1 APHC010487862022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 30530/2022 Between: 1. RAMIREDDY RAMASUBBA REDDY, S/O. R.SUBBI REDDY (LATE), AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC- AR(ARMED RESERVE) HEAD CONSTABLE, KADAPA R/O. D.NO.42/307-8-3, NO.3, EAST CROSS ROAD, BHAGYANAGAR COLONY, KADAPA-516002, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL RANGE, KUROOL. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMRAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order, or direction more 2 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the provisional inter-se-seniority list vide Memo.C.No.C3/5/2022 dt.05.07.2022 circulated by the 1st respondent and it's connected provisional/confirmed seniority list vide Memo.C.No.A1/5012/2022 dt.03.02.2022 circulated by the 2nd respondent, in so far as 1992 batch A.R.Head Constable of Kadapa is concerned, as they were prepared in terms of dates of birth instead of dates of appointments is illegal, irregular, irrational, and contrary to Rule-15(b) of A.P.Police Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1263 Home dt.26.08.1959 (Pg.425 of Vol.3 of Service Code) R/w Rules 33 (a) and 34 (a) of State and Subordinate Service Rules besides being violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to revise the above seniority lists in so far as 1992 batch A.R.Head Constable of Kadapa strictly adhering to the Rule-15(b) of A.P.Police Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1263 Home dt.26.08.1959 R/w Rules 33 .(a) and 34 (a) of State and Subordinate Service Rules as was done in neighbouring Units like Tirupathi, Nellore, Chittoor, Guntur (Urban and Rural), Prakasam, East Godavary, Vijayawada City, Krishna district and put petitioner's name at an appropriate place in the revision lists and consider promotion of the petitioner next post with all consequential benefitsand pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct 1st and 2nd respondents re-verify the inter-se-seniority list dt.05.07.2022 and 03-02-2022 circulated by the 1st and 2nd respondents so far as 1992 batch A.R.Head Constable of Kadapa is concerned, whether prepared strictly according to Rule 15(b) R/w Rule 33(a) and 34(a), or dates of birth, if not, as per rules, to revise as was done in neighboring Units by exercising discretionary powers conferred in Chief Office Mefno dt.30-10- 2021, by taking into account Letters dt.23.07.2021 and 20.01.2022 of 2nd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 3 The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri K. Mallikarjuna Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I, appearing for the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the inter-se-seniority list issued vide Memo dated 05.07.2022, circulated by the 1st respondent and the provisional seniority list issued vide Memo dated 03.02.2022 circulated by the 2nd respondent, insofar as it relates to A.R. Head Constables of Kadapa District, 1992 batch. It is contended that the list has been prepared based on personnel's date of birth rather than their dates of appointment. 3. The petitioner was recruited in 1992 as an Armed Reserve Police Constable through direct recruitment in Kadapa district. He joined the service on 30.01.1992 in pursuance of a common appointment order dated 26.01.1992. At the time of appointment his name was at Sl.No.14 out of 101. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Head Constable in 2016. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the seniority of ARPCs was fixed based on date of birth of the respective personnel rather than date of joining, and that the same would lead to the irregular grant of seniority. Placing reliance on Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as >the Act?), the 4 petitioner contends that the date of first appointment is the date relevant for considering the seniority of a person. When the said anomaly was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, by a similarly situated ARHC, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 20.01.2022, forwarded the said representation requesting revision of the seniority list of ARPCs appointed before 14.12.1999 as per their appointment orders, issued by the unit of the cell on par with neighboring districts and issue appropriate proceedings for revision of the seniority list. It is contended that on the said proceedings, no further orders have been passed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit stating that with reference to the representation of the ARHCs of the Kadapa district a report was submitted the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in C.No.A1/2031/2021, dated 23.07.2021, seeking revision of the seniority lists of ARPCs appointed before 1999 as per their appointment orders. 6. In pursuance thereto the 3rd respondent issued clarification vide memorandum Rc.No.504/E3/2021, dt.30.10.2021, stating that, as per Rule 15 (b) of A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1263. GA (Rules) Dept., dated. 26.08.1959 provides that <the appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a class or category fix for any reason the order of preference among them; 5 and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it=. 7. It has further been pointed out by the 3rd respondent that vide Circular Memo Rc.No.1804/E3/2013, dated 19.05.2014, a clarification was issued to all unit officers stating that, as per the said rule, the appointing authority has discretion to fix seniority, and they were also advised not to disturb the already settled seniority lists. The 3rd respondent further observed, vide the said proceedings, that the Seniority lists of ARPCs were published every year and that, based on such finalized seniority lists, the ARPCs were promoted as ARHCs. Therefore, the question of revision of seniority at this juncture in respect of 1992 batch ARPCs, who were already promoted as ARHCS long back and after the lapse of 29 years, revision of seniority in the feeder category would not arise. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents relies on the decision of the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Arvind Rai and others, wherein it is observed as under: <24. In view of the above legal proposition, we now examine the facts of the present case, firstly, as to whether there was delay of more than three to four years and secondly, if there was delay of more than three to four years, whether the same has been satisfactorily explained. 25. In October, 2001, when the appointment letters were issued it carried a stipulation that the seniority would be 6 determined later on as per rules. It is an admitted position that before 2006, the seniority list of the appellants was not notified. In March, 2006, when the tentative list was published, it did not mention about the three select lists nor was this fact mentioned when the final seniority list was published on 05.09.2006. Rather, it clearly mentioned that the seniority list had been prepared on the basis of merit. This was in fact an incorrect statement. The seniority list had not been prepared on the basis of merit but on the basis of receipt of the three separate select lists one after the other. As the Agricultural list was received first on 28.09.1999, all the selected candidates of agricultural stream were en bloc placed on the top, thereafter the Mechanical list was received on 06.01.2000, they were placed below the Agricultural stream and lastly, the Civil stream list was received on 07.11.2000, they were placed at the end. 26. Rules 5 and 8 of Rules 1991 clearly mention that there shall be one list for one selection of direct recruits. Creating three separate lists for one selection was contrary to the provisions contained in Rules 5 and 8 of Rules 1991. Rules 2009 clearly mention that seniority would be determined and prepared as per 1991 Rules. Rule 5 of Rules 1991, dealt with the selections made only through direct recruitment whereas Rule 8 thereof dealt with the situation where seniority list is to be prepared of both the direct recruits and the promotees. However, the principles underlined in both these Rules are the same that there has to be one list for one selection, as is clear from Rule 8(2)(a) and Rule 5 of Rules 1991.= 9. Considered the submissions. 10. Having regard to the contentions advanced and in view of the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 30.10.2021, further having regard to the fact that the petitioner was already promoted as AR Head Constable 7 based on the seniority list of ARPCs. Therefore revision of seniority as sought by the petitioner, at this stage after 33 years of their appointment would unsettle the settled seniority of the respective personnel in the department. 11. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 16.10.2025 MVK 8 245 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:30530 of 2022 Date:16.10.2025 MVK