IMPORTANT POINTS
All candidates selected and appointed through the same selection process held entitled to be assigned seniority in the same seniority list.
Candidates from same selection list undergoing at two Police Training Colleges, at two different dates cannot be considered as having undergone two separate training processes.

Headnote:(a) Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules – Rule 15, Proviso – Seniority list of probationer sub-Inspectors – Not to be determined in accordance with the merit list drawn up, “at the time of their selection” – To be determined on the basis of “the aggregate of marks obtained by each probationer”, “at the final examination” on the conclusion of their training – Munuswamy commencing training in first batch but completing it with second batch – Ought to be included in seniority list for first batch as per aggregate marks obtained by him. (Para 16)
       (b) Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules – Rule 15, Proviso – Candidates selected along with first batch but not appointed due to faulty quota fixation – Quota correctly determined upon direction of Tribunal – Leading to appointment and training subsequently – Delay for no fault of candidates – Held entitled to be assigned seniority along with first batch as per their aggregate marks at the training. (Para 16)
       (c) Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules – Rule 15, Proviso – Candidates selected through same selection process under same notification – Candidates below in merit list not appointed because vacancies were filled up by candidates with higher position in merit list – However, many of the appointed candidates not joining – Vacancies becoming available – Candidates next in merit list appointed and sent for raining in second batch – All candidates selected and appointed through the same selection process held entitled to be assigned seniority in the same seniority list. (Para 16)
       (d) Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules – Rule 15, Proviso – Training process – Candidates from same selection list undergoing at two Police Training Colleges, at two different dates – Cannot be considered as two separate training processes. (Para 19)
       Facts of the case:
       As per the notification issued by The Andhra Pradesh State Level Recruitment Board on 22.1.1991, 470 posts of Sub-Inspector, in 7 different zones were sought to be filled up.
       Lists of provisionally selected candidates were prepared on the basis of their inter se merit in the selection process, for each of the 7 zones.
       Provisional list of selected candidates for Zone V (Warangal range) was published. This list comprised of 38 names from the open category, 5 names from the backward class ‘A’ category, 7 names from the backward class ‘B’ category, 1 name from the backward class ‘C’ category, 5 names from the backward class ‘D’ category, 11 names from the scheduled castes category, 4 names from the scheduled tribes category, 2 names from the ex-servicemen category, 6 names from among the police executives, 1 name from the ministerial service, and 1 name from amongst the sportsmen.
       Out of these candidates only 58 reported for training which commenced from 16.7.1991 and completed it in 1992.
       Another batch of candidates commenced their training from 14.6.1992 and completed the same in 1993.
       Pursuant to direction of Administrative Tribunal the State Government prepared a combined seniority list.
       This was challenged by candidates of the first batch.
       The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no merit in the appeals.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Seniority of sub-inspectors is determined on the basis of aggregate marks obtained at the final examination on completion of training, not on the merit list at the time of selection (!) (!) (!) . - Candidates selected through the same recruitment notification constitute one batch, even if trained at different dates or different police training colleges (!) (!) (!) . - The dates of commencing training are inconsequential for seniority determination under rule 15 (!) (!) (!) . - Failure to join training initially due to no fault of the candidate does not forfeit seniority rights; such candidates are entitled to be included in the seniority list (!) (!) (!) . - The principle under rule 15 applies uniformly to all candidates appointed through the same selection process, irrespective of the batch or training college (!) (!) (!) . - Seniority is not determined by the initial merit position in the selection list but by the final aggregate marks at the training examination (!) (!) . - The State Government’s delay in appointing candidates for training does not affect their seniority rights (!) (!) (!) . - Inter-se seniority among sub-inspectors is to be fixed in the same manner for all candidates from a common selection process (!) (!) . - The court’s interpretation of rule 15 fulfills the underlying principle of ensuring uniform treatment of candidates from a joint selection process (!) (!) . - The appeals challenging the seniority list are dismissed as they lack merit (!) (!) (!) .

How are sub-inspectors of police seniority to be determined when candidates are selected through a common recruitment process but undergo training at different dates?

What is the basis for determining seniority among probationer sub-inspectors trained in separate batches under the same selection notification?

What does rule 15 require regarding seniority determination when appointed candidates do not join training on the same date as initially selected candidates?

JUDGMENT

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. It is not a matter of dispute, that the conditions of service including the manner and method of determining seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Police, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, are regulated by the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as, the Service Rules), notified on 26.8.1959, read with the Special Rules notified on 14.12.1990. Learned counsel for the rival parties are agreed, that the issue of seniority (which is the pointed issue of dispute between the rival parties in the present appeals), is to be determined under rule 15 of the said rules, which is extracted hereunder:-

“15. "Seniority:-- (a) The seniority of a person in the class or category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to lower rank as a punishment be determined by the date of his first appointment to such class or category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards his probation under the General Rules his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation:

Provided that in the case of Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors of Police (Intelligence) and Reserve Sub-Inspectors, the seniority inter se shall be fixed on completion of training in the Police Training College or with the Andhra Pradesh Special Police, as the case may be, instead of at the time of selection in accordance with the list which shall be arranged in order of merit, which shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate of marks obtained by each probationer—

(i) in respect of his record in the Police Training College or with the Andhra Pradesh Special Police, as the case may be; and

(ii) at the final examination.

In determining such order of merit, no account shall be taken of marks awarded to a probationer in any subject in which he has failed. But such seniority shall be liable to revision by the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned if he considers it necessary, before completion of probation.

This sub-rule shall not affect the seniority of any members of the service which may have been fixed expressly or by implication before the 19th November, 1941 or any orders as to seniority which may have been passed by competent authority before the 19th November, 1941.

Provided that in the case of directly recruited Sub-Inspectors of Police (Intelligence) the inter se seniority shall be fixed on completion of training the Police Training College/Andhra Pradesh Police Academy, instead of at the time of selection, in accordance with the list which shall be arranged in order of merit, which shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate of marks obtained by each probationer in the tests and examinations prescribed for them in the training modules conducted at these Institutions.

The seniority of the Sub-Inspectors of Police (Intelligence) appointed by transfer from among Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) or equivalent ranks of this service carrying the same scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment but shall be determined with reference to the date of his seniority in the Class or Category from which he was transferred.

Provided also that the inter se seniority of the Sub-Inspectors selected from among the Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Armed Reserve and Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions by transfer shall be fixed in the order of merit for each Range (Zone) separately based on the aggregate marks obtained by them in the final examination conducted at Police Training College at the end of six months training. In determining such order of merit, the marks secured in the failed subjects need not be taken into account.

(b) 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; and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document