THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.11382 OF 2025

ORDER

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Narsimha Sharma, Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2, Ms.M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr.B.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh respondent No.4.

2. The present is a writ petition which has been filed assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal), dated 26.02.2025 in O.A.No.171 of 2025.

3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the interim relief/interim prayer sought by the petitioner pending the O.A.

before the Tribunal.

4. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal by filing the O.A. challenging the rejection of the representation which the petitioner had made pursuant to the order passed by this High Court in W.P.No.12205 of 2017 which stood decided along with the batch of writ petitions on 03.01.2024. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the writ preferred by the Union of India i.e., the W.P.No.12205 of 2017 questioning the previous order of CAT in O.A.No.1481 of 2014, decided on 29.03.2016.

5. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that the basic issue involved in the instant case is the alleged malafied interference with the alleged seniority list of the petitioner which has led to the wrongful allocation of the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, because of the interim protection granted by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court from time to time, the petitioner has continued to work in the in the State of Telangana State till the impugned order was passed under challenge before the Tribunal as also before this Court.

6. From the bare perusal of the statutory position as it reflects particularly going through the rule pertaining to the fixation of the seniority of officers and also in respect of fixation of seniority of officers who have transferred to another cader. It appears that prima facie what the rule requires is that even though there would be a change in the cader and the persons who incur change in the transfer in their cader at their own request and if in a particular batch there are more than one officers getting transferred to a particular State the seniority has to be maintained inter se between those transferred officers as is prescribed under Rule 10 of the IPS probation rules

1954. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:

10. Seniority of Probationer:- 10(1) The Central Government shall prepare a list of all probationers, who are appointed to the service on the result of the same competitive examination. The list shall be arranged in the order of merit which shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by each probationer.

(i) at the competitive examination;

(ii) in respect of his record in the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration and in the Sardar Vallabhabhai Patel National Police Academy; and (iii) at the final examination 28or at the special examination in the circumstances mentioned in rule 8, as the case may be;

Provided that if two or more probationers have secured equal number of marks in the aggregate, their order of merit shall be the order of their dates of birth.

10(2) The seniority interse of the probationers, who are assigned the same year of allotment, shall be determined in accordance with the list prepared under sub-rule (1) and probationers who are appointed on the basis of an earlier competitive examination shall be ranked above those appointed consequent to a later competitive examination.

7. The documents attached to the writ petition would also reveal that infact the seniority of the petitioner infact was being maintained in terms of the Rule 6 of the IPS (Regulations of seniority) Rule