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 given in selection list for purpose of seniority.

ORDER :

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

“….to issue a Writ, Order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities in considering the case of the petitioner for restoration of seniority on part with the 1995 Batch Police Constables along with monetary and other attendant benefit, in spite of repeated visits, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional, and to grant such other relief or reliefs…….”

2. Heard Sri Bommagani Prabhakar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Police Constables (Civil) in Khammam District, the petitioner was successful both in physical test held on 26.08.1994 and written examination held on 11.09.1994 and on being successful he appeared for medical examination on 15.4.1995. Since the fingers of the left hand of the petitioner did not look normal the Superintendent of Police referred the petitioner to the Medial Board, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad wherein after thorough examination he was certified as fit for the post of Police Constable.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite certifying the petitioner to be fit, the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment, the petitioner approached the erstwhile A.P. Administrative Tribunal and filed O.A.No.6051 of 1995 and the said O.A was allowed on 17.06.1999 directing the respondents to appoint him as Police Constable. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal the petitioner was sent for training and was appointed a Police Constable on 29.06.2000 through Proceedings Nos.C.No.853/A1/95/ DO No.119/2000 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner was appeared for selection to the post of Police Constable in the recruitment held in the year 1994-95. The petitioner is entitled for restoration of seniority as well as the monetary benefits on par with the Police Constables appointed in the year 1995, but the but the respondent authorities have denied the seniority on par with 1995 Batch, as a result of which the petitioner lost his seniority and also monetary benefits even though there is no fault on the part of the petitioner.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner made an application to the respondent No.1 with a request to restore his seniority on par with the candidates who appointed in the year, 1995. The respondent No.1 vide Memo No.26129/Ser.II/A1/2004-A dated.. 9/2014 directed the respondent No.2 to examine and furnish the remarks for taking necessary action in the matter. Since there was no response from the respondents the petitioner filed the present writ petition and requested to allow the writ petition.

6. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Home, basing on the counter, submit that though the petitioner was selected as a Civil Police Constable in the year 1995 he was not cleared in medical fitness along with other selected Police Constables and since the petitioner is not selected in the year 1995 he is not entitled for seniority along with 1995 batch Police Constables. As per Rule 21 (a) of A.P. State Subordinate and Service Rules, 1996, a person appointed initially is declared to have satisfactorily completed his probation he shall be continued as a Member of the service by the appointing authority. As per Rule 33 of A.P. State Subordinate and Service Rules, 1996 the seniority will be fixed and in the light of the above rules the seniority of the petitioner will be counted from the date of appointment i.e. from the year 2001 and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

7. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that