SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(AP) 844

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J
K. Jeevan Prakash Rao
Versus
Chief Security Commissioner & Others
Writ Petition No. 23678 of 2000
Decided on : 11-10-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:J.M. Naidu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Gouri Shankar Sanghi, Advocate.

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Articles 14,16 - Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 -Rule 70 - Seeking of madasmus declaration - Chief Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force, invited willingness of the employees to the post vide letter respondents were asked to exercise their option. petitioner was not asked to exercise such an option submitted representation to respondent ventilating his grievance for not including his name in the promotion list of Naiks - Railway Board issued Circular announcing the scheme of Assured Career Programme for those who have put in twelve years of service - Pursuant to the Railway Board’s circular - Respondent issued Proceedings years granting benefits to the Constables who have put years of service - In the annexure to the Force Order - Petitioner was shown and whereas the respondents and were shown respectively - According to the petitioner he is senior to respondents and therefore his name should have been placed respondents in the annexure to the Force Order - He submitted representation to rectify the seniority list annexed to the Force Order - Respondent constituted Departmental Promotion Committee to promote eligible candidates to the post of Head Constables in the scale post of Head Constable is not a selection post to the petitioner the service and suitability is the only criterion for promotion to the post of Head Constable - Respondent issued proceedings promoting the respondents to the post of Head Constable ignoring the petition, even though he is senior to them he filed the writ petition seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in promoting respondents ignoring his claim to the post of Head Constable is illegal – Held, Petitioner has been given the benefit of ACP Scheme taking into consideration his length of service which included the service rendered by him at Secunderabad Division - Only for the purpose of seniority he became junior to respondent joined in Division prior to him - By the time the 4th respondent came on transfer, the post of Constable has been made as zonal post he retained his original date of appointment for the purpose of seniority - Seniority list has been prepared as per the regulations and rules in force and the same has been notified. Some of the persons raised objections and their objections have been considered and the corrected seniority list of R.P.F. Constables had been published. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that he is senior to respondents 3 and 4 has no substance. Writ Petitions devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs – Petition is Dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner-K.Jeevan Prakasha Rao was appointed as a Railway Protection Force constable on 01-05-1989 and posted at Secunderabad Division. He was transferred to Guntakal Division in the month of June 1986. S.Masthanvali and Y.B.Thimma Reddy-respondents 3 and 4 herein were also appointed as Railway Protection Force Constables. The post of constable is a zonal post and the seniority is maintained at the zonal level.

2. The Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, invited willingness of the employees to the post of Naiks, vide letter No.G/XP/608/GK/97, dated 21-7-1997. The respondents 3 and 4 were asked to exercise their option. The petitioner was not asked to exercise such an option. He submitted representation dated 9-4-1998 to the 1st respondent ventilating his grievance for not including his name in the promotion list of Naiks. The Railway Board issued Circular No.PC-V/99/1/1/1, dt.1.10.1999 announcing the scheme of Assured Career Programme (ACP) for those, who have put in twelve years of service. Pursuant to the Railway Board’s circular, the 1st respondent issued Proceedings No.XP/530/ACR/Const.12 years (F.O.No.151/2000), dated 19.10.2000 granting the ACP benefits to the Constables who have put in 12 years of service. In the annexure to the Force Order No.151/2000, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.474 and whereas the respondents 3 and 4 were shown at Sl.Nos.136 and 144 respectively. According to the petitioner, he is senior to respondents 3 and 4 and therefore, his name should have been placed above respondents 3 and 4 in the annexure to the Force Order No.151/2000. He submitted representation to rectify the seniority list annexed to the Force Order No.151/2000. The 1st respondent constituted Departmental Promotion Committee to promote eligible candidates to the post of Head Constables in the scale of Rs.3200-4900/- (Non Selection ), as per Rule 70 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The post of Head Constable is not a selection post. According to the petitioner, the service and suitability is the only criterion for promotion to the post of Head Constable. The 1st respondent issued proceedings X/P.530/1/HC/Vol.VII (Force Order No.169 of 2000) dated 25-11-2000, promoting the respondents 3 and 4 to the post of Head Constable ignoring the petitioner, even though he is senior to them. Therefore, he filed the writ petition seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in promoting respondents 3 and 4 ignoring his claim to the post of Head Constable is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 12-12-2000. An interim order came to be passed to the effect that further promotion, if any, will be subject to the result of the writ petition, vide W.P.M.P.No.30253, 30946 of 2000. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.30946 of 2000 seeking permission to amend the prayer. By way of amendment, he questioned the promotions from Constable to Head Constable without drawing and finalizing the zonal seniority list, as per the R.P.F Rules, 1987. The said WPMP came to be ordered on 12-02-2001.

4. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the RPF on 01.5.1981 and was posted at Secunderabad Division. Subsequently, he was transferred to Guntakal Division, vide the 1st respondent’s Force Order No.101/86 dated 8-5-1986 along with seven other Constables at his own request and on bottom seniority. The petitioner joined in Guntakal Division on 11-6-1986. The staff transferred at their own requests from one Division to another Division prior to 1987 i.e., prior to introduction/implementation of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 were to take bottom seniority in the transferred division. The respondent No.3-S.Masthanvali was appointed as a Constable on 6-12-1981 and was transferred from A’Coy/S







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top