LAWS(APH)-2005-2-86

N BHUJANGA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

Decided On February 08, 2005
N.BHUJANGA RAO Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Batch of Writ Petitions are filed by the unsuccessful applicants in O.A. No.7526/2003 & Batch on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in short referred to as 'Tribunal" hereinafter. The writ petitioners/applicants in the O.As. are Sub-Inspectors of Police who were recruited in the year 1991 in pursuance of notification by the A. P. State Level Police Recruitment Board, in short hereinafter referred to as "Board", dated 12-1-1991 issued for 70 vacancies of Civil Sub-Inspectors in Zone IV and 5 Reserve Sub-Inspectors in Zone VI. The applicants commenced training on 15-7-1991 and were appointed as Sub-Inspectors and had completed probation and became eligible for promotion too. It is stated that these applicants are governed by A.P. Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.1263, dated 26-8-1959 and by Special Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.374, Home Department, dated 14-12-1990. The details of the five methods of recruitment also had been narrated. In the notification dated 22-1-1991 issued by the Board it was specified that 7% of the vacancies were reserved for Police Executives, 4% to Municipal staff and 2% to meritorious Sportsmen and the rule of reservation also was specified. For 70 civil posts, select list was prepared and two of the individuals who were selected subsequently resigned while undergoing training and two others had not joined at all. Thus, 66 candidates had completed the training. One candidate Munuswamy did not complete the training and did not participate in the examination for personal reasons and it is stated that he was allowed to complete the training along with 1992 batch by taking up the examination at the end thereof. It is also the stand taken by the writ petitioners/applicants in the O.As. that respondents selected 10 more candidates from out of 1991 list and they were sent for training in 1992 along with the said Munuswamy who had commenced training on 14-6-1992 and subsequent to the completion of the training they were also appointed for the regular posts of Sub-Inspectors. Specific stand was taken that 1991 trainess were kept above in the seniority and 1992 batch trainees were kept below while reckoning the seniority. However, while considering these cases for promotion to the next higher category, certain un-official respondents herein and similarly placed persons raised dispute by filing O.A.No. 5165/2002 on the file of the Tribunal praying for a relief that both these batches 1991 and 1992 are to be treated as a homogeneous group and also prayed for a direction to prepare a combined 'C' list of Sub-Inspectors based on the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the Special Rules. The Tribunal in the said O.A.No.5165/2002 directed the applicants to make a detailed representation to the Director General and Inspector General of Police with a further direction to the Director General and Inspector General of Police to dispose of the representation before making any promotions to the posts of Inspectors Police in Zone IV. In consequence thereof, the Government passed an order on 17-3-2003 in Memo No.3119/Legal.1/2003-1, clarifying that the delay in sending the candidates for training occurred due to wrong calculation of vacancies and hence they are also entitled to seniority on par with 1991 batch Sub- Inspectors on the basis of the marks obtained by them at the examination conducted by the Police Training College especially in the light of Rule 15 of the Special Rules. The Director & Inspector General of Police in the light of the memo dated 17-3-2003 referred to supra, called upon the writ petitioners to submit their objections for the proposed action of revising the seniority. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners filed the O.As. questioning the decision of the Government in the said memo dated 17-3-2003 and the consequential order dated 26-12-2003 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range fixing the combined seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of 1991 and 1992 batches. The Tribunal by the common order dated 24-9-2004 ultimately arrived at a conclusion that the O.As. were devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed and allowed the V.M.A. Aggrieved by the said common order, the present Writ Petitions are filed.

(2.) Sri Nuty Ram Mohan Rao, Sri Navin Rao, Ms. Vijaya Lakshmi and Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, Counsel representing the writ petitioners, Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy, Sri P. Suresh Reddy, Sri Meher Chand Noorie, Sri Subba Rao and Sri Venkata Sastry, Counsel representing the unofficial respondents and Government Pleader for Services-I, were heard.

(3.) While leading the arguments, on behalf of the writ petitioners, Sri Nuty Ram Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners made the following submissions. These submissions were adopted by the other learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners. The learned Counsel traced the historical background of this litigation commencing from the date of recruitment, training, completion of probation and had pointed out that out of 75 candidates, 66 candidates were permitted to join the Training College. The writ petitioners belong to 1991 batch and they are on top of 35. The learned Counsel clearly demonstrated that on the merit ranking by virtue of the present altered seniority list, Sub-Inspectors of 1992 Batch also are shown to be seniors and Sub-Inspectors of 1991 Batch at certain places are shown to be juniors depending upon the marks obtained in separate examinations. The learned Counsel pointed out to the Rules 3, 7, 10 and 11 in general and Rule 15 of the Special Rules in particular and also pointed out to the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel also would contend that the reason given in the proceedings dated 17-3-2003 that it was due to the wrong calculation of the vacancies also is not the correct reason. The learned Counsel stressed on the aspect that common stock of notification has nothing to do with the reckoning of the seniority. The proviso to Rule 15 is of one time operation and after a long lapse of time, seniority already fixed cannot be disturbed and even otherwise the State Government also has no power to review. Elaborate submissions were made to convince the Court that in the light of the several aspects, the training, commencement of probation and the completion thereof and in several other aspects, the batches being different, they cannot be treated alike for the purpose of reckoning the seniority. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court in detail the order made in O.A.No.5165/2002. The Counsel would maintain that the proviso being a one time operation it does not depend upon the completion of the next batch of training, Certain instances like the appointment of Sri K. Ravimohanachary and certain others also had been pointed out. The learned Counsel also made elaborate submissions that in relation to the order of the State Government dated 17-3-2003 which would involve civil consequences affecting the rights relating to seniority of the writ petitioners, they were not put on notice and subsequent notices would be of no consequence since the appointing authorities have no authority to over-ride the memo issued by the Government and hence the subsequent notices issued in this regard may have to be treated as an empty formality. The Counsel also had pointed out to certain of the conflicting findings. Ultimately the Counsel would conclude that the marks obtained in different examinations cannot be treated alike and on the strength of such marks obtained in separate examinations, seniorities cannot be disturbed which would cause serious prejudice to the writ petitioners. At any rate, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.