B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) WRIT Petition Nos. 34849 and 35775 of 1997 have been filed challenging the common order of the A. P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA. Nos. 219 and 1267 of 1997 respectively. Whereas, Writ Petition No. 6758 of 1988 has been Hied questioning the orders passed in V. M. A. No. 448 of 1997 in OA. No. 1670/97 for not vacating the interim orders passed by the Tribunal directing the respondent therein (the petitioner herein) who was a promote on the basis of seniority given in GO Ms. No. 201 dated 23-5-1994 which was passed regularising the services of the petitioner herein with effect from the date of his promotion.

( 2 ) THE petitioner (Sri Mohd. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan) in WP No. 34849 of 1997 and the petitioner (Sri G. Narasimham) in WP No. 35775 of 1997 were originally appointed as police constable in Andhra Pradesh Police Service. Considering their meritorious service, they were appointed, as out of seniority Sub-Inspectors with effect from 25-8-1984 and 3-12-1983 respectively and they continue to serve as Sub-Inspectors. The services of these petitioners were regularised in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors from the dates of their respective temporary appointments as out of seniority Sub-Inspectors in view of their continued outstanding performance.

( 3 ) IT is stated by the petitioners in their respective affidavits that these regularisations were effected on the basis of their representations by relaxing the rules and after reports were obtained from respondents 2 and 3 by the 1st respondent. The first respondent accordingly issued orders in GO Ms. No. 37 dated 23-1-1996 and GO Ms. No. 9 dated 4-1-1996 regularising the services of the petitioners retrospectively with effect from the dates of their appointment as out of seniority Sub-Inspectors by relaxing the relevant rules. It is stated by the petitioners in their respective affidavits that their services were regularised in respect of the vacancies of 30% earmarked for promotes under the rules and that the unofficial respondents were not adversely affected at all. It is seen that in the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1-the Government before the Tribunal, it was specifically stated by the Assistant Secretary concerned that regularisation of the petitioners was in respect of posts within 30% limit meant for promotees. On these grounds, the petitioners pray that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the orders of the Government regularising the services of the petitioners in the above mentioned impugned Government Orders.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the un-official respondents, counter affidavits have been filed disputing the averments of the petitioners. It is stated that there is no provision under the A. P. Police Subordinate Service Rules for relaxation of the rules and hence relaxation ordered in favour of the Writ Petitioners is illegal. It is also contended that even if there is such a power, relaxation cannot be granted in respect of rules relating to recruitment. It is stated that basic rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed under Rule 47 (new Rule 31) of the A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules (for short the General Rules ). It is stated that unless a person is appointed or promoted in accordance with the Rules, he is not entitled to seniority in that cadre from the date of temporary appointment. It is further stated that regularisation of the petitioners with effect from the date of promotion has adversely affected the seniority of the unofficial respondents. It is further contended that no opportunity was given to the unofficial respondents for being heard before the impugned orders were passed by the Government. It is also stated that the Writ Petitioners and others were temporarily appointed as out of seniority Sub-Inspectors in the vacancies to be filled up by the direct recruitment and were allowed to continue temporarily till the candidates were appointed by direct recruitment. It is stated that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document