Telangana High Court
A.Srinivas Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 28 February, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIONS No. 10172 OF 2018, 25550, 27950, 27973 AND 27984 OF 2019, 612, 623, 1189, 1191, 1215, 5333 AND 6325 OF 2020 COMMON ORDER:
Since the lis involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. For convenience sake, the facts narrated in Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2019 are taken up for consideration.
3. Proceedings of the 3rd respondent - Administrator- cum-Chief Engineer dated 06.11.2019 reverting petitioner as Assistant Technical Officer from the post of Technical Officer are challenged in this Writ Petition.
4. The facts which are germane for consideration are:
Petitioner is stated to have been appointed as Tracer/Technical Assistant in 2005 based on ITI DM Civil qualification and subsequently, was promoted up to the post of Junior Technical Officer in 2007, Assistant Technical Officer in 2009 and Technical Officer in 2014. While so, the 2nd respondent - Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.), Irrigation and CAD Department issued Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017 to the effect that 2 promotions given to Technical Assistants without insisting for qualification prescribed for the post vide Government Memos dated 01.01.2008 and 06.08.2016 is against Rules, hence, cancelled the promotions issued earlier and reverted all such individuals to the post of Technical Assistant after a lapse of ten years and further promotion orders were cancelled with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017, a group of individuals filed Writ Petition No. 30249 of 2017 wherein this Court granted interim suspension on 11.09.2017 of the Circular Memo and the respective Reversion orders and the said interim order was extended until further orders on 16.10.2017.
While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued notice in memo dated 07.02.2018 calling for objections; aggrieved by which and the Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017, petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 10172 of 2018. This Court by order dated 02.04.2018 granted interim suspension for two weeks. Subsequently, petitioner is stated to have submitted explanation to the notice dated 07.02.2018 on 05.09.2019 and 02.11.2019 stating that as per Rules in vogue, his promotion from the post of Technical Assistant was as per G.O.Ms.No. 2466, dated 06.09.1956 and Memo dated 3 13.05.1967 and requested the 3rd respondent to consider his case and rescind the proposed reversion orders. However, without taking the same into consideration and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which held reversion after a long period of time bad, passed the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 reverting him to the post of Assistant Technical Officer.
Meanwhile, the 1st respondent issued special Rules in the form of Telangana Irrigation Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 2018 vide G.O.Ms.No. 31, dated 25.04.2018 with prospective effect. Challenging the said G.O., petitioner along with others filed Writ Petition No. 32503 of 2018 and the same is pending adjudication. It is stated, in view of the interim suspension of Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017 in Writ Petition No. 30249 of 2017, petitioner was continuing in the post as Technical Officer until the impugned proceedings were passed and now the 3rd respondent cannot take shelter of a suspended memo and issue the impugned proceedings.
Petitioner states that G.O.Ms.No. 2466, dated 06.09.1956 clearly recognizes a pass in draughtsmanship (civil) course under the revised syllabus introduced from July 1952 as sufficient qualification for appointment as Draughtsman II 4 (Junior Technical Officer), Draughtsman III (Assistant Technical Officer) when LCE are not available and the said G.O. was further clarified vide Memo dated 13.05.1967. Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017 refers to a clarification issued by the Government in Memo dated 01.01.2008 wherein Technical Assistant (Tracers) who put in not less than ten years experience in the cadre of Tracer can be promoted to the category of Junior Technical Officer (DM Gr.III) without insisting for qualifications for the post. In view of the same and also in view of subsistence of G.O.Ms.No. 2466, dated 06.09.1956, impugned order is liable to the set aside. According to petitioner, insistence for ten years of service in the said Memo dated 01.01.2008 applies only to those who do not have the requisite qualification for promotion to Junior Technical Officer and it does not apply to them as ITI DM(Civil) has been recognized as sufficient qualification as per G.O.Ms.No. 2466.
The contention of petitioner is that in Roads and Buildings and Panchayat Raj Departments, Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, ITI DM (Civil) qualification is included against the posts of Junior Technical Officer, Assistant Technical Officer, Technical Officer and only three years of 5 service is prescribed for promotion to JTO from the cadre of Technical Assistant.
5. This Court, while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 20.12.2019, suspended the impugned reversion order dated 06.11.2019 as the said proceedings, if given effect to, petitioner would be reverted by two stages which amounts to double reversion.
6. The 3rd respondent filed counter stating that petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant on 07.04.2005 on displaced persons quota with SSC, ITI DM Civil qualification; further promoted as JTO (DM III) without completing required service of ten years on 13.09.2007; as DM II (Assistant Technical Officer) on 18.08.2009 and subsequently, as DM I (Technical Officer) on 29.11.2014 by the 3rd respondent. As per the Circular dated 24.07.2017, the said promotions are irregular, hence, it was informed that as per APESS Rules, Government Circular Memo dated 01.01.2008 and Government Memo dated 06.08.2016, the Technical Assistant who put in not less than ten years of experience in the cadre of Tracer can be promoted to the category of JTO without insisting for qualification prescribed for the said post. Further, the 2nd respondent issued instructions regarding promotion from 6 Technical Assistant to JTO, JTO and ATO and TO who were promoted from Technical Assistant to JTO and further promoted to the post of ATO/TO without acquiring requisite qualification / service as per Rules by revising the date of promotion. It is made clear that as per Rule, Technical Assistant with ITI qualification has to be promoted to the post of JTO after completion of ten years of service as Technical Assistant and with the qualification of Diploma after completion of three years. In this regard, this office issued notice to petitioner dated 07.02.2018, but the latter did not submit any objections. Therefore, another memo dated 29.03.2018 was issued.
The 2nd respondent conducted meeting on 24.10.2019 and issued instructions to the effect that Technical Assistants who put in not less than ten years of experience in the said cadre can be promoted to the cadre of JTO without insisting for qualifications prescribed and who completed the minimum service prescribed in State and Subordinate Service Rules can also be promoted to the said post without insisting for ten years experience. Following the same, the 3rd respondent reverted petitioner from TO to ATO.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner Ms. Kiranmayee submits that the Hon'ble APAT in a batch of Original 7 Applications i.e. O.A.No. 6425 of 1995, categorically held that ITI is one of the qualifications prescribed for the post of Civil Draughtsman Gr.III (Jr. TO); as no separate qualification is prescribed for Gr.II or Gr.I DM (now, ATO & TO), it follows that DM Gr.III with qualification of ITI can go right up to DM Gr.I (TO) without having to posses any further or special qualification. The said judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15525 of 2022 on which no Special Leave Petition was preferred by the State, therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal attained finality. According to learned counsel, in the light of the A.P. Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1953, GO.Ms.No. 2466, dated 06.09.1956 and the judgment of the Hon'ble APAT in O.A.No. 6425 of 1995 and batch, ITI (Civil) is the requisite qualification for the posts of JTO, ATO and TO, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. She contends that minimum qualifying service of ten years or possessing Diploma in Civil /Electrical/Mech. Engineering that respondents have contended to be compulsory for promotion to the post of JTO from Technical Assistant are not aplicable to a person who possesses ITI (civil), as stated supra.
8
Learned counsel contends that the settled seniority cannot be unsettled at this length of time. In this context, she places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.S.Lamba v. Union of India 1. She also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana 2, Kusheswarnath Pandey v. State of Bihar 3, H.C. Puttaswamy v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore 4, Bagawathi Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation 5. According to learned counsel, all the impugned proceedings are consequential proceedings of Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017 which was suspended by this Court in Writ Petition No. 30249 of 2017 vide order dated 11.09.2017, therefore, reversion proceedings would be illegal and would not have any legs to stand.
8. Per contra, learned Government Pleaders for Services - I and II, reiterating the averments in the counter, submit that impugned reversion order was passed in accordance with the service rules, hence, no exception can be taken to the same. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. They relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of 1 (1985) 2 SCC 604 2 AIR 1978 SC 1536 3 2013(10) SCALE 227 4 AIR 1991 SC 295 5 AIR 1990 SC 371 9 this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. M. Venkateswar Reddy 6 wherein it was held that for promotion to the post of Divisional Manager, three years service as Deputy Manager is one of the essential qualifications and Selection Committee cannot ignore this and appoint candidates who do not possess prescribed service. They also relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab 7 and Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of U.P. 8
9. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, it is evident, principal contention of petitioner is that requisite qualification / service as required by respondents through the impugned order is not necessary for promotion from Technical Assistant to next higher posts, whereas respondents contend that petitioner was promoted without possessing Diploma in Civil/Mech Engineering. From the post of Technical Assistant to JTO, hence, he is required to put up ten years of service, however, as he did not comply with the said norm, his subsequent promotions also does not hold good.
6 2003(4) ALD 201 (DB) 7 (2010) 11 SCC 455 8 (2021) 17 SCC 399 10
10. In this factual backdrop, it is to be noted that A.P. Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1953 (Madras Engineering Subordinate Service Rules) govern the service conditions. Rule 2(4) prescribes the criteria for appointment / promotion to the post of TO, JTO, ATO (earlier Draughtsman Gr. I, II and III). Rule 2(6) prescribes the criteria for appointment / promotion to the post of Technical Assistant (earlier Tracer). Schedule II Referred to in Rule 6 prescribes the qualification required to the post of TO, ATO, JTO and Tracer. The Proviso also states that qualification specified shall not be necessary for appointment as Civil Draughtsman Gr.III in case of Tracers with not less than ten years experience as Tracers. G.O.Ms.No. 2466, dated 06.09.1956 was issued recognizing a pass in Draughtsmanship course as sufficient for appointment to the post of Dr.Gr.III (now JTO).The said G.O. was further clarified in Memo dated 13.05.1967 to the effect that candidates who passed DM(Civil) Course of the revised syllabus introduced in July, 1952 can be appointed if diploma holders are not available and this does not admit of the interpretation that such of those appointed should be ousted as and when diploma holders become available. The government further direct that as in the case supra, who ever services are regularised after appointment, despite the fact that degree holders become available at later 11 date, the services of candidates possessing the DM (Civil) qualification of the revised syllabus introduced from July, 1952 should also be regularised despite the fact that LCE holders become available at later date. Further, Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017 also refers to a clarification issued by the Government in Memo dated 01.01.2008 wherein Technical Assistant (Tracer) who put in not less than ten years experience in the cadre of Tracer, can be promoted to the category of JTO without insisting for qualifications prescribed therefor.
11. Further, the Hon'ble APAT in O.A.No. 6425 of 1995 and batch, categorically held that ITI is one of the qualifications prescribed for the post of Civil Dr.Gr.III (now JTO). The said judgment also categorically held that as no separate qualification is prescribed for Gr.II or Gr.I DM (now ATO &TO), it follows that a DM Gr.III with a qualification of ITI can go right up to DM Gr.I (now TO) without having to possess any further or special qualification. The said judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15525 of 2002 and no SLP was preferred by the State thereagainst which means the judgment of the Tribunal attained finality. Here, it is also to be seen that Circular Memo issued by the 2nd respondent dated 24.07.2017 cancelling the promotions given to Technical 12 Assistants without insisting for qualifications prescribed for the post vide Government Memo dated 01.01.2008 and Government Memo dated 06.08.2016 is against rules and reverting all such individuals, was challenged in Writ Petition No. 30249 of 20167 wherein the order of interim suspension was granted until further orders. However, respondents without taking steps to vacate the interim order, passed the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 reverting petitioner from the post of TO to ATO. Moreover, Telangana Irrigation Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 2018 issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 31, dated 25.04.2018 which prescribes eligibility criteria, was challenged in Writ Petition No. 32503 of 2018 and the same is pending adjudication. Normally, an Office Memorandum / Government Order cannot have a retrospective effect unless and until there is an express provision to make its effect retrospective or that the operation thereof is retrospective by necessary implication. Admittedly, G.O.Ms.No. 31 was given effect to from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, hence, it cannot have retrospective effect on the promotions affected earlier thereto. Here, it is also to be observed that in view of the interim suspension of Circular Memo dated 24.07.2017 in Writ Petition No. 30249 of 2017, petitioner was continuing in the post of Technical Officer until the impugned proceedings were passed 13 and now the 3rd respondent cannot take shelter of a suspended memo and issue the impugned proceedings. In this view of the matter, this Court cannot find favour with the contentions of learned Government Pleaders.
12. Coming to legal pronouncements, in Kusheswarnath Pandey's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that employee's promotion cannot be cancelled after a long tenure such as that of 11 years. In Ram Sarup's case (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the legality of an order of reversion of promotion for lacking minimum qualifications at the time of employment, held the same as illegal. In H.C.Puttaswamy's case , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that employees who have served for over ten years and have received higher posts by working hard during service, their services cannot be dismissed for lack of qualifications at such belated stage. In Bhagawathi Prasad's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that lack of qualification at the time of appointment must not be factored as a ground for prohibiting promotion. It is also established position that settled seniority cannot be unsettled at this length of time. In view of the above, it can be said that reversions after such a long time especially 14 when petitioner's service was regularised in each cadre is unsustainable.
13. In the light of the discussion held supra, this Court is of the opinion that the case of respondents does not stand to scrutiny. In view of the conclusion arrived at by this Court, the judgments relied on by learned Government Pleaders are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, hence, they are not taken into consideration.
14. Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2019 is accordingly, allowed, setting aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 06.11.2019. No costs.
WRIT PETITIONS No. 10172 of 2018, 27950, 27973, 27984 of 2019, 612, 623, 1189, 1191, 1215, 5333 and 6325 of 2020
15. Heard Ms. K. Kiranmayee, Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, Sri Shaik Madar, Sri Bhanu Murthy Bala, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleaders for Services I and II.
16. For the reasons stated in Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2019, all these Writ Petitions are also allowed, duly setting aside the orders impugned. No costs.
15
17. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 28th February 2025 ksld