V NARAYANA SWAMY REDDY Vs. J SRINIVASULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. Narayana Swamy Reddy and others filed Writ Petition No.12348 of 2004 questioning the interim order dated 5-5-2004 as extended by order dated 14-5-2004 passed by A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short Tribunal) in O.A. Nos.2928 of 2004 and batch. The said writ petitioners also filed Writ Petition No.12349 of 2004 praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to and connected with judgment of the Tribunal dated 20-11-2001 rendered in O.A. No.6915 of 1994 and quash or set aside the same and also declare the Government Memo No.42833/Police-C1/2001-1, Home (Police-C) Department, dated 11-3-2002 and the Head of the Department orders in C.O. Memo NO-855/E1/2002 dated 18-6-2002 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 and to further direct the official respondents to regulate the cadre of Sub-Inspectors in Zone-IV within the sanctioned cadre strength for the year 1989 batch with all consequential benefits and pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) Official respondents in both the WritPetitions are common. The unofficial respondents, no doubt, are different, but, however, the questions involved in both the Writ Petitions being common, both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

(3.) The Writ Petitioners stated that theAndhra Pradesh State Level Police Recruitment Board conducted selections for the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors of Police in the year 1988 and the selections were held and against 55 vacancies available in Zone-IV, selections and appointments were made. All the 55 vacancies available in the year 1988-89 were filled up by 1989 batch Sub-Inspectors. It is further stated that after the 1989 batch, 1991 batch was recruited and they are immediate juniors to 1989 batch. As the Sub-Inspectors of 1989 batch have already stood promoted as Inspectors of Police, it is now the turn of 1991 batch of Sub-Inspectors for promotion as Inspectors. In fact some of the 1991 batch Sub- Inspectors have already been promoted as Inspectors, It is also further stated that there is an inter se dispute among the 1989 batch Sub-Inspectors. Some of the Sub-Inspectors appointed and allotted to Hyderabad City Police desired to come to Zone-IV in view of better avenues of promotion. At the instance of such Sub-Inspectors who were originally appointed and selected to Hyderabad City Police but desired to come to Zone-IV, the Sub-inspectors working in Zone-IV were replaced and vice versa postings were issued. It is further stated that aggrieved by the orders of transfer from various zones, including Zone-IV to Hyderabad City Police, O.A. No.6915 of 1994 was filed before the Tribunal contending that the orders of the Government contained in G.O.Ms. No.288, Home (Police) Department, dated 6-5-1986 and their transfer from Zone-IV to Hyderabad City Police is illegal and violative of the Presidential Order. It is further stated that those applicants impleaded none of the affected parties. It is also stated that the Tribunal by its judgment dated 20-11 -2001 allowed the OA holding that the transfer of applicants to Hyderabad City Police is illegal and it was also held that unit of appointment is respective zones and persons appointed in one zone cannot be transferred to any other zone or Hyderabad City on permanent basis. It was further declared that the persons appointed in Zone-IV are entitled to retain their seniority in Zone-IV. It is further stated that the Government in Memo No.42833/Police-C1/2001-1, Home (Police-C) Department, dated 11-3-2002 issued instructions to implement the orders of the Tribunal and the Head of the Department issued consequential orders in C.O. Memo No.855/E1/2002, dated 18-6-2002. It is further stated that on account of posting of some of the applicants in OA No.6915 of 1994 in Zone-IV without replacing any other person, the sanctioned strength for the year 1988-89 recruitment has exceeded by 16 persons and all the 32 persons were shown above the 1991 batch of the Sub-Inspectors of Zone-IV, thereby affecting their right for promotion and advancement in service. It is further stated that the applicants in the said OA had been transferred and posted to Hyderabad City Police pursuant to direction issued by the Tribunal in R.P. Nos.4622, 4640 and 9453 of 1989 dated 16-6-1989, they cannot seek to come back to Zone-IV. At any rate applicants cannot be posted to Zone-IV as long as the persons transferred and posted in their place are retained in Zone-IV. It is further stated that in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal, as stated above, simultaneously equal number of Sub-Inspectors were posted to Zone-IV in the place of applicants in OA No.6915 of 1994. In the absence of their orders of appointment in Zone-IV is questioned and without impleading them, no relief for retention in Zone-IV could be claimed by the applicants therein. It is further stated that the Tribunal had erred in allowing the OA and directing posting of the applicants in the said OA in Zone-IV with seniority without deciding the issue of legality and validity of posting of 16 Sub-Inspectors of Hyderabad City Police in the place of applicants and the impact against such posting yis-a-vis the Presidential Order or on the Sub-Inspectors of Zone-IV. It is further stated that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that if the applicants in O.A. No.6915 of 1994 were posted in Zone-IV with seniority, it would greatly enhance the existing strength beyond the sanctioned cadre strength. As against 55 vacancies available for 1988 recruitment, on account of judgment of the Tribunal the strength was increased to 71, which is contrary to the provisions of the Presidential Order and settled principles of law. It is also further stated that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that on account of posting of 16 Sub-Inspectors additionally in Zone-IV, the conditions of service of 1991 Sub-Inspectors belonging to Zone-IV are directly affected. It is needless to say that these petitioners were not impleaded as parties in the aforesaid OA. It is further stated that once the Sub-Inspectors were allotted, regulation of conditions of service should be within their unit of appointment. There is no such provision in the Presidential Order for re-allotment of candidates from one unit of appointment to another unit of appointment once they stood allotted to a particular unit. It is also further stated that in view of the allotment made, there is a threat of reversion and in such circumstances having come to know about the effect or impact of the interim order, which had been impugned in Writ Petition No.12348 of 2004 and the final order, which had been passed in O.A. No.6915 of 1994 with MA No.2098 of 2001, had been questioned.