Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 516
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Prashant Kumar Mishra, D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, JJ.
S. Ranga Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., By Its Principal Secretary, Home Department, State Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14374 of 2019
Decided On : 01-02-2023
A. Srinath, Advocate
The seniority of members of the AP Special Police Battalions is governed by the AP Police (Special Police Battalions) Subordinate Service Rules, 1997, and is to be determined at a battalion level, unless the post is specifically designated as a 'state level post'.
Headnote:
AP POLICE (SPECIAL POLICE BATTALIONS) SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES - RULE 3 - VALIDITY - SENIORITY - FIXATION - STATE LEVEL OR BATTALION LEVEL - PRESIDENTIAL ORDER 1975 - APPLICABILITY - EXEMPTION - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a member of the AP Special Police, challenged the validity of Rule 3 of the AP Police (Special Police Battalions) Subordinate Service Rules, 1997, which designated the Commandant as the 'appointing authority' for promotions within the Battalion. He argued that his seniority should be determined on a state-level basis due to his state-level recruitment and the exemption of his post from the Presidential Order of 1975.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was governed by the Special Rules of 1997, which were specifically formulated for the special police battalion and that the mere fact that the Special Police Establishment was exempted from the 1975 Presidential Order did not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner's post was a 'state level post'. The court further held that the petitioner failed to prove that he was appointed to a state-level post and that the state was the unit of appointment in his case.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 3 of the AP Police (Special Police Battalions) Subordinate Service Rules, 1997, is illegal and violative of law. 2. Whether the petitioner's seniority should be determined on a state-level or battalion-level basis. 3. Whether the Presidential Order of 1975 is applicable to the petitioner's post.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's pleadings were inadequate to challenge the vires of Rule 3 of the Special Rules. 2. The court interpreted the Special Rules of 1997 and held that the petitioner's appointment and promotion were governed by the Commandant of the Battalion, and that the seniority was to be fixed at a battalion level. 3. The court held that the Presidential Order of 1975 was not applicable to the petitioner's post, as it was specifically exempted by the Government memo dated 30.09.2014.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
JUDGMENT
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. - This Court has heard Sri A.Srinath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing for the State.
2. The relief prayed in the writ petition is as a follows:
'...to pass an order or a direction or a writ, more specifically a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Rule 3 of the A.P.Police (Special Police Battalions) Sub-ordinate service rules issued vide nominating the Commandant as the 'appointing Authority' for Police constables to Asst. Reserve Sub Inspectors in proceedings G.O.Ms.No.69 Home (Police-D) Dept., dated 07.04.1997 as also the rule (1) (b) of the G.O.Ms.No.85 (Police-D) Dept., dt. 28.04.1997 drawing up promotions within the Battalion for police constables to Asst. reserve sub-inspectors without drawing up state Level seniority as mandated not only by the presidential order but also by circular memo No.FSA/01/2014 dated 30.04.2014 as illegal and violative of the petitioner's rights under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, set aside the said Rule 3 of the A.P.Police (Special Police Battalions) Sub-ordinate service rules issued nominating the Commandant as the 'Appointing Authority' as also rule (1) (b) of the G.O.ms.No.85 (police-D) Dept., dated 28.04.1997 drawing up promotions within the Battalion for police constables to Asst reserve sub-inspectors as being in violation of the presidential order 1975 and therefore illegal and consequently direct the petitioner's seniority and promotions based on state level uniform seniority pass such other order...'
3. Initially, the writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not finalizing the State Level Seniority of the applicant vis-a-vis his juniors and for other reliefs. The prayer has been amended and the above prayer is sought now.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving in the A.P. Special Police and is now an Armed Reserve Sub-Inspector (ARSI) posted in the 6th battalion at Mangalagiri. He joined the force in 1994 as a Police Constable by virtue of a State Level Recruitment. It is argued that by virtue of the State Level Recruitment, he was posted in the 8th Battalion of Andhra Pradesh Special Police, Kondapur and the seniority has to be therefore decided on a State level basis. It is also submitted that pursuant to the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner opted for posting at the 6th battalion at Mangalagiri. This is consequent to the bifurcation of the State and as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 (for short 'the Act').
5. Relying upon the provisions of circular memo dated 30.09.2014, learned counsel submits that all employees of the State cadre post should be included in the seniority list which should be fixed as on 01.06.2014. He points out that the Presidential Order fixing the local, non-local candidates is not applicable and draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-III of this Government memo, which states that all categories of posts in the special police battalions are exempted from the A.P. Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975. He submits that post of the petitioner is squarely and clearly exempted from this Presidential Order of 1975 and that since the petitioner is in a state level post, his seniority has to be fixed on a State wide basis and the attempt of the respondents to promote his juniors over the present petitioner is contrary to law.
6. In reply to this, learned Advocate General appearing for the State argues and contends that the petitioner was not appointed to a state level post at all. Only an examination was conducted at the state level for the limited purpose of recruitment, but the petitioner and others belonging to the Special Police Establishment are governed by A.P. Police (Special Police Battalion Subordinate Service) Rules, 1997 which clearly provides that the Commandant of
