C NARASINGA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the four petitioners who are Sub-Inspectors of Prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to give posting to the petitioners as Assistant Prohibition Officers in the Excise and Prohibition Department with due regard to the Rules and Regulations and on the basis of the petitioners' seniority.

(2.) The first petitioner was recruited as a Clerk in the Excise Department in 1940 and was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Excise in 1945. The fourth petitioner was also recruited as a Clerk and was promoted as Sub-Inspector, Prohibition in 1943. Petitioners 2 and 3 were directly recruited as Sub-Inspectors in the Prohibition Department in 1947. When Prohibition Department was abolished, the work of the Prohibition Department was entrusted to the Police Department and all the four petitioners were selected by a Committee appointed for the purpose for being trained in the Police Training College from 15th January, 1956 and after successful completion of the training they were posted to hold independent charges of Police Stations and were confirmed as Sub-Inspectors in the Police Department. In 1961, a new Excise and Prohibition Department was formed and vacancies in that department were filled up by transfer of the personnel of the Prohibition Department who were then working in the Police Department and by absorption of Officers and personnel working in the skeleton Excise and Prohibition Department. Aggrieved by that Government Order, the petitioners 1 to 3 filed W.P. No. 54 of 1961 and obtained stay of operation of the Government Order but subsequently the w rit petition was dismissed on 1st August, 1963 and later all the petitioners joined the new Excise and Prohibition Department. The fourth petitioner who was not a party to the earlier writ petition had joined the new department as Sub-Inspector n 1961 itself. It is the case of these petitioners that as per the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 42 of 1961 and as per the admissions made by the respondents in the earlier writ petition, they belong to the Prohibition Department and when they were sent back to the parent department, their seniority in the parent department cannot be upset so as to consider their juniors for promotion. In 1961, these petitioners were full members of the Police service, but were sent back to the Prohibition Department on the ground that the original department has been revived and the number of posts in the Police Department were retrenched and therefore it was but proper that they should be sent back to the parent department. Since their seniority is not given in the parent department, it is stated that it is in violation of rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules.

(3.) Having regard to this Rule, it is claimed that they were entitled to promotion as Assistant Inspectors on the basis of their original seniority in the parent department.