THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.23953 of 2019

ORDER:

The petitioner is a Head Constable in the Telangana Police Special Battalion. He challenges the Final Seniority List issued on 18.10.2019, placing him below his confirmed juniors, as illegal and arbitrary. His core argument is that this action upsets a previously settled seniority order, and therefore he seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Final Seniority List dated 18.10.2019 as illegal and arbitrary, and a consequential direction to restore his seniority position above respondents 4 through 7 in the Head Constable cadre.

1.1 The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that he was initially recruited as a Police Constable in 2001 in the 8th Battalion, which is stated to be his parent unit. By virtue of his seniority, he was promoted to Head Constable (Motor Transport) within this same battalion on 10.01.2014. He was transferred to the 17th Battalion on 24.09.2016, an action he contested through W.P. No. 34093 of 2016, and the said writ petition is pending before this Court. He was subsequently transferred back to his parent unit, i.e., 8th Battalion in August 2017, where he has been serving since. A Provisional Seniority List dated 18.08.2017, placed him at serial number 171, while respondents No.4 to 6 were listed below him at serial numbers 174, 175, and 176, respectively. This order was largely confirmed in a Final Seniority List issued on 28.08.2017, where he was listed at serial number 172 and respondents 4 to 7 were at 173, 174, 175, and 178.

1.2 It is further stated that on 20.09.2019, the 3rd respondent called for objections regarding the seniority of another individual, Sri K. Raghupathi Reddy. In the circulated list, the petitioner was still ranked above respondents No.4 to 7. In response, the petitioner formally submitted his objections on 27.09.2019, specifically noting that Head Constables at serial numbers 920 and 1104 were his juniors and requesting a verification based on the 18.08.2017provisional list. However, the 3rd respondent, vide Proceedings dated 15.10.2019, rejected his objections. The petitioner states that the respondent countered the case of the petitioner by alleging that the claims of the petitioner were not tenable, relying instead on G.O.Ms No. 69 dated 07.04.1997 and the said Government Order mandates that seniority for promotions is to be determined from a Combined List based on the seniority individuals would have held had they been promoted in turn from Police Constable to Head Constable, irrespective of their actual promotion dates to specialized trade posts.

1.3 This rejection culminated in the issuance of the contested Final Seniority List on 18.10.2019, reversing the established order of seniority. It is stated that respondents No.4 to 7, whom he asserts are his clear juniors, were now placed above him at serial numbers 59, 61, 62, and 75, while he was relegated to serial number 79. This demotion occurred despite the fact that his promotion to Head Constable on 10.01.2014, predated the promotions of respondents No.4 to 6 on 13.06.2014, and respondent No.7 on 05.05.2016. The petitioner immediately submitted a representation on 18.10.2019, highlighting this discrepancy and arguing that placing juniors above a senior officer is a fundamental violation of service rules and natural justice. He contends that the respondent's reliance on G.O.Ms.No. 69 to justify this reversal has unsettled a seniority hierarchy that was consistently reflected in the 2017 provisional and final lists, as well as a subsequent provisional list dated 18.12.2018.

2. A counter affidavit and also an additional counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3-Commandant of the 8^th Battalion. The sum and substance of the case of the respondent-authorities is that the petitioner's claims are baseless and that the impugned Final Seniority List dated 18.10.2019 was issued in strict and correct adherence to est