E SHANKAR REDDY Vs. P RAMASESHIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these Writ Petitions, the question that arises for consideration is whether mere seniority alone is the criteria or is there any eligibility criteria, apart from the seniority in a particular cadre, for the purpose of promotion to the higher post

(2.) Petitioners were all initially appointed as Reserve Sub-Inspectors (RSIs) of Category-3 of Class I of A.P. Police Subordinate Service. The RSIs are entitled to be appointed as Sub-Inspectors (Civil) in Category-1 of Class 1, against 5% of the vacancies earmarked for them. The RSIs, on transfer, are put on probation and sent for 6 months training. The RSIs, who had put in 5 years and more service in Class I Category-3 posts of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules (for short 'Special Rules'), on conversion as SIs (Civil) and after completion of probation and training, according to them, are entitled for being promoted to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil) i.e. Category 4 of A.P. Police Service, on taking their seniority from the date of their initial appointment in the category of RSI; thus, they claim that they are entitled for being promoted to the post of Inspector immediately after completion of 6 years of service from the date of their initial appointment, on conversion as SI (Civil) under 5% quota. In fact, this was a subject matter of O.A. No. 1396 of 1999 and batch, wherein the A.P. Administrative Tribunal held that the RSIs are not entitled to claim their seniority from the date of their initial appointment and consequential promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. Challenging the same, Writ Petition No. 2120 of 2000 and batch were filed, which were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an Order dated 15-6-2001. The Division Bench, while taking note of various Rules governing the field as to the claim of seniority of RSIs, ultimately held that in view of the legal position and fiction, they are entitled to reckon seniority right from the date of their initial appointment in the post of RSI and thus allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the RSIs and dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by direct recruits. Further, G.O.Ms. No. 188, dated 30.6.1999 was declared as invalid. Aggrieved thereby, though the Government did not carry the matter in appeal, direct recruit Civil SIs carried the matter by way of an appeal and it is given to understand that the Civil Appeal is pending; however, no interim orders were passed by the Apex Court. Thus, according to the RSIs, the question as to reckoning of the seniority and the consequent promotion on the basis of such seniority attained finality in the Judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 2120 of 2000 and batch. Therefore, the same cannot be reagitated in the O.As and hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in going beyond its jurisdiction and passing an Order contrary to the above Judgment of this Court and holding that in Judgment in Writ Petition No. 2120 of 2000 and batch, the eligibility criteria for the purpose of promotion was not taken into consideration and the relevant rules were not considered. On consideration of those rules, the Tribunal held in O.A. No. 5045 of 2007 and batch that though the RSIs are entitled for seniority as per the rule and legal fiction, but the seniority, as such, cannot be taken into consideration as a matter of course for the purpose of promotion to higher posts. For the purpose of promotion to higher posts, the Rules govern the field and not the seniority alone. Challenging the same, these Writ Petitions are filed.

(3.) Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for RSIs, (petitioner in W.P. No. 27749 of 2007) stated that a provisional seniority list dated 2-8-2007 was prepared in pursuance of the earlier orders, which attained finality. Therefore, preparing another provisional seniority list does not arise. Rule 15(a) read with Rule 15(c) of the Special Rules and G.O.Ms. No. 35, dated 11-2-1999 were considered by this Court in W.P. No. 2120 of 2000 and batch and against the Judgment therein, though Civil Appeal is filed before the Apex Court, no stay has been granted. Further, all the points raised by the unofficial respondents herein before the Tribunal as to preparation of seniority list, putting the RSIs, on transfer, on probation and training etc., were all taken into consideration and this Court finally held that RSIs are entitled to reckon their seniority from the date of their initial appointment. In fact, some of them were also prompted and were given notional promotion in the cadre of Inspector. Whether one person is eligible for promotion or not is a matter of verification of the facts in each and every case. Many of the affected parties were not impleaded to these proceedings. Therefore, in an O.A. of this nature, a direction could not have been given to the authorities to prepare a panel for each year without laying down correct guidelines. The Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction and decide eligibility on its own and cannot examine the academic questions in vacuum. The promotion of many of the RSIs, who were transferred to Class I of Category I services and were further promoted long ago was never challenged by any of the applicants before the Tribunal. The question whether the Government gives promotion with retrospective effect notionally or not has to be examined only in individual cases and not as a general. The eligibility cannot be on the basis of a general principle {Rule 5(F)(i)}. If the judgment of the Tribunal is to be accepted, every thing becomes otiose -all the settled things become unsettled. The seniority, promotion, probation etc., everything gets nullified and in view of the Order passed by the Tribunal it assumes a new dimension. In the present lis, the question of examining the eligibility criteria has no place. The Tribunal cannot decide the matter like the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The powers and functions of the Tribunal are limited to Sections 19 and 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. In this regard, the learned Counsel relied upon B. Ananda Rama Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 4 ALD 289 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act questioning the provisional seniority list is not maintainable and mere apprehension of breach of service conditions does not give rise to cause of action to file the application. Learned Counsel also contended that the Government filed a counter before the Tribunal supporting the cause of RSIs, who were transferred and posted as SIs (Civil), whereas now a different stand is sought to be taken stating that the State Government can take such a stand while accepting the rationale adopted by the Tribunal, on advice.