THE CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, HYDERABAD AND TWO OTHERS Vs. B. SAMBA SIVA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARLU AND TWO OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue that engaged the attention of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') was whether the 15% quota earmarked for special categories, such as Police Executive (PE)-5%, Police Ministerial (PM)-1%, Meritorious Sports Person (MSP)-2%, Children of Police Personnel (CPP)-2%, Children of Police Personnel of A.P. Police who died due to violence of extremists in duty and who were incapacitated/medical invalidation due to violence while on duty (CDI)-2% and National Cadet Corps (NCC)-3%, is a separate category by itself to be treated as a vertical reservation or a horizontal reservation among the social/communal reserved categories in the matter of promotion to the posts of Sub- Inspectors.

(2.) It is not in dispute that as per the Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules'), the following quotas were fixed :

(3.) Indeed, in the first round of litigation, the petitioners have treated this quota as a separate category and the selections made by them were subject matter of O.A.No.8572 of 2011 and batch, wherein it was contended that even while following the special quota, the individuals who come up for selection under reserved categories have to be adjusted against the quota reserved for their respective social/communal categories. The said plea was accepted by the Tribunal and the same was confirmed by this Court and also by the Apex Court. However, while issuing subsequent notification, the petitioners have not treated the 15% special category posts as a separate entity and instead, they sought to apply horizontal reservation among 85% of the posts reserved for different categories. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 has approached the Tribunal, which has seen a split verdict with judicial member allowing the O.A. by holding that the quota of 15% reserved for special categories must be treated as a vertical quota and not a horizontal one, while the administrative member has taken a converse view, as a result of which, the matter went to a third member, who happens to be the Chairman of the Tribunal. The Chairman agreed with the view of the judicial member, and, in our view rightly.