THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

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

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS by declaring the final seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.74 Home (Ser.I) Department dated 29.12.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the rules and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be placed at Sl.No.96 instead of Sl.No.176 and further consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion and pass…”

2. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.3. In spite of service of notice to respondent Nos.4 and

5, there was no representation on their behalf.

3.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a notification in the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh, vide Notification No.18/2011 dated 28.01.2011, inviting applications for Group-I Services, which included the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police – Civil (category-II) in the Andhra Pradesh Police Service. As such, in pursuance of the same, the petitioner submitted his application. Subsequently, after a prolonged litigation, the selections were finalized during October, 2017, and the petitioner herein was selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil). However, despite the petitioner’s selection, his appointment order was unduly delayed and was issued only during January, 2018, and the entire recruitment was delayed only due to the fault of the authorities. It was further submitted that a provisional seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police, dated 25.11.2022, was issued by the respondents, wherein, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.176, i.e., well below the promotees who have actually been appointed temporarily, and thus, the same is illegal and arbitrary. It was also submitted that the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are placed at Sl.Nos.96, 97 and 98 respectively, have been made parties in their representative capacity, as they are the first three persons over and above whom the petitioner is entitled to be placed in the seniority list.

3.2. It was further submitted that at the time of bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the posts allotted to the State of Telangana were 209, and later, the cadre strength was shown as

242, out of which, 1/3rd posts have to be filled in by Direct Recruitment. The Rule specifically prescribes the Roster for Direct Recruitment, viz., 1^st, 4^th and 7^th out of 10 vacancies. Further, while filing up the vacancies, Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, has to be followed, and all the vacancies arising in that particular year have to be calculated and the eligibility of a person for promotion has to be assessed as on the commencement of panel year, i.e., 1^st September of the year, and a person fully qualified and eligible to be promoted by 31^st August of the panel year, is to be considered for promotion during the panel year. Here, no year-wise panels have been prepared taking into consideration all the arising vacancies in that particular year and all the promotees have been bunched together without assigning them the panel years. Further, in 2017, a review of the cadre was undertaken and the cadre strength has been increased to 312, in which, 94 vacancies are to be filled in by Direct Recruitment, and 218 vacancies have to be filled in by promotees. While preparing the seniority list, the cadre strength itself has not been determined and the vacancies arising year-wise, have also not been calculated. As such, it was contended that the e