Telangana High Court
L.Mukundam, Hyderabad vs Apsrtc By Md., Hyderabad And Another on 26 November, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.20891 OF 2007
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents in not considering the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion with all consequential benefits.
2. Heard Sri P. Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent-corporation as Junior Assistant (Finance) in the year 1978 and after exhausting various departmental promotions, reached the post of Superintendent (Finance), completing 29 years of service. While working as Deputy Superintendent (Finance) in the office of the Depot Manager, Bheemgal, the petitioner obtained prior permission to prosecute a Master of Business Administration (MBA) through Distance Education from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad, and successfully completed the course. The petitioner is a Science graduate and holds an MBA with specialization in Finance.
2
4. On receipt of the proceedings dated 05.12.2006, the petitioner submitted a representation on 15.12.2006, bringing to the notice of the respondent-corporation that, as per the recruitment regulations, he was fully eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer. Again, on 23.05.2007, the petitioner submitted another representation, specifically pointing out that there were eight (8) clear vacancies of Accounts Officer posts available in the entire organization of the respondent-corporation, which were unfilled for want of eligible Assistant Managers (Finance). The petitioner stated that he was the only candidate in the respondent-corporation who was eligible for consideration for the said post.
5. However, despite earlier informing the petitioner on 05.12.2006 that no vacancies of Accounts Officer existed, the respondent-corporation, by proceedings dated 01.09.2007, promoted the Assistant Managers (Finance) as Accounts Officers on a temporary basis under Regulation 30, without considering the petitioner's case, even though he was the only person having the requisite qualification for the post as per the recruitment regulations. As per the recruitment regulations, the post of Accounts Officer is to be filled alternately by promotion or by direct recruitment, and candidates from the category of "Other Accounts Supervisors" must have five years of service as Accounts Supervisor and possess an MBA with specialization in Finance. The petitioner falls under 3 this category, has put in ten years of service, and holds the requisite qualification. However, the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
6. A perusal of the record shows that on 04.10.2007, in W.P.M.P. No.27091 of 2007, this Court passed interim order, which reads as follows:
"There shall be direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Accounts Officer as per Recruitment Regulations, if he is otherwise eligible, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and communicate the same to the petitioner."
7. With regard to the said interim order dated 04.10.2007, both learned counsel state that they have no information as to whether the said order was implemented or not.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already retired from service and that he now seeks only notional promotion for the benefit of pay fixation.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondents, submits that the Writ Petition could be disposed of by directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents, and the respondents would consider the same in accordance with law within a reasonable time.
4
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
11. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the both the learned counsel, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the same strictly in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 26.11.2025 HFM