Telangana High Court
Smt S. Laxmi Bai And 3 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 7 October, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 21586 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 and 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 constitutional provisions, the 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 1.1. Pursuant to the impugned memos, consequential proceedings were issued on 27.08.2021, whereby the objections submitted by petitioners 1 to 3 were rejected without due application of mind and without consideration of the specific contentions raised. These rejection orders, along with the consequential Government Orders and steps taken by the respondents to give effect to the revised panels, have confirmed the illegal procedure adopted and caused grave prejudice and severe injustice to petitioners, whose settled promotions and consequential seniority stand disturbed without lawful justification. They contend that the impugned action is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2. Petitioners are members of the Scheduled Tribe community employed in the Secretariat of the Government of Telangana. The 1st petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Secretary to Government, petitioners 2 and 3 were promoted to the cadre of Section Officer, and the 4th petitioner is serving as an Assistant Section Officer. They have rendered continuous service in their respective cadres and their promotions were affected in accordance with the prevailing service rules and the 3 policy of the State embodied in 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 in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
2.1. Petitioners assert that their promotions were validly granted under G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 14.02.2003 and G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 20.02.2009, both of which provided for reservation in promotion with consequential seniority in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, consistent with the enabling provision in Article 16(4A) of the Constitution. According to them, the subsequent review undertaken by the Government through the impugned memos has the effect of nullifying the constitutional guarantee of consequential seniority and amounts to a reintroduction of the "catch-up" rule which the Parliament expressly abrogated by the 85th Amendment to the Constitution.
2.2. Petitioners stated that their promotions were affected under G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 14.02.2003 and G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 20.02.2009 which provide for reservation in promotion with consequential seniority. These Government Orders were subject to challenge and a Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment dated 11.12.2018 in Writ Petition No. 4 4415 of 2016 and batch, upheld their validity but directed that cadre-wise exercises must be undertaken in accordance with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India and subsequent cases.
2.3. Pursuant thereto, the State issued Circular Memo dated 24.10.2019 and constituted the Rahul Bojja Committee to collect cadre-wise data. The Committee submitted its report and the Chief Secretary filed affidavits in contempt proceedings affirming compliance. Yet, the Government issued the impugned memoranda on 24.07.2021, called for objections and after considering petitioners' representations, rejected them by cryptic orders dated 27.08.2021 without assigning reasons. Revised panels were published and supernumerary posts were created through G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 28.08.2021 and G.O.Ms.Nos.264 and 266 dated 31.08.2021
3. Sri J. Sudheer, learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of petitioners and argued that the impugned action reintroduces the "catch-up" principle which was nullified by the 85th Amendment, that their representations dated July-August 2021 were rejected without reasons and that their vested right to consequential seniority cannot be withdrawn by executive fiat.
53.1. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court to the constitutional background and case law. He contends 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. 3.2. 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 6 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 done by the Government of Andhra Pradesh as per the A.P. Reorganisation Act. Accordingly, from 02.06.2014, the seniority should be done by Government of Telangana, but in violation of the said Act, Telangana has reviewed and revised the seniority of the Secretariat staff since 1988 to2021 which is irregular and not tenable in law.
3.3. Learned counsel relied upon binding judgments of the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1 held that reservation under Article 16(4) was confined to initial appointments and did not extend to promotions. It was this judgment that prompted the 77th Constitutional Amendment introducing Article 16(4A), thereby constitutionally enabling reservation in promotions for SCs and STs.
3.4. The Apex Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India2 upheld the validity of the 77th and the 85th Constitutional Amendments which introduced Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B). However, the Constitution Bench laid down three conditions:
the State must collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of 1 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 2 (2006) 8 SCC 212 7 representation of the class in public service, it must establish the backwardness of the class, and it must ensure that efficiency of administration under Article 335 is not impaired. At para 102, the Court declared:
" The State is not bound to make reservations for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Article
335."
3.5. In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the ruling in Nagaraj's case (supra). It held that the requirement of proving backwardness afresh in the case of SCs and STs was contrary to the nine- Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney. At para 17, the Bench held:
" We make it clear that quantifiable data shall be collected by the State to show inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs. However, we hold that the conclusion in Nagaraj that SCs and STs have to prove backwardness again is contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney. Therefore, we hold that the State is not required to collect data on the backwardness of SCs and STs."
Thus, after Jarnail Singh's case, the State's obligation is confined to data on inadequacy of representation and consideration of efficiency.
3 (2018) 10 SCC 396 8 3.6. In B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave further clarity. Upholding a Karnataka law granting consequential seniority to SC/ST promotees, the Court held that consequential seniority is not merely a statutory benefit but a constitutional incident of promotion flowing from Article 16(4A). At para 125, the Court held:
" Consequential seniority is an incident of promotion. It is a constitutional right which flows from Article 16(44) as amended. The State, once it has carried out the exercise mandated by Nagaraj, cannot thereafter withdraw the benefit of consequential seniority by administrative instructions.
At para 133, the Court observed:
" To deprive SCs and STs of consequential seniority after they have been granted promotion in accordance with the roster, is to deny them the full benefit of promotion. Such denial would reintroduce the catch-up rule which Parliament in its wisdom has expressly done away with by the 85th Amendment".
3.7. These principles are directly attracted to the facts of the present case. The Government of Telangana had already carried out the exercise in Nagraj's case (supra) through Rahul Bojja Committee and the Chief Secretary placed an affidavit before this Court affirming compliance. Once such an exercise was undertaken, consequential seniority is vested in the petitioners as a constitutional incident of promotion. The State 4 (2019) 16 SCC 129 9 could not thereafter, unsettle those promotions by issuing memos which, at Para 5(ii), direct that once adequacy is achieved, further promotions shall be governed by general seniority. This direction, in substance, revives the catch-up rule which has been legislatively abrogated.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for impleaded respondents Sri P.V. Ramana relied upon the judgments in Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan 5, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar 6, S. Paneer Selvan v. State of Tamil Nadu7 and Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand 8. These decisions are distinguishable.
5. In Suraj Bhan Meena's case (supra), reservation in promotions was struck down because the State had failed to carry out Nagaraj exercise at all. Similarly, in Paneer Selvan's case (supra), deficiency was that the exercise undertaken was perfunctory and did not satisfy constitutional requirements.
6. In Mukesh Kumar's case(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that Article 16(4A) is an enabling provision, but the case arose in the context of a State which had 5 (2011) 1 SCC 467 6 [(2012) 7 SCC 1] 7 (2015) 10 SCC 292 8 (2020) 3 SCC 1 10 chosen not to provide reservation in promotion. In contradistinction, the State of Telangana has exercised its power under Article 16(4A), issued G.O.Ms.No.5 and 26, conducted the cadre-wise exercise through Rahul Bojja Committee, and affirmed compliance before this Court. Once these steps were taken, the present situation falls squarely within the ratio of B.K. Pavitra, and not within the line of cases relied on by the respondents.
7. The rejection order dated 27.08.2021 whereby petitioners' representations were disposed of also suffer from incurable illegality. Petitioners had submitted detailed objections demonstrating that their promotions were lawful, that the constitutional scheme entitled them to consequential seniority, and that the State had already undertaken the mandated exercise. Yet, their objections were rejected without reasons. The orders merely state that the representations were "considered" and "rejected" without disclosing why. The Supreme Court in Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan 9 held that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion and without reasons the decision is lifeless. The rejection orders here fall foul of this principle and cannot be sustained. 9 (2010) 9 SCC 496 11
8. The attempt of the State to mitigate hardship by creating supernumerary posts under G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 28.08.2021 and G.O.Ms.Nos.264 and 266, dated 31.08.2021 does not save the impugned action. Supernumerary posts are an administrative device to prevent immediate dislocation but they do not cure the fundamental illegality of unsettling vested rights to consequential seniority.
9. Upon a holistic consideration, this Court finds that petitioners' promotions, effected under valid Government Orders after the mandated Nagaraj exercise, could not be disturbed by the impugned memoranda. The attempt to reintroduce the catch-up principle is contrary to the 85th Amendment and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Rejection of petitioners' representations without reasons renders the action arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The precedents relied on by the respondents are distinguishable, while those relied on by petitioners apply directly and bind this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Government Memo No.73 dated 24.07.2021, Government Memo No.1356 dated 24.07.2021, and the consequential rejection/finalization orders dated 27.08.2021 are quashed to 12 the extent they disturb or seek to disturb the promotions of petitioners. Promotions of petitioners shall stand restored with all consequential benefits including consequential seniority. It is clarified that this order will not preclude the State from initiating specific proceedings against any individual promotion, if justified by cogent material, and conducted in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing. No costs.
11. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 7th October, 2025 ksld