Telangana High Court
K.Sandhya Rani vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 26 June, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
W.P.No.27105 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :-
"..... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents in allotting the petitioner to new Local Cadre of Mahabubnagar, which is contrary to her preferential option and seniority vide proceedings No. ES/ES/MA/MBNR/SEGR/6674, dated 21.12.2021 and further in passing the rejection orders vide Memo No.Spl/Secretary Peshi/2021-240, dated 31.03.2022, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Telangana Public Employment Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment Order 2018 and Guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.317, General Administration (SPF-I) Department, dated 06.12.2021 and consequently set aside the impugned orders, dated 21.12.2021 and 31.03.2022 by directing the respondents to allot the Petitioner to the Ranga Reddy as per her option on priority and as per her seniority in accordance with Rules .....".
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-
(a) The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Prakasam District on 13.11.2000 through DSC-2000 Notification. Thereafter, under inter-district mutual transfers, she was transferred to Mahabubnagar District on 23.11.2005. The petitioner has been working at Ranga Reddy District (erstwhile Mahabubnagar District) since the date of her inter-district mutual transfer till the issuance of impugned proceedings dated 21.12.2021. The Presidential 2 Order came into force on 28.08.2018 and the same was notified by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.124, dated 30.08.2018.
(b) To give effect to the Presidential Order, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021, in terms of Para-4 of the Presidential Order, 2018, providing detailed guidelines that are required to be followed for preparation of the seniority list, seeking options, allotting employees as per their seniority, disability, medical grounds etc. As per guideline No.3 of the Appendix to G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021, all departmental heads shall prepare a seniority list of its employees in each erstwhile local cadre and, as per guideline No.5, while considering for allotment to the new local cadres, preference shall be obtained to the new local cadres from employees as per their seniority. As per the seniority list, the petitioner is placed at Sl.No.3349. One person, by name Ms.Sk.Shaheeda Gilani, who was appointed through DSC 2000, was posted at Prakasham District and later on, by mutual transfer, he was transferred to Madgul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (erstwhile Mahabubnagar District). As per the mutual transfer, his seniority has to be calculated from the date of mutual transfer, i.e., dated 23.04.2013. In the first two seniority lists, the said Ms.Sk.Shaheeda Gilani was placed at Sl.No.6050, and the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.3468. However, in the final seniority list, the said Ms.Sk.Shaheda Gilani was placed above the petitioner at Sl.No.1028, which is arbitrary and irrational.3
(c) The petitioner's seniority has been calculated from the date of inter-district mutual transfer and not from the date of appointment, and as such, she lost her seniority. One Yadagiri Reddy and Jayashree, who were appointed through DSC-2001 and who were on inter district transfer in the year 2005 to Ranga Reddy District (erstwhile Mahabubnagar) were placed above the petitioner.
Meanwhile one C.J.Shaily Hepzibah, was appointed through DSC 2000 and placed at Sl.No.3304, whereas the petitioner is placed at 3349. The petitioner is aggrieved by the wrong calculation of seniority. There are many other persons whose seniority has been wrongly calculated, and by which the petitioner is made to suffer. The petitioner was allotted Sl.No.3349 purely on the ground of inter district transfer, still, ironically and irrationally, the other said three persons, namely Mr.Yadagiri Reddy, Mr.Hepzibah and Ms.Jayashree, were placed above the petitioner, purely taking into consideration of their recruitment year of DSC, and the said persons are wrongfully placed above the petitioner. If the corrections in the seniority list are not appropriately rectified, the petitioner has to suffer, which cannot be compensated.
(d) The juniors to the petitioner have been placed above the petitioner in the seniority list, and they have been allotted to Ranga Reddy District. In contrast, the petitioner was allotted to Mahabubnagar District vide impugned proceedings dated 21.12.2021. 4 As the petitioner is senior to the said persons, the respondents ought to have allocated the petitioner to Ranga Reddy District. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the authorities concerned seeking correction of errors that occurred in the seniority list and allot her to Ranga Reddy District. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner also filed W.P.No.3026 of 2022, and this Court vide interim order dated 24.01.2022 directed the respondents therein to dispose of the appeal on or before 21.03.2022 and communicate the same to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents have rejected the appeal vide order dated 31.03.2022, stating that there are eight employees senior to the petitioner; as such, the respondents cannot proceed with her request. The petitioner contends that in the said rejection order, the seniority of the employees has not been appropriately calculated and the names of those eight persons, alleged to be seniors to the petitioner, have not been mentioned. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the juniors to the petitioner, who were transferred as per inter-district transfer policy, are placed above the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon relevant rule position contained in G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 02.02.2022 and Clause-8 of the said Rule reads as follows :-
5
"Both the employees seeking mutual transfer shall give an undertaking in the prescribed format that they would forego their lien and seniority in the old local cadres and accept to take the last rank in the new local cadres."
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have prepared the seniority list showing the names of the juniors above the petitioner and accordingly allotted the petitioner to Mahabubnagar District instead of Ranga Reddy District. In case of regular transfers, there is a chance of re-transfer of the petitioner in the future, still since the allocation of the District is on a perpetual basis, once the petitioner is allocated to Mahabubnagar District, she cannot be re-posted to Ranga Reddy District.
6. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.3026 of 2022, and this Court passed the interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2022, dated 24.01.2022, which reads as follows :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents and perused the record.
Petitioner contends that against the allotment order dt.21.12.2021, petitioner had filed an appeal before the appropriate authority on 23.12.2021 and the said appeal is pending consideration.
Since it is admitted that the petitioner has already availed the remedy as provided under Regulation 27 of guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.317, General Administration (SPF-I) Department, 6 dt.06.12.2021, pending further orders, the respondents are directed to dispose of the said appeal on or before 21.03.2022 in accordance with law."
7. Regulation No.27 of allotment of employees to new local cadres Guidelines appended to G.O.Ms.No.317 GAD, dated 06.12.2021, reads as follows:
"Any employee aggrieved by an allotment to a local cadre may submit a representation to the Secretary to the Government of the concerned Department. The government may, on receipt of such representation, duly consider and dispose of the same as deemed fit."
8. The appeal of the petitioner was accordingly disposed of vide Memo dated 31.03.2022 as per the above Regulation No.27 of the Guidelines. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
9. It is further stated that the petitioner is at Sl.No.3349 in the seniority list of Secondary Grade Teachers. She belongs to General Category, and she has given her preference for allotment of new local cadres in the order of Ranga Reddy and Mahabubnagar Districts. She was allotted to the new local cadre of Mahabubnagar District. The general cut-off serial number for getting allotment to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District is at Sl.No.3303, whereas the petitioner is at Sl.No.3430 in the Seniority List. Further, a report was obtained from the District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar District, as per which the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 7 13.11.2000 in Prakasham District, and she was transferred to Mahabubnagar on 23.11.2005 on inter-district transfer policy pursuant to her personal request and her date of birth is 25.04.1975.
10. It is further stated that the seniority of seven other juniors to the petitioner was counted from their date of initial appointment instead of their date of joining in Mahabubnagar District and allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District. As per the seniority list of District Educational Officer, Mahbubnagar District, three seniors to the petitioner, who have given option to Ranga Reddy District, were allotted to other districts. Three seniors to the petitioner have given their preference to Ranga Reddy District, and were allotted to Ranga Reddy District in General appeals.
11. It is further stated that if the seniority list was rectified and the juniors of the petitioner were re-allotted to their appropriate new local cadres as per their rectified seniority, the petitioner would get the chance of being allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District, as she is the senior.
12. It is further stated that while considering the appeal, the entire records pertaining to the seniority of Secondary Grade Teachers are verified and on verification of the seniority list, the above facts came to light. Accordingly, the petitioner was allotted to the new local cadre of Mahabubnagar District and, as such, the impugned proceedings dated 8 31.03.2002 rejecting the case of the petitioner for allotment of Ranga Reddy District is just and proper.
13. While reiterating the counter averments, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contends that the respondents have rightly rejected the appeal of the petitioner, and hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the respondents wrongly stated that the petitioner is at Sl.No.3430, instead of Sl.No.3349. The inter district transfer of Sri.P.Yadagiri Reddy was improperly shown as 23.11.2004, instead of 24.11.2005. The petitioner is senior to the said Sri.P.Yadagiri Reddy. Further, one Sri.C.J.Sheily, who is junior to the petitioner, was placed much above the petitioner, i.e., at Sl.No.3304 and her date of joining is 18.04.2006, and the petitioner's date of joining is 23.11.2005. Likewise, one Sri.B.Balya's date of inter-district transfer was wrongly mentioned as 21.04.2004 instead of 23.04.2006, and though he is also junior to the petitioner, he is placed above the petitioner.
15. It is further stated that though the 2nd respondent in the counter stated that Sri Murali Rampuram and Sri.V.Rajesh were allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District as per Guideline No.21 of 9 G.O.Ms.No.317, the respondents did not provide any material to substantiate the same.
16. It is further stated that the date of joining of one Sri J.Balaji is wrongly mentioned as 21.11.2005 instead of 23.11.2005, and the petitioner and the said Sri.Balaji were posted on inter-district transfer on the same date, i.e., 23.11.2005. Suppose the year of DSC and the date of the joining of the inter-district match each other, in that case, the petitioner's age must be considered in determining the seniority, as per which the petitioner is older than Sri.Balaji.
17. It is further stated that the respondents prepared the seniority list without verifying the records, and allocated the employees to the new local cadres without taking their actual seniority into account.
18. It is further stated that the respondents in their counter affidavit clearly admitted that if the seniority list was rectified and that the juniors to the petitioner were re-allotted to their appropriate new local cadres as per their rectified seniority, the petitioner would get the chance of being allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District, as she is the senior. Therefore, on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be allowed, and the respondents may be directed to post the petitioner at Ranga Reddy District.
10
19. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.37720 of 2022, dated 19.06.2023.
20. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders dated 21.12.2021 and 31.03.2022.
21. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
22. Having heard both the learned counsel, it may be noted that the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Prakasam District on 13.11.2000 through DSC-2000 notification. Subsequently, she was transferred to Mahabubnagar District under inter district mutual transfer on 23.11.2005. Since then, she has been working in Ranga Reddy District (erstwhile Mahabubnagar) until the issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 21.12.2021. It may be noted that consequent to the Presidential Order on 28.08.2018, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.124, dated 30.08.2018, and to implement the Presidential Order, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021, providing the detailed guidelines for the preparation of seniority lists, seeking options, and allotment employees based on seniority, disability, medical grounds, etc. 11
23. Further, the counting of seniority as per the rule position contained in G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 02.02.2022, specifically states that where both the employees seeking mutual transfer shall give an undertaking in the prescribed format, they will forego their lien and seniority in the old local cadres and accept to take the last rank in the new local cadres.
24. It may further be noted that as per Guideline No.3 of the appended to G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021, all departmental heads were directed to prepare seniority lists of all employees in each erstwhile local cadre. As per Guideline No.5, while considering allotment to new local cadres, employee preferences were to be obtained based on their seniority. The petitioner was placed at Sl.No.3349 in the seniority list, and she contends that her seniority was calculated from the date of her inter-district mutual transfer, i.e., 23.11.2005, rather than from the date of her initial appointment date, i.e., 13.11.2000, thereby resulting in loss of seniority. Further, individuals, such as Sri.Yadagiri Reddy and Sri.Jayashree, appointed through DSC-2001 and transferred in 2005, were placed above her in the seniority list. Likewise, Shaily Hepzibah, appointed through DSC- 2002, was placed at Sl.No.3304; and such miscalculation of her seniority resulted in her being allotted to Mahabubnagar District, while her juniors were allotted to Ranga Reddy District. With this grievance, the petitioner filed an appeal seeking correction of the 12 seniority list and re-allotment to Ranga Reddy District; and while the appeal was pending, she filed W.P.No.3026 of 2022, and this Court vide interim order dated 24.01.2022 directed the respondents to dispose of the appeal by 21.03.2022. The appeal was subsequently rejected on 31.03.2022, stating that eight employees senior to the petitioner, who have given first preference to Ranga Reddy, were allotted to other districts.
25. In W.P.No.37720 of 2022, the petitioner therein, while working as the Secondary Grade Teacher, the respondents have issued G.O.Ms.No.317, dated 06.12.2021. The respondents have prepared the seniority list of Secondary Grade Teachers, and the petitioner's name was shown at Sl.No.3430, in the said list, some of the teachers are juniors to the petitioner, and their seniority was counted from the date of their initial appointment instead of their transfer to Mahabubnagar District. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 29.12.2005 and should have been shown above their names and that the petitioner would have been allotted to Ranga Reddy District, which was her first option.
26. In the said writ petition, the 2nd respondent accepted in the counter that the respondents erroneously shown some of the juniors to the petitioner therein in general category as seniors and allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District and that the name of one Smt.G.Vijaya Lakshmi, who originally belong to OC community, was 13 erroneously considered under SC community and allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District.
27. In those circumstances, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 19.06.2023 by observing as follows :-
"..... the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned rejection order in Memo No.Spl/SeretaryPeshi/2021-198 dated 31.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 and the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotting her in the existing vacancy of Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu) (LB) in the Ranga Reddy District within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
28. The rule position contained in G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 02.02.2022, wherein clause 8 reads as follows :-
"Both the employees seeking mutual transfer shall give an undertaking in the prescribed format that they would forego their lien and seniority in the old local cadres and accept to take the last rank in the new local cadres."
29. As per the above G.O., employees, seeking mutual transfer, shall forego their lien and seniority in the old cadres and must take the last rank in the new local cadres.
30. At this juncture, it may be noted that it is the contention of the petitioner that the seniority of the alleged eight employees was not properly calculated and that their names were not mentioned in the rejection order; however, it is the specific stand of the learned Government Pleader, based on records, that the petitioner's appeal 14 was disposed of in accordance with Guideline No.27 of G.O.Ms.No.317, whereunder an aggrieved employee can submit a representation to the Secretary of the concerned Department. Further, the petitioner, being at Sl.No.3349 in the seniority list and belonging to the general category, had given her preference for allotment to Ranga Reddy and Mahabubnagar Districts. However, the general cutoff for allotment to Ranga Reddy District was at Sl.No.3303, and the petitioner, being at Sl.No.3349, did not fall within this range.
31. As can be seen from the counter affidavit, the respondents stated that if the seniority list is rectified and the juniors are re-allotted to their appropriate new local cadres, the petitioner might have a chance of being allotted to Ranga Reddy District.
32. In the instant case, in the counter affidavit, the respondents themselves stated that if the seniority list was rectified and if the juniors of the petitioners were re-allotted to their appropriate new local cadres as per their rectified seniority, the petitioner would get the chance of being allotted to the new local cadre of Ranga Reddy District, as she is the senior. Further, the respondents cannot deprive the right of the petitioner as she had already availed her remedy of appeal. In the similar circumstances, this Court disposed of W.P.No.37720 of 2002 on 19.06.2023.
33. The main grievance of the petitioner is that upon her inter- district mutual transfer, her date of transfer has been taken into 15 consideration while fixing the seniority, whereas in respect of her juniors, who were also on inter-district mutual transfer, while fixing the seniority, their date of appointment was taken into consideration, thereby the juniors of the petitioner were placed above the petitioner. Further, a perusal of the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 goes to show that the 1st respondent has rejected the petitioner's appeal mechanically without assigning any reasons.
34. For the aforesaid reasons and since the respondents themselves stated that if the seniority list is rectified and if the said juniors were re-allotted to their appropriate new local cadre, the petitioner being the senior, may get a chance to re-allot her to the Ranga Reddy District, this Court is of the view that it is just and proper to set aside the impugned rejection order vide Memo No.Spl/Secretary Peshi/2021-240, dated 31.03.2022, passed by respondent No.1. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotting to Ranga Reddy District and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.
35. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date : 26.06.2025 Prv