Telangana High Court
D.Lalitha Kumari vs The State Of Telangana on 7 October, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 20771 OF 2021
O R D E R:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of Memo No.73/Cabinet/A1/2019-14 dated 27.08.2021, whereby the objections of petitioner to Memo No.1356/SU.I/A1/2021 dated 24.07.2021 were rejected, and the consequential Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.248 dated 27.08.2021, by which revised panels were finalised unsettling the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Assistant Secretary.
2. The grievance of petitioner is that the impugned proceedings, though justified by the State as a "review" undertaken in compliance with the Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2016 dated 11.12.2018, are in truth a wholesale revision of panels which disturb vested promotions and consequential seniority, and are therefore, unconstitutional. 2.1. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and entered service in 2002 as Typist-cum-Assistant under reserved category recruitment by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. She thereafter, earned promotions as Assistant Section Officer, Section Officer and ultimately in 2016 as Assistant Secretary. These promotions were effected under 2 the policy laid down 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 promotions with consequential seniority. It is her contention that Para 5.2 of Memo No.1356 dated 24.07.2021, which stipulates that once adequacy of representation is achieved, promotions shall be governed only by general seniority from the feeder cadre, effectively deprives Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe promotees of consequential seniority and revives the "catch-up" principle which had been annulled by the 85th Amendment to the Constitution.
2.2. Petitioner relies on settled constitutional jurisprudence. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1, the nine- Judge Bench held that Article 16(4) did not permit reservation in promotions but only in initial appointments. This led to insertion of Article 16(4A) through the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995, which enabled the State to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Subsequently, the 81st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000 inserted Article 16(4B) to permit the State to carry forward unfilled reserved vacancies to subsequent years without affecting the fifty per cent ceiling. The 85th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001 further amended 1 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 3 Article 16(4A) to include the words "with consequential seniority," thereby legislatively nullifying the "catch-up"
principle that had been recognised in the judgment in Virpal Singh Chauhan v. Union of India 2, Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab 3 and Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab 4. Later, the 117th Constitutional Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament to insert Article 16(4A) in a broader form, clarifying that reservation in promotions with consequential seniority is a constitutional right; though it lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha, its very introduction reflected the legislative intent to reinforce the constitutional validity of reservation in promotions.
2.3. In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India 5, the Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the 77th, 81st and 85th Amendments but made it clear that the State must collect quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation, demonstrate backwardness, and ensure that efficiency in administration under Article 335 is not compromised. While holding that Article 16(4A) is only enabling, the Court observed that once the State decides to exercise the enabling power, the conditions must be fulfilled.
2 (1995) 6 SCC 684 3 1996 (2) SCC 715 4 1999 (7) SCC 209 5 (2006) 8 SCC 212 4 2.4. In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the requirement in Nagaraj's case of proving backwardness afresh was contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney's case. It was held that backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is constitutionally presumed, and the State is only required to collect quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation and to consider the impact on efficiency.
2.5. In B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that consequential seniority is a constitutional incident of promotion under Article 16(4A) as amended by the 85th Amendment. It held that once the State has carried out the exercise in Nagraj's case (supra) and effected promotions, the benefit of consequential seniority cannot be withdrawn by executive instruction, for that would amount to a revival of the catch-up principle which Parliament deliberately abolished by the 85th Amendment. 2.6. Petitioner also places reliance on Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan 8, wherein the Supreme Court declared that reasons are the heartbeat of every 6 (2018) 10 SCC 396 7 (2019) 16 SCC 129 8 (2010) 9 SCC 496 5 conclusion and that any order affecting civil rights without reasons is arbitrary and unsustainable.
3. The State, on the other hand, put forward its case that action was taken pursuant to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 2016, which directed review of promotions made after 02.06.2014. It is urged that a Six-Member Committee was constituted, cadre-wise data was collected and revised panels were prepared. It is contended that Article 16(4A) is enabling and not mandatory, and that once adequacy of representation is reached, promotions must revert to the rule of general seniority. The State further asserts that no prejudice is caused since supernumerary posts were created under G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 28.08.2021 and G.O.Ms.Nos.264 and 266 dated 31.08.2021 to protect the incumbents from immediate reversion.
4. The implead respondents, who have benefitted under the revised panels, state that Writ Petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. They contend that petitioner's promotion in 2016 was itself irregular as it was granted despite adequacy of ST representation. They rely on Virpal Singh Chauhan's case, Ajit Singh (I) case and Ajit Singh (II)'s case to argue that roster-point promotees cannot claim consequential seniority. 6 They also rely on Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan 9 and U.P. Power Corporation v. Rajesh Kumar 10, where reservation in promotions was struck down for want of quantifiable data, and on S. Paneer Selvan v. State of Tamil Nadu 11, where it was held that consequential seniority cannot be claimed unless promotions are based on general seniority. They finally rely on Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand 12, to argue that Article 16(4A) is enabling and the State is not obliged to provide reservation in promotions.
5. Heard Sri K. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Smt. K.V. Rajasree. He 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 9 (2011) 1 SCC 467 10 (2012) 7 SCC 1 11 (2015) 10 SCC 292 12 (2020) 3 SCC 1 7 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.
5.1. 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 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.
8
6. Heard learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for impleaded respondents.
7. This Court, having carefully considered the rival submissions, finds that insertion of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) through the 77th and the 81st Amendments, and insertion of consequential seniority through the 85th Amendment, represent a conscious constitutional choice by Parliament to overcome judicial decisions such as Virpal Singh's case and Ajit Singh's case, which had imposed catch-up rule. The law as it now stands, particularly after B.K. Pavitra's case, is that once the exercise in M. Nagraj's case is undertaken and promotions are granted, consequential seniority is a constitutional right that attaches to such promotions. The stipulation in Para 5.2 of Memo No.1356, which requires that after adequacy is achieved seniority shall revert to the feeder cadre, directly reintroduces catch-up principle and is therefore, ultra vires the Constitution.
8. Reliance placed by the impleaded respondents on the judgments in Virpal Singh, Ajit Singh, Suraj Bhan Meena, Rajesh Kumar, Paneer Selvan and Mukesh Kumar's cases is misplaced. Those cases arose in contexts where either no exercise in M. Nagaraj's case (supra) had been carried out, or the State had chosen not to provide reservation in 9 promotions at all. In the present case, the State of Telangana admits that a cadre-wise review was undertaken through a duly constituted Committee and that compliance was affirmed before this Court. Having so acted, the State cannot unsettle vested promotions by executive instruction contrary to the constitutional scheme.
9. Equally unsustainable is the rejection of petitioner's objections without reasons, which offends the principles laid down in Kranti Associates's case. Creation of supernumerary posts may avoid immediate reversion but cannot cure the underlying illegality of depriving promotees of consequential seniority. The plea of non-joinder of necessary parties is also without substance, as the primary challenge is to the validity of the Government Memo and consequential Orders, which is a matter of constitutional adjudication; moreover, affected parties have been impleaded and their arguments considered.
10. On an overall analysis, this Court holds that Memo dated 24.07.2021, rejection order dated 27.08.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.248 dated 27.08.2021, to the extent they disturb or seek to disturb the promotion and consequential seniority of the petitioner, are arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the 10 Constitution and contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Memo dated 27.08.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.248 dated 27.08.2021 are quashed to the extent they disturb or unsettle the promotion and consequential seniority of petitioner. Petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary shall stand restored with all consequential benefits including consequential seniority. It is clarified, however, that this order shall not preclude the State from initiating specific proceedings against any individual promotion, if warranted by cogent material, provided such proceedings are undertaken strictly in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing. No costs.
12. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 7th October, 2025 ksld