The Telangana High Court upheld G.O.Ms.No.33 on police cadre allotment, dismissing a writ appeal by personnel, ruling that the order was valid and did not violate the Presidential Order, 2018 or administrative procedures.
Published Date – 31 March 2026, 09:52 AM
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of G.O.Ms.No.33 issued by the State government for allotment of personnel in the Telangana State Special Police Battalions, dismissing a writ appeal filed by a group of police personnel challenging their cadre allocation.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin ruled that the government order was legally valid and did not violate provisions of the Presidential Order, 2018.
The appeal was filed by K. Narender Reddy and 12 others, who were initially appointed as constables in the 10th Battalion at Beechpally and later promoted as Assistant Reserve Sub-Inspectors (ARSIs). They challenged G.O.Ms.No.33 dated May 15, 2023, and related allotment orders, contending that they were allocated to Contiguous Zonal Cadre-I (CZC-I) despite opting for CZC-II.
The appellants argued that the Presidential Order, 2018 mandated completion of local cadre organisation within 36 months, and that G.O.Ms.No.33, issued thereafter, exceeded the time limit and altered the cadre structure. They also contended that their preferences and seniority, as outlined under G.O.Ms.No.317, were overlooked.
The State countered that the 36-month limit applied only to the organisation of cadres and not to the allotment of personnel. It maintained that G.O.Ms.No.33 merely prescribed a mechanism for allotment based on administrative requirements and territorial location, without altering the cadre structure finalised under G.O.Ms.No.172.
Accepting the State’s arguments, the Bench held that there is a clear distinction between “organisation of local cadres” and “allotment of personnel” under the Presidential Order.
The Court observed that while cadre organisation was completed within the stipulated period through G.O.Ms.No.172, the subsequent allotment process falls under Paragraph 4 of the Presidential Order, which does not prescribe any time limit.
It further held that G.O.Ms.No.33 does not change the cadre structure but only outlines the procedure for allotment. The decision to allocate personnel based on the territorial location of battalions was deemed a reasonable administrative measure to ensure operational efficiency.
On the issue of employee preferences, the Court clarified that such options are only one of several considerations and cannot override administrative requirements.
The Bench also noted that the appellants had voluntarily accepted transfers to different battalions in 2018 to secure promotions and could not later claim a vested right to be allotted to a preferred cadre.
Finding no arbitrariness or illegality, the Court upheld the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal. However, it granted liberty to the appellants to submit representations on posting-related grievances within their allotted cadre, to be considered by the competent authorities in accordance with law.
