Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
K. Vykunta Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14013 of 2019
Decided On : 11-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
A. Tirupathi Goud, Advocate
Point of Law: Rule 15 (c) deals with the transfer of a person for one class of category of service to another class or category carrying the same pay. The seniority of the person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the clause from which he has transferred.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21 - To issue A Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proc."Rc.No.647/Trg.2/2019, dated 14.09.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent in seeking to conduct pre-promotional training for ARHCs (AR) fit to act as ARSIs (AR) without finalizing the seniority lists of ARHCs in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. and batch, read with 07.02.2019 is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Held, After extracting Rule 15 (c) and 15 (e), the Tribunal held that Rule 15(c) relates to administrative transfer only whereas, Rule 15 (e) relates to the transfer of Special Policemen to other services. After considering Rule 15 (e), the Tribunal held that the action of the respondents in counting the seniority of the unofficial respondents from the date of their initial appointments as per Rule 15 (c) is illegal. Therefore, the impugned order by which the seniority was determined from the date of their initial appointment was set aside. The interpretation given to Rule 15 (e) is that their services will only have to be counted from the date of their joining in the transferred place. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the orders passed in this O.A. along with other OAs like O.A.No.10216 of 2008 wherein the seniority was directed to be counted as per Rule 15 (e) only. In the batch of Writ Petitions bearing W.P.No.21610 of 2007 and batch, orders were passed on 08.10.2013 -
Facts of the Case:
The petitioners are now posted in the District Armed Reserve and City Armed Reserve. As per the averments in the affidavit they were initially appointed as Andhra Pradesh Special Police (in short "APSP") Constables. As per the orders issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 05.10.1999, the Police Constables of APSP, who fulfil certain conditions, are entitled for appointment as Police Constables in Constable (District Armed Reserve, City Armed Reserve, Special Armed Reserved, Central Police Lines). The case of the petitioners is that they satisfied all the requirements. It is their contention that they were appointed in the years 2001, 2004 and 2005 as Armed Reserved Police Constables while their initial appointment as APSP Constables was in between 1984 and 1985
Finding of the Court:
After extracting Rule 15 (c) and 15 (e), the Tribunal held that Rule 15(c) relates to administrative transfer only whereas, Rule 15 (e) relates to the transfer of Special Policemen to other services. After considering Rule 15 (e), the Tribunal held that the action of the respondents in counting the seniority of the unofficial respondents from the date of their initial appointments as per Rule 15 (c) is illegal. Therefore, the impugned order by which the seniority was determined from the date of their initial appointment was set aside. The interpretation given to Rule 15 (e) is that their services will only have to be counted from the date of their joining in the transferred place. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the orders passed in this O.A. along with other OAs like O.A.No.10216 of 2008 wherein the seniority was directed to be counted as per Rule 15 (e) only. In the batch of Writ Petitions bearing W.P.No.21610 of 2007 and batch, orders were passed on 08.10.2013
Result: Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
D V S S Somayajulu, J.
This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief :
".....to issue A Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proc."Rc.No.647/Trg.2/2019, dated 14.09.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent in seeking to conduct pre-promotional training for ARHCs (AR) fit to act as ARSIs (AR) without finalizing the seniority lists of ARHCs in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.954 of 2019 and batch, dated 17.05.2018 read with 07.02.2019 is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents not to conduct pre-promotional training for ARHCs fit to act as ARSIs until and unless finalizing the seniority list of ARHCs as per directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.854 of 2018, dated 17.05.2018 read with 07.02.2019 and the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.8857 of 2019, dated 04.09.2019 and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
2. This Court has heard Sri K. Tirupathi Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services representing the respondents.
3. The petitioners are now posted in the District Armed Reserve and City Armed Reserve. As per the averments in the affidavit they were initially appointed as Andhra Pradesh Special Police (in short "APSP") Constables. As per the orders issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 05.10.1999, the Police Constables of APSP, who fulfil certain conditions, are entitled for appointment as Police Constables in Constable (District Armed Reserve, City Armed Reserve, Special Armed Reserved, Central Police Lines). The case of the petitioners is that they satisfied all the requirements. It is their contention that they were appointed in the years 2001, 2004 and 2005 as Armed Reserved Police Constables while their initial appointment as APSP Constables was in between 1984 and 1985. Basing on their interpretation of the Rules, particularly Rule 15 (c) of the Police Subordinate Service Rules (in short "the Rules") they are claiming seniority from the date of their initial appointment in APSP. It is their contention that the impugned proceedings, which are issued on 14.09.2019 by which pre-promotional training of ARHCs (AR) to act as ARSIs (AR) is incorrect, opposed to law, illegal and violative, they categorised G.O.Ms.No.1 (Home), dated 07.01.2016, as an ad hoc rule. They seek a direction to comply with the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.954 of 2018 read with the orders of this High Court in W.P.No.8857 of 2019.
4. The order passed in O.A.No.954 of 2018 is as follows:
"2. As could be seen from the facts and rules governing the subject, particularly Rule 15 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules, the transfer of a person from one class or category of the service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purpose of seniority and the seniority of person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the date of his first appointment. therefore, I am of the considered view that the applications, whose names were shown in the list of eligible candidates for being promoted as Sub Inspectors in Armed Reserve are prima facie eligible to be considered taking their service from the date of their first appointment in APSP into criteria. The respondents may count the services of the applicants, that apart of the services rendered by them from 01.01.2008 as per G.O.Ms.No.1 Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 07.01.2016 and service prior to 01.01.2008 as per Rule 15 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules and consider their cases for pre promotional training and shall depute the applicants for training along with other eligible candidates being sent as per Circular C.No.1057/A4/2017 dated 07.05.2018 of th
