Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DAILYLAW 1029 (AP)

V. Satish v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-07-10

D.RAMESH

body2023
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking for the following relief:- “to issue a Writ, order or direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the impugned proceedings vide Govt.Memo No.177828/Ser-II/A1/2020, Home (SER-II) Dept., dated 09.04.2021 on the file of the 1st respondent Endt.Rc.No.167/E1/2018, dated 30.04.2021 and Rc.No.59/A1/2018, dated 06.05.2021 on the file of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for assigning seniority in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police on par with the 2008 selected batch of SIs by considering the petitioner aggregate marks of 1049.30 secured in the examinations held in APPA as illegal, arbitrary and also contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.5862 of 2007 dated 26.03.2015 and set aside the same”. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was directly recruited Civil Sub Inspector of 2008 batch, Eluru range and presently working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Gampalagudem Police Station, Nuzvid Sub-Division of Krishna District. The petitioner applied for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector(Civil) in Zone-II in the year 2008 and participated in physical fitness test conducted on 13.07.2008 and after he attended for written test conducted on 27/28.09.2008 with Hall ticket No.11456. Surprisingly, the petitioner was not sent for training along with his batch selected Cadet Sub-Inspectors on the ground that he has not mentioned about the involvement in the criminal case in the application form. Though the petitioner has submitted the information about the involvement in the criminal case in the attestation form submitted to the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range on 26.09.2009, he was not sent for training. Aggrieved by the action in not sending the petitioner for training along with his batch SIs, he approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and filed O.A.No.11709 of 2009. After elaborate hearing, the Hon’ble A.P.A.T pronounced its Judgment on 09.07.2010 by directing the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner as SI of Police(Civil) in pursuance of the selection. After elaborate hearing, the Hon’ble A.P.A.T pronounced its Judgment on 09.07.2010 by directing the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner as SI of Police(Civil) in pursuance of the selection. In obedience of the same, the petitioner was sent for training on 02.05.2012 and completed the training with 1049.3 marks and accordingly, he was appointed as Probationary Sub-Inspector of Police and allotted to Krishna District of Eluru Range. 4. While that being the position, the petitioner has made a request for assigning seniority on par with 2008 batch of SIs was addressed to the Government and the same was rejected vide Memo dated 01.01.2018. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.187 of 2018 and the same was dismissed on 16.04.2019. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.6095 of 2019 dated 21.12.2019 was filed and the same was disposed of with a direction to consider the request of the petitioner as was done in similar case of Sri R. Manojahar and Sri A. Srinivasa Rao. Further, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.6095 of 2019 dated 21.12.2019 and this Court in the said Writ Petition specifically directed the respondents to consider the claim for seniority along with his batch mates. Surprisingly, the request of the petitioner was negatived and issued proceedings vide Govt.Memo dated 09.04.2021 on the file of 1st respondent. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 5. After notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that on specific remarks, duly keeping in view of the remarks of the Chairman, SLPRB, AP, Hyderabad along with connected documents were sent to Dir.Genl. of Police, A.P, Hyderabad vide letter dated 29.06.2017. Subsequently, the Government vide Memo dated 01.01.2018 informed to the DGP, Andhra Pradesh that the matter was carefully examined and rejected the request of the petitioner for assigning notional seniority in the category of SI along with 2008 batch SIs as per rule 3(G) (1) of SCT Rules and amended vide G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 01.05.2006 and Rule 15 of AP State and Subordinate Services Rules. The DGP, AP has forwarded the above Govt.Memo to the DIG of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru vide C.O.Endt. 690/E1/2016, dated 08.02.2018 with a request to take necessary action in the matter. The DGP, AP has forwarded the above Govt.Memo to the DIG of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru vide C.O.Endt. 690/E1/2016, dated 08.02.2018 with a request to take necessary action in the matter. Aggrieved by the orders of the Government, the petitioner filed O.A.No.187 of 2018 before Tribunal challenging the impugned Memo dated 01.01.2018 wherein rejected the claim of the applicant for notional seniority from the date of original selection as Sub-Inspector of Police as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the directions of the Tribunal in O.A.No.11709 of 2009 dated 09.07.2010 which was confirmed by the High Court in W.P.No.30384 of 2010. 6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6095 of 2019 and the same was disposed of on 21.12.2019 wherein it is observed that without affecting the promotion aspect of others, deal with the case of the petitioner as well, if permissible, in accordance with law, since the request of two officers i.e., Sri R. Manojahar and Sri A. Srinivasa Rao were considered in the year 1998 without reference to the Rule position. In this connection, it is to submit that as per rule 3 (G) (i) of SCT Rules and amended vide G.O.Ms.No.97 home(Legal_II) Department dated 01.05.2006 and para 22 of Notification dated 06.06.2008 suppression of material facts either in the Application Form or in the Attestation Form is a disqualification for selection/appointment to the posts mentioned in the said notification. This rule came into force after 2006. Whereas the issue of fixation of seniority of two officers referred above was fixed during the year 1998 i.e., well before the above said rule came into force. As such, it is not appropriate to follow the same scenario to the case of the petitioner for fixation of seniority along with 2009 batch SIs. Hence, requests to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. As per the above pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that infact in O.A.No.11709 of 2009, the Tribunal has considered elaborately and directed the respondents to issue appointment orders to the applicant/petitioner. As there was a specific direction by the Tribunal to appoint petitioner from the date of his original selection, the respondents have no other option except to consider the case of the petitioner as per the merit list. 8. As there was a specific direction by the Tribunal to appoint petitioner from the date of his original selection, the respondents have no other option except to consider the case of the petitioner as per the merit list. 8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in identical issue, the Apex Court in A. Raghu Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal Nos.6002-6005 of 2007 observed as follows:- “The submission noticed in the foregoing paragraph, seems to be attractive on first blush. Learned counsel for the respondent-State however pointed out, that those selected provisionally (vide letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991), and who were deputed for training on 15.7.1991, had been sent to undergo training, to two different police training colleges, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. If the submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants was to be accepted, according to learned counsel for the State Government, even the seniority position of the 58 candidates, who had joined training on 15.7.1991, having been selected in Zone-V (Warangal range), could not be validly determined, for the simple reason, that they had undertaken training at two different police training colleges. According to learned State counsel, candidates who were deputed for training subsequently, on 14.6.1992, were also deputed to the same two police training colleges, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the curricula for the police training colleges, and the standard prescribed being the same, just as the manner in which the candidates deputed for training to the two different police training colleges, could be compared with one another on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by them, for fixing their position in the seniority list, so also, those deputed for training on different dates (on 15.7.1991 and 14.6.1992) could likewise be compared with one another on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by them, in the final examination of their police training. We find merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the State of Andhra Pradesh. For the above reason, it is not possible for us, to accept the above noticed contention, advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants. 9. Based on the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue was already decided by the Tribunal in O.A.No.11709 of 2009 and W.P.No.30384 of 2010. For the above reason, it is not possible for us, to accept the above noticed contention, advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants. 9. Based on the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue was already decided by the Tribunal in O.A.No.11709 of 2009 and W.P.No.30384 of 2010. Both the Courts have determined the issue and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector with effect from the date of his original selection and the said orders became final. According to Rule 15 of Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules, the petitioner is entitled for his seniority from the date of his original selection as per the marks obtained in 2008 selection batch. 10. Considering the said submissions, though the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground of the orders passed in W.P.No.6095 of 2019 but, in fact, the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.30384 of 2010 has directing the Government to issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police(Civil) pursuant to the selection and send him for training and that became final. 11. In view of the above observations, the respondents have no other option except to consider the case of the petitioner and assign notional seniority on par with 2008 batch of SIs. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to assign notional seniority to the petitioner on par with 2008 batch of SIs. No costs. 13. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.