 24.07.2025 GSD