APHC010593352024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the Sixteenth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 31250 of 2024 Between: Gedda Rama Rao ...Petitioner and The State of AP and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. CKR Associates Counsel for the respondents: 1. GP for Services I The Court made the following: 2 W.P No.31250 of 2024 ORDER: This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting petitioner’s request for fixing his seniority among the 2015 APSP RSI Batch or above 2018 APSP RSI Batch vide memo No.1457233/Ser.II/A2/2021-3 dated 11.12.2023 and the consequent action of respondent No.6 in issuing the final seniority list vide Rc.No.A1/291/2024 HOO.No.476/2024 dated 18.11.2024 placing the petitioner at serial No.349 which is below the 2018 APSP RSIs batch as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the circular memo No.9940/SPF & MC/2015 dated 07.08.2017. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is a resident of S.Chintalavalasa village, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. He was appointed as Jail Warder at Cherlapally Jail of Rangareddy District on 09.04.2007, where he worked till July, 2012. Later, he was transferred as Jail Warder, Sub Jail, Vizianagaram and he worked there from August, 2012 to 19.12.2014. While so, the State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh issued a notification Rc.No.931 / R & T / Rect.1 / 2011 dated 03.11.2011 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts. The petitioner applied for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police (APSP) (Men) in police department, while performing his duties as Jail Warder, Cherlapally, Rangareddy District, now in the State of Telangana. Therefore, he opted to appear in the selection process from Karimnagar (now in the state of Telangana). The 3 W.P No.31250 of 2024 result of the selection process was published for the posts of SI Rect.2011 on 09.05.2014, much prior to bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner was selected to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police (APSP) (Men) in police department which is a state cadre post. The total number of vacancies in that cadre notified are 406. After bifurcation of the state of Andhra Pradesh, on 10.12.2014, the Additional Director General of Police, Telangana State Special Police, Hyderabad issued a memo with joining instructions directing the petitioner to report before the Director of A.P Police Academy on 21.12.2014 to undergo induction training. As by then, the petitioner was working at Sub-Jail, Vizianagaram, he was relieved from his duties vide proceedings dated 19.12.2014. A few candidates in the same batch of 2011 received joining instructions from the Additional Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh. After completion of ten (10) months of training, the petitioner was appointed as RSI of Telangana State Special Police with effect from 09.12.2015 and was posted in Warangal in the existing vacancies, though the petitioner objected for his appointment in the state of Telangana and orally requested the authorities to post him in the state of Andhra Pradesh which is his native place. Since the post is a state cadre post, zonal preference shall not be considered for allotment of posting. Opting of a particular zone for appearing in the examination at Telangana cannot be taken into consideration as a zone preference for allotment in Telangana State. Because of confusion after the bifurcation of the state and some errors committed by the authorities, the request of the petitioner was not considered. The choice of place for appearing 4 W.P No.31250 of 2024 for the recruitment process from Karimnagar is only due to the convenience as it was nearer to the place of work of the petitioner by then. Therefore, the said choice cannot be the basis for recruitment of the petitioner in the state of Telangana. Even during the allocation of employees on bifurcation of the state of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner was not allotted to the A.P state cadre. Had he been so allotted, he would have been placed at 89th position out of 200 candidates or at 49th position if 108 candidates allotted to Andhra Pradesh are considered. Having no other option left, the petitioner continued to work in the State of Telangana. 3. The Governments of both states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh issued circular memo No.9940/SPF&MC/2015 dated 07.08.2017 enabling the employees of both states to apply for transfer on the grounds of spouses, mutual transfer etc. The arrangement of transfers is subject to the condition as per the provision of 5 (2) (c) and 5 (2) (d) of the Presidential Order-1975, that the person seeking transfer would be assigned to the last rank in the new unit of appointment and such employees should forego seniority/lien in the existing state after such transfer and further the employees are not entitled to any TA or DA claim. As per clause 6 (a) of the memo, employee shall apply for interstate transfer to the head of the department through proper channel within a month from the date of the memo and such application shall be processed by the concerned administrative department within two months from the date of the memo. The petitioner opted for the home state i.e., Andhra Pradesh by submitting the representation dated 17.08.2017 to the commandant of his battalion by seeking mutual transfer in the place of V.Vijaya Babu, RSI, Greyhounds, 5 W.P No.31250 of 2024 Andhra Pradesh. The representation of the petitioner was forwarded to the Inspector General of Police, TSSP Battalions, Hyderabad vide Rc.No.158/A1/3rd Bn/2017, dated 19.08.2017. The petitioner was aware that he would be placed at the last rank in the new unit where he would be posted on transfer, however, as there was no new batch which could be completing training within the next two to three months at that point of time, the petitioner opted the transfer. However, the application was not processed within the time stipulated in the memo dated 07.08.2017. When the petitioner came to know that a batch of 196 RSIs were being inducted w.e.f 03.08.2018 and the process of mutual transfer was getting delayed, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.07.2018 to the Director General of Police, Telangana State requesting to retain him in the state of Telangana by withdrawing the request of mutual transfer, or else the petitioner would be placed last in the seniority list below 196 RSIs who are three years juniors to him. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, his request for withdrawal of the representation for transfer was rejected vide G.O.Ms No.78 issued by the Government of Telangana, Home (Services –II) Department dated 30.07.2018 and GOMs No.129 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home (Legal –II ) Department dated 30.08.2018. The office of DGP, Telangana, Hyderabad vide Rc.No.214/Plg-3/2017 dated 06.09.2018, issued a memo to the IGP, TSSP Bn, Telangana State, Hyderabad stating that in view of the transfer of the petitioner on mutual basis, the request for cancellation of transfer need not be considered and directed to relieve the petitioner immediately with instructions to report before the DGP, Andhra 6 W.P No.31250 of 2024 Pradesh. Accordingly, order vide Rc.No.978/A1.Estt/2017-18 HOO.No.344/2018 dated 14.09.2018, was issued on the condition that the petitioner shall be assigned the last rank next to the regular candidate in the new state and the petitioner is not entitled to any TA or DA claim. Thus, the petitioner reported to the respondent No.6 and thereafter he was posted in the 5th Bn, APSP as per order dated 23.10.2018. The petitioner was forced to forego his seniority for no fault of him and it is only on account of the administrative delay and lapses. The petitioner was placed at Sl.No.487 in the provisional seniority list of APSP RSIs vide memo RC No.A1/02/2019 dated 07.01.2019. The petitioner submitted his objection to place him in the seniority list below the last candidate of his batch of 2015. It was forwarded to the respondent No.6 vide C.No.38/A1/2019, dated 06.02.2019. Without considering his objection, the final seniority was published. If the request of interstate transfer was considered within two months as per the circular memo dated 07.08.2017, the petitioner would have been at Sl.No.292 after the last ranker of 2017 batch and above 2018 batch in the provisional seniority list. In the following year, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.412 in the seniority list for the year from 01.01.2020 after 2018 batch RSIs vide HOO No.218/2020, Rc.No.A1/02/2020, dated 29.07.2020. The petitioner submitted his objection to rectify the seniority on the above grounds. The plea was not considered in the right spirit and was rejected by the respondent No.6 vide Rc.No.A1/02/2020 dated 29.07.2020 stating that his seniority was as per the G.O.Ms No.122, Home (Legal-II) Dept., dated 21.08.2018 communicated with Chief Office memorandum Rc.No.449/E-3/2017, dated 17.09.2018 and 7 W.P No.31250 of 2024 GOMs.No.129, Home (Legal- II) Dept., dated 30.08.2018 communicated with Chief Office memorandum Rc.No.449/E- 3/2017, dated 05.10.2018, and the objections are not tenable. In the subsequent years also, when the provisional seniority list was given, the petitioner submitted objections, but they were never considered. On 11.12.2023, the Principal Secretary to the Government issued memo No.1457233/Ser.II/A2/2021-3 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 30.12.2020 regarding fixation of his seniority among the batches of 2015 APSP RSIs or above the 2018 batch of APSP RSIs, placing the petitioner at Sl.No.351 stating the reason that the transfer was effected at the request of the petitioner on the condition that the seniority is as per the above said procedure. Thereafter, a final seniority list as on 01.01.2023 was issued vide memo No.1457233/Ser.II/A2/2021-3 dated 11.12.2023. The petitioner again raised objection through his representation dated 06.03.2024 to consider that the transfer was not on mutual basis, but for administrative reasons, as the transfer file of the petitioner was pending before the Government since 2016. Even in the provisional list as on 01.01.2024, communicated vide C.No.444/A1/2024 dated 13.06.2024, the petitioner was at Sl.No.349 below the 2018 batch of RSIs. Thus, in the impugned final seniority list dated 18.11.2024, vide Rc.No.A1/291/2024 HOO.No.476/2024, the petitioner is at Sl.No.349. If the request of the petitioner for the transfer was considered within the stipulated time, he would have been placed at Sl.No.143. Hence, this petition is filed. A panel of RSIs was prepared for promotions vide Rc.No.A1/901/2024 dated 05.12.2024, without the name of the petitioner as he stands in the 8 W.P No.31250 of 2024 list after 2018 batch. Thus, the petitioner lost the opportunity of being promoted even during this year. In certain cases, the Government considered the notional seniority of six candidates vide G.O.Rt No.2447, Home(Ser.II) Department dated 21.12.2012, as there was delay in their appointments in the year 2009 purely due to administrative grounds despite their selection in the year 1998. Similarly, vide G.O.Rt No.484, Home(Ser.II) Department dated 21.04.2014, another candidate was given notional seniority as the delay in appointment was purely due to administrative reasons. On the same lines, the case of the petitioner for notional seniority could have been considered. Thus, in the above circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking the relief aforesaid. 4. The respondent No.6 filed counter on behalf of the respondents Nos.1,2,4 and 5 also, while reiterating what the petitioner stated in the petition regarding his initial appointment and subsequent selection, training and posting etc., stating briefly as follows: 5. The representations of the petitioner were duly considered and rejected with valid reasons stated in the orders. The petitioner reported to duty on 05.10.2018 in Andhra Pradesh after duly accepting the conditions in G.O.Ms No.129 Home (legal-II) Department dated 30.08.2018 transferring him to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The notional seniority in the GOs cited by the petitioner was given on the ground that they were appointed belatedly only whereas in the present case, the petitioner was transferred at his request, further Rule 35 (b) of the Andhra 9 W.P No.31250 of 2024 Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, (in short the Rules) provides that the seniority of the member of a service, class of category, who is transferred on his request from one unit of appointment to another unit of appointment shall be fixed with reference to the date of joining his duty in the later unit. According to the seniority the name of the petitioner does not fall in the consideration zone for promotion in the available vacancies. Therefore, there is no merit in the case of the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions as stated in the petition, submitted that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner for the delay in the issue of proceedings for interstate transfer and if the proceedings were issued within the stipulated time, the petitioner would not have any grievance. In this regard, he stated that the petitioner submitted his request for interstate transfer on 17.08.2017 in pursuance of the circular dated 07.08.2017 and the DGP of Telangana State repeatedly addressed letters to the state of Andhra Pradesh on 21.09.2017, 16.10.2017 and Government letters dated 04.10.2017 and 05.12.2017, whereas the Government of AP, Home (Legal –II) Department addressed letter dated 25.05.2018 giving consent for mutual transfer, during which period there were no new postings. He further submitted that even as on 30.07.2018, the new batch of 2018 RSIs were not posted and as such the petitioner ought to have been placed above the batch of 2018 RSIs who were posted on 04.08.2018. It is his submission that merely because the petitioner opted interstate transfer knowing that he would be placed at the end of the list of the then existing employees in the 10 W.P No.31250 of 2024 same cadre, he cannot be deprived of the seniority which he would have secured, had the transfer been given within the period stipulated in the circular as per which only, the petitioner opted for the transfer considering his likely position in the seniority, but not knowing or consenting to be placed far below in the seniority list after the RSIs posted long subsequent to his option to be transferred. Therefore, he contended that the reasonable expectation of the seniority of the petitioner even after transfer has been frustrated due to the administrative delay, not accountable at all to the petitioner by citing the conditions in the proceedings of transfer or the rule in the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, more particularly as the petitioner requested to withdraw his representation for transfer before it was accepted by the government as the next batch of 196 RSIs were likely to be posted and he would lose his seniority. 7. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, representing the respondents, contended that the seniority was fixed strictly in accordance with the circular memo and the rule cited above from the Rules, and moreover the petitioner joined the duty in the State of Andhra Pradesh accepting the transfer proceedings and now cannot challenge the seniority. He further submitted that the delay in the process of transfer was on account of the government of State of Telangana and it cannot be wholly attributed to the government of State of Andhra Pradesh. 8. As rightly contended by the petitioner, if his request for withdrawal of representation for transfer had been considered, he would have retained his seniority in the state of Telangana. By the 11 W.P No.31250 of 2024 time he made a request for transfer strictly in accordance with the condition in the memo with the reasonable hope that he would be placed in the list of seniority of RSIs by then available, the right of the petitioner would not have been prejudiced. The question is not whether the delay is deliberate or on account of routine administrative reasons, but the question is whether the petitioner lost his seniority on account of the reasons other than his option or attributable to him alone. The facts in this case demonstrate that there are no lapses or latches on his part. There may not be deliberate delay on the part of the government as well. But, the proceedings of transfer were not issued sticking to the timeline fixed in the circular memo. Because, the petitioner choose the option to transfer basing on the then seniority status and the assurance in the circular to process the representation within the time stipulated therein, there is accountability on the part of the government for the delay which resulted in prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. As such, by merely citing part of the circular memo and the rules of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, the government cannot ignore the other part of the circular memo regarding the period to process the request for transfer, to the detriment of interest of the petitioner. The government cannot justify by its action in rejecting the request of the petitioner to consider his notional seniority by merely relying on part of the circular memo favourable to it while totally ignoring other part of the same memo. Thus, the government cannot oppose the relief sought by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to place the petitioner in the seniority list after the last 12 W.P No.31250 of 2024 rank holder of 2017 Batch RSIs and above the 2018 Batch RSIs by notionally considering his seniority, without any monetary benefit and consequently include his name in the panel of RSIs eligible for promotion to RIs for the year 2024-25. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Date: 16.04.2025 RSD/GRL 13 W.P No.31250 of 2024 45 The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 31250 of 2024 Date: 16.04.2025 RSD/GRL