APHC010580042022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 35183/2022 Between: 1. CH MOHAN RAO, SON OF LATE SAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. H.C.1873 5TH BATTALION, APSP, VIZIANAGARAM, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, APSP BATTALION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMANDANT, 5TH BATTALION, APSP, VIZIANAGARAM. 4. M RAM KUMAR, SON OF NOT. KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. H.C.1942, 5GH BATTALION, APSP, VIZIANAGARAM, A.P. ...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 topleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the fliattUi-Oi Of Wit' of Mandanius, declaring the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide C.No.456/A1/2022 dated 01.08.2022 in rejecting the request of the petitioner to revise his seniority as one done to the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative and violaive of principles of natural justice and Consequently direand the respondents to restore and revise the Seriloilty .of til'e petitioner as was done to the 4th respondent by setting ,aside the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide C.No.456/A1/2022 dated 01.08.2022. and pass 2 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 suspend the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide C.no.456/A1/2022 dated 01.08.2022 by directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the representation made by the petitioner on 28.05.2022, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RAJYA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KRISHNA RAO M 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Ms. K.Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services I appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. M.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the proceedings of the 3rdrespondent, whereby the case of the petitioner for revision of the seniority list was rejected. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on 12.10.1992 in the 7thBattalion, APSP, Dichpally, Nizamabad. Subsequently, he was transferred to the 5thBattalion, APSP, Vizianagaram, on 01.04.1999 on compassionate grounds. 3. It is further contended that the 4th respondent was appointed as Police Constable on 14.10.1995 in the same 7th Battalion, Nizamabad, and 3 was later transferred, on his own request, with the same conditions of service, in the year 2005 to 5th Battalion. However, he was placed above the persons appointed on 15.10.1995 and was shown as senior to the petitioner, though the petitioner was appointed much earlier than the 4threspondent. 4. It is contended that the 3rd respondent published the final seniority list on 26.01.2007, and the same was communicated to the 2nd respondent. In the said seniority list, the 4th respondent was shown above the petitioner, with a remark that he was “transferred on administrative grounds,” whereas, against the petitioner’s name, it was mentioned that he was “transferred at his own request.” Until then, the petitioner was under a bona fide impression that the 4th respondent had been transferred on administrative grounds. 5. Since the petitioner’s case was not considered for promotion along with the Police Constables of the 1995 batch, he submitted a representation dated 02.06.2010 to the 3rdrespondent. The same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent. When remarks were called for on the said representation, the 3rd respondent stated that the petitioner was transferred to the 5thBattalion on his own request and therefore had to forgo his seniority. However, it was also stated that the 4threspondent was transferred on his request, yet his seniority was protected. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said discrimination, the petitioner had submitted representations to the 3rd respondent, which were forwarded to the 4 2nd respondent. It is contended that the 2nd respondent, without assigning any reasons, rejected the representations, the latest of which is under challenge in this writ petition. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. K.Rajya Lakshmi, would contend that the petitioner was appointed on 12.10.1992 and was subsequently transferred to the 5thBattalion, APSP, at his own request. It is submitted that the 4th respondent was also transferred at his own request; however, the respondents have protected the seniority of the 4th respondent while denying the same benefit to the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that, as per the settled principle, when an employee is transferred on his own request, he is required to forgo his seniority in the transferred unit. The said principle, which was applied to the petitioner, ought to have been applied equally to the 4th respondent. The action of the respondents, therefore, amounts to discrimination and violation of the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit contending that the petitioner was transferred to the 5th Battalion, Andhra Pradesh Special Police (APSP), on compassionate grounds and at his own request, vide proceedings dated 15.04.1999. It was specifically stipulated in the said proceedings that the petitioner would not be entitled to Transfer Travelling Allowance (TTA) and that he would be required to forgo his seniority in the 5th Battalion, APSP. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved and joined duty in the 5th Battalion, subject to the said conditions. 5 9. It is further stated that the 4th respondent was transferred under a different set of circumstances. At the relevant time, there existed a large number of vacancies across all Battalions of APSP, which adversely affected administrative efficiency. To address this situation, the 2nd respondent had invited willingness applications from Police Constables serving in various Battalions for their transfer to other Battalions where vacancies were available. Pursuant to this exercise, a total of 182 Police Constables were transferred from different Battalions of APSP, in order to fill the existing vacancies. Thus, the 4th respondent and others were transferred to the 5th Battalion on 24.02.2005. 10. The transfer of the 4th respondent, therefore, was effected on administrative grounds, as part of the general transfer exercise undertaken by the department. Although the consent of the individuals was obtained, the transfer was essentially administrative in nature and not at the instance of the individual constables. Consequently, the 4th respondent’s seniority was protected based on his date of appointment, unlike the case of the petitioner, whose transfer was effected solely at his own request. 11. It is further contended that the final seniority list of Police Constables of the 5th Battalion, APSP, was published on 26.01.2007 and duly forwarded to the 2nd respondent for approval and record. The respondents maintain that the said seniority list was prepared strictly in accordance with the existing rules, guidelines, and departmental instructions, and that no illegality 6 or irregularity has been committed in determining the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. 12. It is to be noted that the petitioner has made the following representations to the authorities to consider his case for seniority over and above the 4th respondent. All of them have been rejected. However, the latest one is being challenged now. 13. The respondents have categorically mentioned in their counter affidavit as to under what circumstances seniority of the 4th respondent was not disturbed while he was transferred to the 5th battalion. Having regard to the same, this Court does not find any discrimination that has been meted out to the petitioner, warranting interference of this Court. 14. The writ petition is therefore accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:09.10.2025 ANI 7 709 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.35183 of 2022 Date:09.10.2025 ANI