SYED ABDUL ALAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal made on December 19, 1995 in O. A. No. 5733 of 1995 and O. A. No. 505 of 1995 and also from order dated december 28, 1995 in O. A. No. 7111 of 1995. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Andhra Pradesh State Police Subordinate service Rules operate for recruitment of the subordinate staff of the police department. Rule 2 [b] thereof contemplates selection on the basis of merit and ability and seniority will be considered only where merit and ability is approximately equal. In implementation thereof, it would appear that the director General of Police and the Subordinates seem to have conducted written tests of Head Constables to be promoted in 30% quota reserved for them, for promotion as sub-Inspectors. Candidates including some of the appellants came to appear in the examination and they appear to have passed the test. The Rules prescribed that they were required to be sent for training and on their passing the training they would be appointed on regular basis. In the meanwhile, the respondents have issued order in G. O. Ms. No. 585 dated October 17, 1991 amending the Police Standing Orders prescribing seniority-cum-fitness as the criteria for promotion of Head Constables as Sub-Inspectors without corresponding amendment to the statutory rules. That came to be challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal while quashing the same, issued the directions as under :

(3.) It would appear that some of the candidates, who had approached the High court and seem to have obtained directions to follow the principle of "last come first go" for the purpose of reversion. In the light of the directions issued by the Tribunal, which were allowed to become final, necessarily the respondents had to follow the above directions. Paragraph 4 clearly indicates that such of the candidates, who have been qualified by passing the written examinations as per Rule 2 (c) in the respective zones, were required to be treated as qualified for training and after passing the training, they were required to be regularised for appointment according to Rule 11 (c) and Rule 15 of the said Rules. It would also appear that the Government in the meanwhile, had amended the Rules in G. O. Ms. No. 787 dated November 16, 1994 giving retrospective effect to the Rules. In clause II of the amended Rules, it sought to regular rule 2 (b) (i) as under :