The determination of inter se seniority in a particular service as per the service rules and the date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment as the criterion for fixing seniority.

ORDER :

K.Manmadha Rao, J.

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief:

“to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to passing of the impugned orders dated 13.01.2015 of the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.9438 of 2011 along with the orders of the 1st respondent dated 10.03.2008, as reaffirmed in the 1st respondent reference in C.No. A1/6257/95, dated….08.2009 and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing the 1st respondent to assign the seniority of the petitioner between Sl.Nos. 35 and 36 of the C-List issued in C.No.1199/A1/2007, dated 03.05.2007 by the 1st respondent, with all consequential benefits including arrears of the salary and pass such other orders.”

2. The precise case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Armed Reserve Police Constable in 1984 and appeared for the qualifying examination conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa for promotion to the Armed Reserve Head Constable along with 43 constables. Initially 13 persons only from the said list were promoted and there were still 26 more vacancies. The Government changed the procedure and issued G.O.Ms.No.499, Home Department, dated 09.11.2003. As per the said G.O the qualifying service was enhanced from 4 years to 5 years. While the earlier procedure was that holding of promotional test sine qua non for inclusion of the eligible candidate names in the ‘C-List’, the said G.O changed the procedure and prescribed promotion first and tests subsequently. The earlier procedure prescribed no time limit for the life of ‘C-List”. The respondents were conducting selections in accordance with new procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.499, all the persons, who were in the ‘C-List’ but not yet promoted have challenged the said G.O by filing O.A.No.731 of 1994 and O.A.No.5098 of 1992 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and as per orders of the learned Tribunal dated 09.03.1994 the petitioner and others also came to be brought into the ‘C-List’ and issued promotion orders on 25.04.1994 and 28.06.1994. The petitioner and 44 others were declared as qualified. Despite vacancies they were not promoted. Therefore, they filed O.A.No.5984 of 1995 and as per orders of the learned Tribunal dated 15.12.2003 the petitioner and others were promoted as Armed Reserve Head Constables, by order dated 23.06.2004 of the 1st respondent.

3. While the matter stood thus, the names of the petitioner and others have not been placed in the Seniority List as per ranking in the ‘C-List’. The petitioner submitted representation and questioned the same, so far no action taken by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4617 of 2007 before the learned Tribunal also directed to consider the request of the petitioners, but the 1st respondent rejected the request of the petitioner and same was communicated to their counsel in 3rd week of September-2009. Hence the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal and questioned the authority of the 1st respondent. The learned Tribunal without considering the factual aspects dismissed the O.A, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Assailing the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

4. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit, inter alia contended that as per judgment of the learned Tribunal in O.A.No. 5894 of 1995, the petitioner and others were promoted as Armed Reserve Head Constables vide proceedings dated 23.06.2004, but their names were included in the ‘C-List’ of ARPCs fit to act as ARHCs during the year 2004. Their names were not included in ‘C-List’ of 1990 as there were no vacancies available at that time. All the qualified ARPCs included in ‘C-List’ were promoted as ARHCs in the vacancies that were existed as on 09.11.1993 as per orders of the learned Tribunal and Chief Office directions. If the request of the petitioner is considered and their names including