P a g e | 1 Date of reserved for orders : 09.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2026 Date of uploading :22.09.2026 APHC010130652024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 7481 OF 2024 Between: 1. PATHIVADA SURIBABU, S/o Srirama Murthy, Aged about 41years OCC Police Constable Civil (PC 2145), Working at District Special Branch,Srikakulam. R/oJaganadha,Puram(Village)Urcam(POST) Narasannapeta(mandal)Srikakulam,District. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat,Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, A.P. Police Head Quarters, Mangalgiri, Guntur District. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam Range, Visakhapatnam 4. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: KRISHNA RAO M Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) P a g e | 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 7481 OF 2024 O R D E R: This writ petition 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 respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned Memo C.No.2976/2023 dated 03.08.2023 rejecting the case of the petitioner for assigning notional seniority on par with his batch mates from the year 2008 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to State and Subordinate service Rules and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of India and set-aside the impugned Memo C.No.2976/2023 dated 03.08.2023 and consequently to direct the respondents to assign notional seniority on par with his batch mates from the year 2008 by taking into consideration of the orders passed in O.A.No.7154 of 2009 dated 04.02.2010, by the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal in the interest of justice and to pass…” 2. The brief facts of the case are that: Petitioner was appointed as Police Constable No.2145 (Civil) pursuant to the recruitment conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Level Recruitment Board vide Notification dated 19.03.2008. Though, petitioner was qualified and selected for the said post under Open Category at Sl.No.67, as per the merit list, he was not sent for the required nine months induction training along with the other selected candidates under the said notification, on the ground that he had suppressed his involvement in a criminal case. 3. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.7154 of 2009. The Tribunal, vide order dated 04.02.2010, directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Police Constable (Civil) and send him for training at the earliest P a g e | 3 point of time, holding that the petitioner was neither arrested by the police nor summoned before any Court of law and, therefore, it could not be presumed that he had knowledge of the criminal case registered against him. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner could not be said to have deliberately suppressed the registration of Crime No.192 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. 4. Pursuant to the said order passed in O.A.No.7154 of 2009, the respondents sent the petitioner for the training. However, the respondents placed the petitioner in the seniority list of the candidates selected in the subsequent notification dated 30.12.2008, though he had originally been selected pursuant to the Notification dated 19.03.2008. 5. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.05.2023 to the 4th respondent, requesting that his case be considered by assigning him notional seniority on par with his batch-mates selected pursuant to the notification dated 19.03.2008. However, the 4th respondent, vide the impugned memo dated 03.08.2023, rejected petitioner’s request for assignment of notional seniority without assigning any valid or sustainable reason. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 7. Respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petition and contended that, during the pendency of O.A.No.7154 of 2009, another Recruitment Notification dated 30.12.2008 was issued and the petitioner was also provisionally selected in that notification. After receipt of P a g e | 4 the order dated 04.02.2010 passed in the above said O.A., the same was implemented, and the petitioner was subjected to medical examination and antecedent verification. Accordingly, selection orders were issued appointing the petitioner to the post of SCT PC (Civil), and he was sent for nine months induction training with effect from 17.04.2011, along with the batch selected pursuant to the second-phase notification dated 30.12.2008. After completion of nine months induction training, petitioner was appointed as Police Constable (Civil) on 19.01.2012 and his seniority was determined in accordance with the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.374, Home (Police.C) Department, dated 14.12.1999, and the Chief Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2024 issued by the Director General of Police, Hyderabad by placing him along with the batch of second phase notification. The said seniority was communicated to the petitioner every year with effect from 01.01.2013. However, after a lapse of nearly ten years, petitioner approached the authorities by submitting a representation dated 04.05.2023 to the 4th respondent, requesting assignment of notional seniority on par with the batch- mates who were selected pursuant to the first-phase notification dated 19.03.2008. Pursuant thereto, an endorsement was issued to the petitioner vide Memo dated 03.08.2023, rejecting his request. Not being satisfied with the said endorsement, petitioner submitted another representation dated 21.11.2023, requesting permission to approach the Court of law, and the same is stated to be pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. Therefore, as the petitioner raised the claim after a lapse of nearly ten years P a g e | 5 and as the decision of the 2nd respondent on his subsequent representation is still awaited, petitioner is not entitled to any relief, much less the relief sought for in the writ petition. 8. Heard Sri V.Mallik, learned counsel assisted by Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected pursuant to the first notification dated 19.03.2008. However, on the ground that he had suppressed the registration of a criminal case against him, his appointment was deferred. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.7154 of 2009 and the said O.A. was allowed, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Police Constable (Civil) pursuant to the Notification dated 19.03.2008 and further directed them to send the petitioner for training at the earliest point of time. Pursuant thereto, petitioner was sent for induction training along with the selected candidates of the subsequent batch recruited pursuant to the Notification dated 30.12.2008. 10. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though, petitioner was selected pursuant to the Notification dated 19.03.2008, his seniority was fixed along with the candidates selected pursuant to the subsequent Notification dated 30.12.2008, resulting in loss of seniority to the petitioner. It is submitted that the Tribunal recorded a finding that there was no P a g e | 6 material to establish that the petitioner had knowledge of the registration of the criminal case, as he was neither arrested nor called to the police station in connection with the said crime, nor were any summons issued to him by any Court of law. Thereby, the Tribunal, accordingly, concluded that the petitioner could not be said to have suppressed the fact of registration of the criminal case. Thus, the deferring of the petitioner’s candidature was attributable solely to the respondents and the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the same, as such, he cannot be deprived of the seniority to which he would have been entitled had he been appointed along with his original batch-mates and as such, he ought to have been accorded seniority on par with his batch-mates. Therefore, 4th respondent ought not to have rejected petitioner’s claim and ought to have considered his case for fixation of seniority along with the candidates selected pursuant to the Notification dated 19.03.2008. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah1, wherein the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under. 20. In that case also, it was contended by the State that the petitioners were not entitled to consequential benefits in view of legislative provision and overriding effect under Section 11 of the Act. The Court, however, negatived the contention. It observed that it is open to a competent legislature to remove a defect in a legislation. Such enactment or validating statute could not be held unconstitutional or ultra vires. But it is equally well settled that a binding judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective or inoperative with the aid of legislative power by making a provision which, in substance and in reality, overrides and overrules a decision rendered by a competent court. Such process virtually renders a judicial decision ineffective by indirectly exercising appellate power over a judicial forum which is 1 (2007) 7 SCC 689 P a g e | 7 impermissible. The Court stated: (S.R. Bhagwat case [(1995) 6 SCC 16 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1334 : (1995) 31 ATC 452] , SCC p. 22, para 12) “12. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a binding judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective with the aid of any legislative power by enacting a provision which in substance overrules such judgment and is not in the realm of a legislative enactment which displaces the basis or foundation of the judgment and uniformly applies to a class of persons concerned with the entire subject sought to be covered by such an enactment having retrospective effect.” 12. Placing reliance on the above judgment, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that binding judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective or inoperative with the aid of legislative power by making a provision which, in substance and in reality, overrides and overrules a decision rendered by a competent court. The action of the respondents in deferring the appointment of the petitioner, despite his selection pursuant to the first notification dated 19.03.2008, on the ground of alleged suppression of facts, was found to be unsustainable by the Tribunal, thereby, directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner pursuant to the notification dated 19.03.2008 and directed them to send him for training. The said order attained finality, as it was not challenged by the respondents. 13. Learned counsel further submits that, once the order passed by the Tribunal had attained finality, the respondents, being executive authorities, were bound to implement the same in its true letter and spirit. Therefore, they could not have treated the petitioner on par with the candidates selected pursuant to the subsequent notification dated 30.12.2008, and the petitioner ought to have been treated as having been appointed pursuant to the original P a g e | 8 Notification dated 19.03.2008. As such, the impugned memo is liable to be set aside. 14. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the order passed by the AP Administrative Tribunal and the same was duly implemented by appointing him along with the batch mates of 2011. Taking into consideration his date of appointment, he was placed in the seniority list along with the batch mates of 2011. He further contended that writ petition suffers from delay and latches, as the petitioner approached the authority only after a lapse of more than ten years from the date of fixation of his seniority. As such, petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this belated stage. 15. In reply to that, learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this court to the impugned memo, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected as under: “In this regard, it is to further inform that, even though you have selected in the year 2008 vide notification No.8/R&T/Gen/2/200, dt. 19-3-2008 but due to suppressing the facts by involving in criminal case in Cr.No.192/2007 of Narasannapeta PS, due to which you have not sent for 9 months basic training along with constables who were seleted in the year 2008. Later, as per the directions of Hon'ble A.P.A.T vide OA No.7154/2009, you have sent for basic training in the year 2011, after completion of training you have reported as regular PC on19-01-2012, which is count for seniority as per norms. Hence your request for count notional seniority on par with batch 2008 is considered and rejected.” 16. A plain reading of the above proceedings would clearly indicate that the reason for rejection of the petitioner’s claim is that he was appointed as a P a g e | 9 regular Police Constable on 19.01.2012 along with the batch of candidates selected pursuant to the subsequent notification, on the ground that he had allegedly suppressed the fact of his involvement in a criminal case registered in Crime No.92 of 2007 of Narasannapeta Police Station. As such, it is clear that the respondents did not reject petitioner’s claim on the ground of delay and laches. Therefore, once delay and latches were not cited as a ground in the impugned proceedings, respondents cannot now seek to introduce the same by way of a counter affidavit to supplement the reasons to validate the impugned order. For the said proposition, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner 2, wherein the relevant portion reads as under: 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] : “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” 2 (1978) 1 SCC 405 P a g e | 10 17. Placing reliance on the above, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 18. Considered the submissions made on either side and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected pursuant to the Notification dated 19.03.2008 and his appointment was deferred only on the ground of alleged suppression of his criminal case. Petitioner challenged the said action before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.7154 of 2009, which was allowed by order dated 04.02.2010, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Police Constable (Civil) in pursuance of the Notification dated 19.03.2008 and to send him for training at the earliest. The said order attained finality, as it was not challenged by the respondents which was subsequently implemented by sending the petitioner for induction training and appointing him as Police Constable (Civil). 19. In the light of the said order, petitioner’s subsequent induction into training along with the candidates selected pursuant to the subsequent Notification dated 30.12.2008 cannot, by itself, alter the fact that his original selection was pursuant to the Notification dated 19.03.2008. More particularly, P a g e | 11 the deferment of his appointment was not attributable to any act on his part, as the Tribunal had specifically recorded a finding that the petitioner could not be said to have deliberately suppressed the registration of the criminal case. Therefore, the respondents, while implementing the order of the Tribunal, ought to have considered his seniority with reference to his original selection and merit under the Notification dated 19.03.2008. Without doing so, assigned his seniority along with the subsequent batch mates. Be that as it may. 20. Petitioner subsequently submitted a representation dated 04.05.2023 seeking notional seniority on par with his batch-mates of the first phase notification dated 19.03.2008. The 4th respondent, however, rejected the said claim on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as a regular Police Constable only on 19.01.2012 and that the said date was to be taken into account for determining his seniority. If that be the reason for rejection, respondents cannot now validate the impugned memo by introducing a new ground of delay and latches by way of counter affidavit as was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill’s case (cited supra). Further, the respondents do not dispute petitioner’s original selection pursuant to the Notification dated 19.03.2008 or the order passed by the Tribunal directing his appointment in pursuance to the said notification. Once the said order attained finality and was implemented by the respondents, its effect could not be diluted by treating the petitioner, for the purpose of seniority, as a candidate selected pursuant to the subsequent Notification dated 30.12.2008, particularly, when the deferment of his appointment was not attributable to P a g e | 12 him. Mere fact that the petitioner underwent induction training along with the subsequent batch and was appointed on 19.01.2012 cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case, defeat the benefit obtained from the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned memo suffers from illegality. As such, petitioner is entitled for his seniority on par with his batch mates of notification dated 19.03.2008 under Rule 33(d)(f) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. 21. In view of the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned Memo dated 03.08.2023 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for fixation of seniority on par with his batch-mates appointed pursuant to the Notification dated 19.03.2008 and to assign such seniority notionally, for the purpose of promotion, and other benefits other than monetary benefits with effect from the date assigned to his batch-mates pursuant to the Notification dated 19.03.2008. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages on account of such notional fixation. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 19.09.2026 Dvs P a g e | 13 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 7481 OF 2024 Date: 19.09.2026 Dvs