APHC010346182013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 34443/2013 Between: MAN MOHAN SINGH YADAV, CHITTOOR DIST, S/O. MAHENDRA SINGH YADAV AGED ABOUT:30 YRS OCC: ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (PRESENTLY PERFORMING DUTIES OF CASO (CHIEF AIRPORT SECURITY OFFICER, RENIGUNTA AIRPORT, TIRUPATI) R/O. TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. DIR GENL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE NEW DELHI 3, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, 13, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI - 110003 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL AIRPORT SECTOR, SOUTH ZONE, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BEASENT NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600 090. 3. THE SENIOR COMMANDANT /CHIEF AIRPORT SECURITY OFFICER CA, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (CISF), CHENNAI AIRPORT, MEENAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600 027. 4. THE HEAD AIRPORT SECURITY OFFICE CISF, RENIGUNTA AIRPORT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B V ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: 2 “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order No.E- 31016/3/2011/Pers-II/710, dated 09.05.2013 of the 1st Respondent reiterating the Order No.E-31016/3/2011/Pers-II/535, dated 04.03.2011 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and to direct the 1st Respondent to refix the seniority of the Petitioner as per the Seniority of 2006 batch.” 2. Heard Sri B.V.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned Central Government Counsel for Respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Commandant for CPF-2006 batch and was placed at Sl.No.18 in the merit list and was directed to report to National Industrial Security Academy, Hyderabad on 05.07.2008 for undergoing basic training scheduled to be started by 07.07.2008. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that, due to unavoidable and compelling circumstances, he could not join on 05.07.2008. Considering his request vide letter dated 30.06.2008, the competent authority extended the time and also communicated that his seniority will be depressed. It is submitted that as per the Memo dated 06.06.78, nine months is the maximum period. Respondents got joined the Petitioner in the next training batch. After completion of training the Petitioner was put at the bottom in the seniority list. The representation of the Petitioner with regard to his seniority was not considered. 4. Per contra, Learned Central Government Counsel would submit that, considering the representation of the Petitioner, he was informed that in the event of jointing with the next batch, his seniority will be depressed as per the Memo No.9/23/71-Estt.’D’, dated 06.06.1978 and the Petitioner was directed 3 to report the NISA, Hyderabad on 18.04.2009 for undergoing basis training and the Petitioner was jointed on that date. It is further submitted that the seniority of the Petitioner was fixed as per the provisions contained in the said Memo. Since the extension sought by the Petitioner was more than four months, as per the instructions of the Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter dated 28.08.1997, he was placed at the bottom of all the candidates of next batch and the same was communicated to the Petitioner. The training schedule was fixed depending upon the availability of candidates being provided by the UPSC and the same was clearly informed to the Petitioner. There are no merits in the contentions raised by the Petitioner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Commandant vide Letter No.E-32015(4)/2/ACs(GD)Off.APPTT/2008/PERS.I/1441, dated 20.06.2008 and the Respondent-Authorities directed the Petitioner to report NISA, Hyderabad on 05.07.2008 for undergoing basic training scheduled to be started by 07.07.2008. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the Petitioner could not joint and requested the Respondents for extension of time vide Letter dated 30.06.2008 and the Respondents considered his request vide Letter dated 02.07.2008. As admittedly the Respondents in the counter, the candidate can be joined in the Department without undergoing basic training. Subsequently, the Petitioner reported at NISA, and completed his training and was posted to CISF Unit DAE, Kalpakkam and his probation was also completed by 18.04.2011. Respondents published the consolidated seniority 4 list of Assistant Commandant and the Petitioner was placed at bottom of CPF- 2007 batch though he belongs to CPF-2006 batch. The representations dated 14.02.2011, 18.01.2013 and 28.02.2013 submitted by the Petitioner requesting to reconsider the fixing of his seniority, have not been considered and issued the impugned letter dated 09.05.2013. 6. The main contention of the Respondents is that, since the Petitioner was granted extension, his seniority was depressed under the guidelines mentioned in Office Memorandum dated 06.06.1978. In Clause (ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 06.06.1978 it was clearly mentioned that the seniority will be fixed without any depression even though the candidate who got extension of time and whose offer of appointment has not lapse. Admittedly, the appointment letter of the Petitioner is not lapsed. Therefore, Clauses (iii) to (v) of the Office Memo dated 06.06.1978 are not applicable to the Petitioner. Such being the case, the question of depression of seniority of the Petitioner does not arise. 7. Further, one Roshan Raja from CPF-2009 batch, who was also denied in fixing the seniority on the similar lines to that of the Petitioner, filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(Civil) No.10054 of 2016 dated 24.08.2017 before the High Court of Delhi, wherein the Division Bench of Delhi High Court has categorically held that the seniority would be depressed only when a case was covered by the Clause (v) of the Office Memo dated 06.06.1978 when the offer of appointment is lapsed and then revived, which is not the case of the Petitioner there and further held that the Respondents could have clearly 5 informed the Petitioner that if he joins the training with the next batch, his seniority would be depressed to the bottom of the next batch. Likewise, in the present case also, the Respondents had not informed the Petitioner herein regarding the depression of the seniority. The case of the present Petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in W.P.(Civil) No.10054 of 2016 dated 24.08.2017. Though the Petitioner offered to join within nine months, he was asked to join in the next training batch. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that, while fixing the seniority of the Petitioner, the Respondents- Authorities have not given him an opportunity of equality which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Jayaram1, wherein, it was held that the public servant placed in a seniority contrary to the rules governing the seniority is amount into denial of equality of opportunity. Equity is an integral part of consideration of seniority of an employee. Seniority is not a matter determining the length of service of any individual but one concerning the fixation of rank visa – a- vis other employees. In the instant case, because of the wrong fixation of the seniority of the Petitioner, he will be deprived of his promotional chances. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment, and considering the contentions raised by 1 AIR 1970 SC 2092 6 both parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order No.E-31016/3/2011/Pers-II/710, dated 09.05.2013 of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is directed to refix the seniority of the Petitioner as per the Seniority of 2006 batch. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:19.03.2025 Dinesh 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.34443 of 2013 Dt.19.03.2025 Dinesh