Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D. RAMESH, J.
V. Satish - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4712 of 2022
Decided On : 10-07-2023
Seniority dispute in police service - Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules - Rule 15 - The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, filed a writ petition seeking seniority on par with the 2008 batch of SIs. The court considered previous orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, which directed the government to appoint the petitioner from the date of his original selection. The court also referred to a Supreme Court precedent that allowed comparison of candidates who underwent training at different police training colleges. Based on these legal provisions and precedents, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to notional seniority on par with the 2008 batch of SIs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, filed a writ petition seeking the declaration of the rejection of his claim for seniority on par with the 2008 selected batch of SIs as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had been initially not sent for training due to a failure to disclose involvement in a criminal case, but after a legal battle, he was appointed as a Sub-Inspector. However, his request for seniority was rejected. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal and the High Court had already directed the government to appoint him from the date of his original selection, and therefore, he was entitled to seniority from the 2008 batch.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the previous orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, which directed the government to appoint the petitioner from the date of his original selection. The court also referred to a similar case decided by the Supreme Court. Based on these precedents, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to notional seniority on par with the 2008 batch of SIs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to notional seniority on par with the 2008 batch of SIs based on the previous orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, as well as the Supreme Court precedent.
Result: The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to assign notional seniority to the petitioner on par with the 2008 batch of SIs.
ORDER :
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking for the following relief:-
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was directly recruited Civil Sub Inspector of 2008 batch, Eluru range and presently working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Gampalagudem Police Station, Nuzvid Sub-Division of Krishna District. The petitioner applied for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector(Civil) in Zone-II in the year 2008 and participated in physical fitness test conducted on 13.07.2008 and after he attended for written test conducted on 27/28.09.2008 with Hall ticket No.11456. Surprisingly, the petitioner was not sent for training along with his batch selected Cadet Sub-Inspectors on the ground that he has not mentioned about the involvement in the criminal case in the application form. Though the petitioner has submitted the information about the involvement in the criminal case in the attestation form submitted to the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range on 26.09.2009, he was not sent for training. Aggrieved by the action in not sending the petitioner for training along with his batch SIs, he approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and filed O.A.No.11709 of 2009. After elaborate hearing, the Hon’ble A.P.A.T pronounced its Judgment on 09.07.2010 by directing the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner as SI of Police(Civil) in pursuance of the selection. In obedience of the same, the petitioner was sent for training on 02.05.2012 and completed the training with 1049.3 marks and accordingly, he was appointed as Probationary Sub-Inspector of Police and allotted to Krishna District of Eluru Range.
4. While that being the position, the petitioner has made a request for assigning seniority on par with 2008 batch of SIs was addressed to the Government and the same was rejected vide Memo dated 01.01.2018. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.187 of 2018 and the same was dismissed on 16.04.2019. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.6095 of 2019 dated 21.12.2019 was filed and the same was disposed of with a direction to consider the request of the petitioner as was done in similar case of Sri R. Manojahar and Sri A. Srinivasa Rao. Further, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.6095 of 2019 dated 21.12.2019 and this Court in the said Writ Petition specifically directed the respondents to consider the claim for seniority along with his batch mates. Surprisingly, the request of the petitioner was negatived and issued proceedings vide Govt.Memo dated 09.04.2021 on the file of 1st respondent. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
5. After notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that on specific remarks, duly keeping in view of the remarks of the Chairman, SLPRB, AP, Hyderabad along with connected documents were sent to Dir.Genl. of Police, A.P, Hyderabad vide letter dated 29.06.2017. Subsequently, the Government vide Memo dated 01.01.2018 informed to the DGP, Andhra Pradesh that the ma
The petitioner was entitled to notional seniority on par with the 2008 batch of Sub-Inspectors of Police based on previous orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, as well as a Supreme Court preced....
The court established that supplementary examination marks must be included in seniority calculations for candidates who completed their training within the prescribed period.
The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of FR 22-B, and the respondent authorities were directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioners by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B.
Point of Law : In direct recruitment whose appointments have delayed without any fault on part of candidates, but due to latches on the part of the department, candidate is entitled to be ranking giv....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the second respondent to pass necessary orders for the fixation of correct seniority on par with S. Shanmugam in th....
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
