APHC010097752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO I.A No.1 of 2025 in/and WRIT APPEAL NO: 176/2025 Between: P. Ramachandra Rao, and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND R Moses and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) AND I.A No.1 of 2025 in/and WRIT APPEAL NO: 197/2025 Between: V. Giridhara, and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Yelukolu Venkateswarlu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. V MAHESWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 The Court made the following Common Judgment: (per NJS,J) These two Writ Appeals are preferred against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7042 of 2021 dated 24.01.2025 and W.P.No.967 of 2020 dated 30.01.2025 respectively. 2. W.P.No.7042 of 2021 is filed seeking the following relief: “..to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in C.No.1305/A1/2020 dated 5.02.2021 of the 4th respondent by rejected without jurisdiction or authority to fixing of original seniority to place the petitioner in appropriate positions as per the date of appointment w.e.f dt.16.08.1995 based on the notification 1993-1994 as per the service rules in the feeder cadre of the Inspectors for promoting the Deputy Superintendent of Police contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.153 HomeServices1 dated 05 10 2018 inview of the common Judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of A P in W.P.No.9654/2016 and Batch dated 19.09.2017 and without following the principle of judgment of Supreme court of India in Civil Appeal No.8833/2019 8835/2019 dated 19.11.2019 proceeding further list of promotions by calling ACRs dt.16.02.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to service rules and violative of the Article 14, 16, 19, 21 and 309 of constitution of India and Quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents not to proceed further list of promotions on DSP of police by calling ACRs dt 16.02.2021 without fix up the seniority of the petitioner by the competent authority in the cadre of S I of Police as per the notification 1993-1994 by selection as per the date of appointment w.e.f dt.16.08.1995 by placed the appropriate position with all consequential benefits as per the service rules and pass..” 3. W.P.No.967 of 2020 is filed seeking the following relief: “..to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents call for the entire records leading up to issuing of the G.O.Ms.No153, dated 5.10.2018 issued by the respondent declare the 3 same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law Violation of the Principal of Natural Justice and set aside the same on the basis of seniority of promotion to the petitioner on the date of joining and respondents not follow the procedure while fixing the seniority and effecting promotion to the post of Inspector of Police as Deputy Superintendent of Police…” 4. The learned Single Judge disposed of the W.P.No.7042 of 2021 with the following direction: “10. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that, since the petitioner made a representation dated 9.12.2019 to the Government, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the same in light of the G.O.Ms.No.153 Home (Services-I) dated 5.10.2018 issued by the Government and also WP.No.9654 of 2016 & batch dated 19.09.2017, but the respondents have not considered the same and issued the impugned proceedings, without jurisdiction or authority in fixing positions as per the date of appointment w.e.f 16.8.1995 based on the notification 1993-94 as per the service rules in the feeder cadre of the inspectors, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petitioner with the following directions: i) The impugned proceedings in C.No.1305/A1/2020 dated 5.2.2021 of the 4th respondent is hereby set aside. ii) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in fixing original seniority in appropriate position i.e., DSP as per the date of appointment w.e.f. 16.08.1995 based on the Notification 1993-1994 as per the Service Rules. iii) Further , the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the present DPC as and when DPC is scheduled to be held, in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.153 Home (Services-I) dated 5.10.2018 issued by the Government and also as per orders of this Court passed in WP No.9654 of 2016 & batch dated 19.09.207. 4 11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.” 5. Within one week thereafter, the learned Single Judge allowed the W.P.No.967 of 2020 by setting aside G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 5.10.2018 and the relevant portion reads as follows: “Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.153, Home (Services-I) Department, dated 05.10.2018 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the petitioner from the date of joining for effecting promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” 6. Pointing out these aspects, the learned counsel for the appellants herein, who filed these appeals along with applications seeking leave of the Court, submits that the matters were decided without impleading the present appellants and by virtue of the impugned orders their interest is adversely affected. He submits that the petitioners in the Writ Petitions were seeking to un-settle the settled issue of seniority, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court with regard to Rule 15 of A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules, that the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.8833 and 8835 of 2019, relied on by the writ petitioners has no relevance to the facts of the case. He submits that in fact, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in A.Raghu, Son of Rajaiah vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others1 and it appears that the learned Judge attention, was not drawn to the said decision nor to the orders dated 24.01.2025 in W.P No.7042 of 2021. He also submits that the orders of the learned Single Judge are not only contradictory in nature, but also effect the settled seniority in the initial cadre of post of Sub- inspector of Police and the promotions in the cadres of Superintendent of 1 2015 (4) SCC 221 5 Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police covering both states i.e., the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana apart from the rights of the appellants herein and other seniors. 7. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel urges to allow the leave application and to grant interim orders as prayed for, pending disposal of the appeals. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.7042 of 2021, inter-alia, submits that as the writ petitioners are deprived promotions despite their seniority as Sub-Inspectors of Police, the writ petition was filed and the learned Judge granted orders taking into consideration all the relevant aspects. However, he has not denied the orders passed by the learned Judge setting aside G.O.Ms.No.153, dated 05.10.2018, with reference to which the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.7042 of 2021 was directed to be considered. 9. Mr. P.V.Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.967 of 2020 made submissions to sustain the order passed by the learned Judge in favour of the writ petitioner therein. 10. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material available. 11. In the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.As and having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the considered view that for a proper adjudication of the „lis‟, leave has to be granted. Accordingly, Interlocutory Applications are ordered. 12. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that the orders under challenge, without even going into the main merits are liable to the set aside. 13. Apart from the relevant aspect that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are contradictory, nothing was discussed with reference to the contentions advanced touching upon the issues involved in the case and no reasons were assigned for granting positive orders in W.P No.7042 of 2021 6 and setting aside G.O Ms.No.153 dated 05.10.2018 relating to Integrated Seniority list of Inspectors of police vide orders in W.P No.967 of 2020. It is incumbent on the part of the learned Single Judge not only to refer to the contentions advanced, but also record specific findings for granting the reliefs in respect of the concerned petitions. The same is lacking in the present orders under challenge. Be that as it may. One more important aspect as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in A.Raghu (referred supra) has not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, which according to him covers the issue raised in the writ petitions. 14. As this Court is of the view that the orders of the learned Single Judge under challenge are not sustainable for the reasons stated supra, the same are set aside and the matters are remanded for fresh disposal by hearing all the parties. 15. Considering the submissions made, as the rights of the parties in the present appeals are likely to be affected by virtue of any orders that may be passed in the writ petitions, this Court is of the considered opinion that they should be afforded an opportunity by impleading them as party respondents. As, leave is already granted, appellants herein are added as party respondents in W.P.Nos.7042 of 2021 and 967 of 2020. 16. Registry to make necessary incorporations and list the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge for disposal, as per the roster. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 01.04.2025 SNI 7 162 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos.176 and 197 of 2025 Date: 01.04.2025 U SNI