Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, GHULAM MOHAMMED
Government Of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
G.Jaya Prasad Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 10-04-02
Criminal Law - Criminal Matter – Constitution of India - Article 226 - Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 - Respondents in this batch of writ petitions are Inspectors of Police working at various places and in various wings in Police Department in State of Andhra Pradesh - Most of them are working as Inspectors of Police in city of Hyderabad. They have invoked jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal with a prayer to declare Note-2 of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 267, Home (Police-E) department, dated 26th November, 2001 as arbitrary and discriminatory being volatile of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the constitution of India. They have also prayed to declare proviso to Rule 6 of the aforesaid rules as bad in law being volatile of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - Tribunal after an elaborate consideration of matter agreed with various contentions of respondents- applicants and accordingly declared note-2 of Rule 3 of Rules and proviso to rule 6 of Rules as arbitrary being volatile of Articles 14 and 16 of constitution of India - Were accordingly set aside - All Original applications filed by respondents- applicants were accordingly allowed - Hence this batch of writ petitions by State of Andhra Pradesh challenging legality and correctness of common judgment passed by Tribunal – Held , Court says that is true, for determination of the purpose or object of legislation, it is permissible for Court to look into circumstances which prevailed at time when law was made and which necessitated that passing of law - Reasons that actuated steps to provide a remedy for then existing malady can also be looked into - State in order to curb and curtail terrorist activities and with a view to encourage police personnel involved in anti-extremist operations may have thought it fit to introduce accelerated promotion scheme to improve morale and also encouragement to work more effectively in anti-extremist operations - It is stated that experience that faced for last two decades made State to realise that unless there is some encouragement and incentives none are coming forward to work in anti- extremist operations - Object sought to be achieved is effective participation of police personnel in anti-extremist operations - But that itself would not be enough unless law passes test of reasonable classification also -Court have already noticed that impugned amendments do not satisfy test of reasonable classification - Fortuitous circumstances form basis for creating a separate class within class - Classification made upon such basis cannot be treated as a reasonable classification - Artificial division of a homogenous group into two classes for purpose of promotion to next higher post itself is erroneous - Aforesaid reasons, court are of considered opinion that impugned amendments are void being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India - Writ Petitions Dismissed
( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order since a! of them arc directed against the common judgment dated 12-7-2002 made in o. A. No. 9461 of 2001 and Batch by the andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the said commonjudgment of fee Tribunal, the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its principal Secretary to Government together with the Director General and Inspector general of Police, Andhra Pradesh invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india and accordingly pray for issuance of a writ of Certiorari after calling for the records relating to and connected with the said common judgment of the Tribunal and quash the same.
( 3 ) IN order to consider the correctness ofthe judgment rendered by the Tribunal, it may be necessary to notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition.
( 4 ) THE respondents in this batch of writpetitions are the Inspectors of Police working at various places and in various wings in the Police Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Most of them are working as Inspectors of Police in the city of hyderabad. They have invoked the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal with a prayer to declare Note-2 of Rule 3 of the Andhra pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 267, Home (Police-E) department, dated 26th November, 2001 as arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the constitution of India. They have also prayed to declare proviso to Rule 6 of the aforesaid rules as bad in law being violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india.
( 5 ) THE Tribunal after an elaborateconsideration of the matter agreed with the various contentions of the respondents- applicants and accordingly declared the note-2 of Rule 3 of the Rules and proviso to rule 6 of the Rules as arbitrary being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. They were accordingly set aside. All the Original applications filed by the respondents- applicants were accordingly allowed. Hence this batch of writ petitions by the State of andhra Pradesh challenging the legality and correctness of the common judgment passed by the Tribunal.
( 6 ) THE Andhra Pradesh Police (Civilpolice) Service Rules, 1998 (for short the rules ) are made in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India relating to the posts mentioned in the service. The service consists of the categories of posts, viz. , additional Superintendent of Police (Non- cadre) including Officer-on-Special Duty and Additional Deputy Commissioner of police; Deputy Superintendent of Police including Assistant Commissioner of Police other than Assistant Commissioner of Police (Headquarters and City Armed Reserve); and Inspector of Police and Inspector of police (Woman ). The Rules provide for method of appointment, eligibility criteria for appointment in respect of each of the categories and other allied matters relating to the posts mentioned in the service.
( 7 ) ACCORDING to the said Rules, the post ofadditional Superintendent of Police including Officer on Special Duty and additional Deputy Commissioner of Police fall under Category-1 and are to be filled by promotion of Deputy Superintendent of police (Category-2 ). The post of Deputy superintendent of Police including Assistant commissioner of Police other than Assistant commissioner of Police (Headquarters and city Armed Reserve) fall under Category-2 and are to be filled (i) by direct recruitment; and (ii) by promotion of Inspector of Police (Category-3 ).
( 8 ) THE post of Inspector of Police fallsunder Category-3 (a) and the method of appointment for filling up of this post is by appointment by transfer of Sub-Inspector of police in the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil police) Subordinate Service. The post of inspector of Police (Woman) falls
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
