Telangana High Court
B.Parajitha vs State Of Telangana, Revenue (C.T.1) on 24 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITIONNo.27115 of 2023
DATE: 24.03.2026
Between:
B.Parajitha.
...Petitioner
AND
1. State of Telangana, Revenue (C.T.1) Department,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed questioning the order passed by the respondent No.2 vide TS CCT's Ref.No.C(DX4)/615/2007, dated 16.08.2021, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that no appeal was filed against the final seniority list within the stipulated time and the consequential action of the respondents in not placing the petitioner in the seniority list along with the 2007 batch of Assistant 2 SK, J WP_27115_2023 Commercial Tax Officers (ACTOs), despite her objections and representations with reference to proceedings No.E1/166/2012, dated 01.04.2015, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri K.Bheema Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.Sravan Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission pursuant to Notification No.10/2004 and was allotted to Zone-III and posted in Guntur Nodal Division. After successful completion of probation, she sought mutual transfer to Zone-VI and on such request, the then Government of the combined 3 SK, J WP_27115_2023 State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.599, Revenue (CT-I) Department, dated 22.04.2010, ordering mutual transfer between the petitioner and one K. Sujatha, ACTO, Hyderabad Rural Division, Zone-VI, under para 5(2)(d) of the Presidential Order. The said Government Order stipulated that the mutual transfer would be subject to assigning last rank in the seniority below the last regular candidate in the new unit of appointment and foregoing seniority in the present unit. In pursuance to the said G.O., the petitioner was transferred and appointed to Zone-VI and joined duty as ACTO in Hyderabad Rural Division on 05.05.2010, while Smt. K. Sujatha was posted to Zone-III.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, while it being so, the respondent No.2 prepared a provisional seniority list of ACTOs for the unit of Hyderabad (Rural) Division under Zone-VI 4 SK, J WP_27115_2023 under proceedings No.E1/166/2012, dated 14.04.2012, wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No.39. The respondent No.2 invited objections to the said provisional list and the petitioner submitted objections requesting that her seniority in Zone-VI be counted from her original date of joining as ACTO in Zone-III i.e., 22.10.2007, rather than from the date of joining in Zone-VI on 05.05.2010. However, the seniority list was later finalized on 01.04.2015 in the same proceedings No.E1/166/2012 without considering her objections and her position remained unchanged, placing her effectively with the 2009 batch of APPSC recruitees.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the note appended to the final seniority list stated that, in view of G.O.Rt.No.599, Revenue (CT-I) Department, 22.04.2010, the mutual transferees were to be placed below the last regular candidate in the new 5 SK, J WP_27115_2023 unit and the petitioner's date of joining in Zone-VI, namely 05.05.2010, was taken as the basis for her seniority. In the case of the corresponding transferee, Smt. K. Sujatha, who moved from Zone-VI to Zone-III in the same mutual transfer, the authorities placed her immediately below Smt. K.Lakshmi Devi, ACTO, treating her on par with the 2007 batch ACTOs in Zone-III, thereby giving her the benefit of the 2007 batch notwithstanding the mutual transfer.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, aggrieved by the final seniority list dated 01.04.2015, the petitioner submitted an appeal dated 07.07.2015 through proper channel to the respondent No.2, who forwarded the same to the respondent No.1 vide letter in TS CCT's Ref.No.C(DX4)/615/2007, dated 14.08.2015. As no orders were passed on the said appeal for years together, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4289 of 2021 seeking a 6 SK, J WP_27115_2023 direction to dispose of her appeal. This Court, vide order dated 23.02.2021, disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement in TS CCT's Ref.No.C(DX4)/615/2007, dated 16.08.2021, stating that any appeal against the seniority list should be filed within ninety (90) days of its finalization before the competent authority and the representation dated 20.08.2020 was belated and defective as it did not mention details of the seniority list or any pending appeal. This reasoning is factually incorrect and legally untenable as she had already submitted a detailed appeal on 07.07.2015 within time which was duly forwarded by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 and requested to allow the writ petition.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, basing on the counter filed by 7 SK, J WP_27115_2023 the respondent No.2, submits that vide G.O.Rt.No.599, Revenue (CT-I) Department, dated 22.04.2010, the Government has permitted the mutual transfer of the petitioner from Zone-III to Zone-VI and of Smt. K. Sujatha from Zone-VI to Zone-III, subject to the explicit condition that both officers would be assigned last rank in the seniority below the last regular candidate in the new unit of appointment and would forego their seniority in their existing units. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined her new unit of appointment in Hyderabad Rural Division on 05.05.2010 and Smt. K. Sujatha joined the new unit in Zone-III. In view of the Presidential Order and the said Government Order, each zone is a separate and independent unit for the purpose of recruitment, transfer, promotion and discharge, therefore, the petitioner's seniority in Zone- VI has necessarily to be reckoned only from 05.05.2010 8 SK, J WP_27115_2023 as the date of entry into the new unit and not from her earlier date of joining in Zone-III.
8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the respondent No.3, being the competent appointing authority for ACTOs and lower ranks in Hyderabad Rural Division, prepared and finalized the seniority list of ACTOs for the panel years 2009-10 to 2011-12 through proceedings No.E1/166/2012, dated 01.04.2015. In that seniority list, the petitioner was placed immediately below the last regular ACTO, namely Sri A. Venkata Ramana Rao, a rank promotee in the panel year 2009-10, strictly in terms of the above said G.O.Rt.No.599, Revenue (CT.I) Department, dated 22.04.2010. Though objections from the aggrieved persons, including the petitioner, were invited and considered, the competent authority found no ground to alter the petitioner's position and, accordingly, finalized the list in accordance with law. 9
SK, J WP_27115_2023 The petitioner cannot claim parity with Smt. K. Sujatha in Zone-VI, as each zone is a distinct unit and seniority is regulated independently within each unit and any benefit given to Smt. K. Sujatha in Zone-III cannot be automatically extended to the petitioner in Zone-VI, particularly when the G.O. itself mandated that mutual transferees would take last rank in their respective new units and forego their earlier seniority and there are no merits and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
9. After hearing both sides and on a perusal of the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that that there is no dispute with regard to appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO) through APPSC, vide Notification No.10/2024 and her allotment to Zone-III and also her posting as ACTO of Guntur Nodal Division. Thereafter, on the request of the petitioner 10 SK, J WP_27115_2023 and one Smt. K.Sujatha for mutual transfer, the Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.599, Revenue (CT- I), dated 22.04.2010, permitting mutual transfer of the petitioner from Zone-III to Zone-VI.
10. Accepting the conditions of the said G.O., the petitioner joined in Zone-VI on 05.05.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 prepared seniority list in the year, 2012 among the ACTOs vide Proc.No.E1/166/2012 dated 14.04.2012 wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.39 and the respondent No.2 further directed the aggrieved persons to file objections to the provisional seniority list. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed her objection requesting to incorporate her name from the date of joining in Zone-III i.e. 22.10.2007 in Zone-VI instead of 05.05.2010, but the seniority list was finalized in the year, 2015 vide Proc.No.E1/166/2012 dated 01.04.2015. The petitioner also filed appeal against the 11 SK, J WP_27115_2023 said seniority list to the respondent No.2 and the same was forwarded to respondent No.1 and on the said appeal no order has been passed by the respondent No.1. In view of the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4289 of 2021 and this Court vide orders dated 23.02.2021 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent No.2 passed orders rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and the same is impugned in the instant writ petition.
11. The petitioner was transferred from Zone-III and posted in Zone-VI in pursuance of the G.O.Rt.No.599, Revenue (CT-I) Department, dated 22.04.2010. In the said G.O. it is specifically mentioned that the mutual transfer is subject to assigning them last rank in the 12 SK, J WP_27115_2023 seniority below the last regular candidate in the new unit. The relevant para of the said G.O reads as under:
"2. The mutual transfer ordered in para (1) of above is subject to assigning them last rank in the seniority below the last regular candidates in the new unit and foregoing seniority in their present working units"
12. The petitioner joined in Zone-VI by accepting above the said condition in G.O.Rt.No.599, dated 22.04.2010. Again now seeking her seniority on par with her batch mates of 2007 ACTOs on the ground that the person who transferred in her place to Zone- III, was given seniority along with her batch mates on par with 2007 batch of ACTOs cannot be acceptable.
13. The respondent No.2 passed impugned orders rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of delay, but the petitioner filed appeal in time and earlier she has approached this Court and filed W.P.No.4289 of 2021 for disposal of appeal and in view of the same, 13 SK, J WP_27115_2023 the reasoning is not correct. Without going into delay aspect, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the claim of the petitioner for giving seniority on par with her batch mates of ACTOs, 2007 batch, cannot be acceptable in view of G.O.Rt.No.599, Revenue (CT-I) Department, dated 22.04.2010 and also contrary to Rule 38 (5) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.
14. With the above findings, this Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date: 24.03.2026.
trr