HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

* * * *

Between:

P. Sankaraiah and another

.....PETITIONERS

AND

R. Sreenivasulu and 6 others

.....RESPONDENTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 07.05.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No

fair copy of the Judgment?

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

_______________________

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN + WRIT PETITION No. 12190 of 2021 % 07.05.2025 Between:

P. Sankaraiah and another .....PETITIONERS AND R. Sreenivasulu and 6 others .....RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P. V. Krishnaiah Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : Sri R. V. Mallikarjuna Rao, Rep. Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi Assisted by Sri M. Vijayabhaskar Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7 : Sri Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti GP attached to Office of Addl.AG < Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1. 1987 (Supp) SCC 345

2. (1998) 2 SCC 332 3. (2007) 4 SCC 221 4. (1997) 6 SCC 473 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON’BL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.12190 of 2021 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri P. V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, through virtual mode, Sri R. V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and assisted by Sri M. Vijayabhaskar, learned counsel and Sri Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader, attached to Office of Additional Advocate General, representing respondents 5 to 7.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the Order dated 06.06.2016 passed in O. A. No. 2740 of 2013 with V.M.A.No.338 of 2014 and C. A. No.136 of 2014 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has directed the respondent in O.A. to count the seniority of the applicants in O.A. in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police as Reserve Sub- Inspector of Police / Armed Reserve Sub-Inspector / APSP Sub-Inspector from the date of their initial appointment in reserve cadres for counting the seniority for next promotion as Inspector of Police and consider their cases for promotion as Inspector of Police (Civil) as per their eligibility and rules following the Orders passed in another O.A.No.6285 of 2012, dated 10.02.2016 passed by the Tribunal.

3. The present respondents 1 to 4 are the applicants in O.A.No.2740 of

2013 and the present two petitioners are third parties.

4. The said O.A. was filed by the present respondents 1 to 4 against the present respondents 5 to 7, Government of Andhra Pradesh and its authorities.

Respondents 1 to 4 shall be referred to as the ‘applicants’.

5. The case of the applicants was that they were working as Sub-

Inspectors of Police under the control of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Zone-IV, Kurnool District. They were initially appointed as Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police in the Direct Recruitment of 2004 recruitment batch and were reselected as Sub-Inspectors of Police in Armed Reserve (AR) and Andhra Pradesh Special Police (APSP) in the 2004 direct recruitment selections and were accordingly appointed on 02.05.2005. The applicants while working in AR and APSP again got selected to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) in 2010 and at the time of filing of O.A. they were working as Sub- Inspector of Police (Civil). Their case was that the above two selections were to the same class and equivalent categories of posts in the Home Department. The service rendered by the applicants in the former category, i.e., Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, would normally count towards seniority on appointment or t