IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that supplementary examination marks must be included in seniority calculations for candidates who completed their training within the prescribed period.

ORDER :

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

“.......to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not properly determining the seniority of the petitioners by excluding the marks obtained at the time of training while calculating the aggregate marks for the purpose of determination for seniority among of Trainee Sub Inspectors of Police, despite the petitioners have completed the training and passed the examination as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the rules and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to recast the seniority of petitioners in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police duly taking into consideration the aggregate marks obtained by them at the end of training at APPA (Andhra Pradesh Police Academy) duly adding the marks in the subjects which were cleared in the supplementary examination to the total aggregate marks and pass such other orders....”

2. Heard Mr. B. Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-I for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that they were selected as SCTSI (Civil) pursuant to the Notification 2008 and working as Sub Inspectors of Police in Zone-IV. Due to various reasons the petitioner could not clear the indoor examination in some subjects in the first attempt, but later they passed the examination in the supplemental examination as provided under the Rules. The petitioners have successfully completed the induction training and they were appointed as probationary Sub Inspectors of Police on 24.12.2010 and put on probation for two years within a continuous period of three years and they have completed the probation within time limit and their services were regularized as Sub Inspectors of Police. The seniority in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police is required to be fixed in terms of Rule 10 of A.P. Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules as issued under G.O.Ms. No. 374, dated 14.12.1999 which mandates the total aggregate marks obtained at the end of training by the each probationer is the basis for such determination of seniority. However, the marks secured in the Supplementary Examination are totally excluded for the purpose of computation of total aggregate marks. Without importing the true spirit of the rules, the seniority of the petitioners have erroneously fixed by showing as if they have got zero marks. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have submitted representations requesting the 3rd respondent to fix the seniority by taking into consideration the marks obtained in the subjects, which were cleared by the petitioners in the supplementary examinations. Considering the objections, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool has issued Memorandum dated 27.11.2019, purporting to be final seniority list as on 01.09.2019 and in view of assurance given by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool, the placement of the petitioners have been modified in accordance with Rules. But the said seniority list would indicate that without including the marks obtained by the petitioners, the respondents prepared seniority list ignoring the rule position, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same.

4. Per contra, the respondents filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the petitioners, after their selection as Stipendary Cadet S.I. (Civil) had undergone 12 months induction training during the period 14.11.2009 and 22.12.2010. During their induction training, indoor and outdoor examinations have been conducted to all the trainees including the petitioners from 23.08.2010 to 13.09.2010, in which the petitioners have fai