Bendi Venkata Rao Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010415322021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶6

WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 1153 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bendi Venkata Rao, S/o. late B.Ch.Krishna Murthy, Aged^about 41 years, Occ: Sub-Inspector of Police, O/o S.P.Camp Office, A.U. Engineering Campus, Visakhapatnam, R/o.MIG-214, D.No.l-84-9, Sector-IV, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary - Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Additional Director General of Police, Administration, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam Range Visakhapatnam.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare the Orders passed by the 2nd Respondent vide Rc.No.503/E1/2010, dated 17.6.2010 dismissing the appeal filed by the Applicant, as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and direct the

¶17

p-

¶18

Respondents to revise the seniority of the Applicant basing on the 1996 batch and fix the seniority taking into account the rank and the marks obtained as per the Rules.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said Fax/Radio Message vide Proceedings Rc.No.1354/G3/2024, dated 26.12.2024, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI SINGURUSAI KRISHNA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order:

¶23

-«.

¶24

APHC010604432024

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶26

AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3311]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

Monday, the sixteenth day of June, two thousand and twenty five

¶30

Present

¶31

The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi

¶32

Writ Petition (A.T.) No.1153 of 2021

¶33

(O.A.No.2789 of 2017)

¶34

Between;

¶35

Bendi Venkata Rao S/o late B.Ch.Krishna Murthy Occ: Sub-Inspector of Police, M.V.P Colony, Visakhapatnam

¶36

...Petitioner

¶37

and

¶38

Government of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶39

...Respondents

¶40

Counsel for the petitioner:

¶41

Sri Sai Krishna Singuru

¶42

Counsel for the respondents:

¶43

G.P. for Home

¶44

The Court made the following;

¶45

2

¶46

BSB, J W.P(AT)No.ll53of2021

¶47

f

¶48

ORDER;

¶49

The writ petition is originally filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide O.A.No.2789 of 2017. After transfer of the case to this Court, it was numbered as W.P (AT) No.^1153of2021. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the orders passed by the respondent No.2 vide R.C.No.503/E112010, dated 17.06.2010, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the petitioner in the 1996 batch and fix the seniority taking into account the rank and the marks obtained as per the rules. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows; a. The petitioner was selected as Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam District, 1996 batch. He joined the training. But, after five (.5) months, due to ill health, he discontinued the training. He was permitted to continue the training with the next batch (4*^ batch). His seniority has to be fixed in the 1996 batch, but the respondent No.3, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam Range, Visakhapatnam, revised the seniority of the petitioner^and fixed with Sub-Inspector’s of the 4'*^ batch. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2139 of 2010, against the proceedings Memo N0.I86/AI/2OO8, dated 09.07.2009, issued by the respondent No.3. The Tribunal passed interim order dated 09.04.2010, directing the respondent No.2, Additional Director General of Police, to dispose of the appeals, dated 24.02.2010 and 08.03.2010 filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order, dated 17.06.2010 which shows that the respondent No.2 wrongly

¶50

3

¶51

BSB, J W.P(AT) No.1153 of 2021

¶52

\

¶53

interpreted the government memo No.1300/E1/2006, dated^01.12.2006, which specifically contemplates that though the candidates^aretrained in different batches, for the purpose of seniority the batch in which they have been selected and sent first for training has to be taken into consideration. The respondent No.2 did not give the^{saidbenefitasthe} delay occurred due to the appellant’s own disability^{tocontinuewiththe} training and not due to administrative delay. As per^{G.O.Ms.No.1263} GAD, dated 26.08.1959, the inter se seniority shall be fixed basing on the aggregate marks in the final examination of training given in the A.P. Police Academy. The petitioner was selected in 1996^batchandthe same has to be taken into consideration. Further, the Government, vide memo No.3119 / Legal / 2003-1 (Ser.l) Department, dated 17.03.2003, specifically issued clarification fixing the seniority of the petitioner at rank No.2 among the 1996 batch direct recruitees. Due to the illegal action of the respondents, the petitioner was downgraded by 14 ranks in the seniority list.

¶54

The contention of the respondents in the counter affidavit^filed is as follows:

¶55

a. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector (Civil) (Direct) pursuant to proceedings No.114/Audit/96 (R.O.O.No. 184/96), dated 31.10.1996, by the respondent No.3. He was initially^{sentforinduction} training along with 8 other Sub-Inspectors in the batch of A.P.P.A., which commenced from 11.11.1996 and concluded on 30.09.1997. However, the petitioner underwent only five months of training in that batch and reported sick. He was subsequently sent for training in the 4**" batch, which commenced on 19.01.1998 and concluded on 17.10.1999. In the final examination of induction training, the petitioner secured 795.9 marks.

¶56

4

¶57

BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1153 of 2021

¶58

b. The petitioner earlier filed O.A.No.2139 of 2010 challenging^the seniority fixed by the respondent No.3. The Tribunal granted interim directions to dispose of the appeals dated 24.02.2010^{and08.03.2010.} In compliance with these directions, a speaking order was passed by the competent authority on 17.06.2010.

¶59

c. As per Rule 15(a) of the A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules, inter-se seniority of Sub-Inspectors is to be determined^basedonthe aggregate marks obtained in the final examination of induction training. The Government issued further instructions vide Memo No. 1300/El/2006, dated 01.12.2006, that in cases where SubInspectors selected under a single notification were sent for training in different batches due to administrative reasons, their seniority should be fixed by interspersing their names based on their training marks. However, in the present case, the petitioner did not complete training with his original batch due to personal health reasons, not due to any administrative decision. This fact was admitted by the petitioner in his representation, dated 24.02.2010.

¶60

d. Accordingly, the petitioner’s name was placed below^theSub- Inspectors of the 1996 (3'"'^) batch in the seniority list. His placement was fixed at serial No.54 in the provisional seniority list issued by the respondent No.3 vide Memo C.No.186/A1/2008, dated 17.04.2009.

¶61

e. While G.O.Ms.No.1263, dated 26.08.1959, and Rule 15(a) recognize merit-based seniority based on training marks, the principle of interspersing applies only where delays in training occurred due to administrative reasons. Since the petitioner’s case involved personal grounds for not completing the training with his original batch, this principle cannot be extended to him.

¶62

5

¶63

BS6, J W.P (AT) No.1153 of 2021

¶64

f. The seniority of the petitioner was fixed in accordance^withMemo No.30958/Legal-1/A1/2006, dated 05.05.2006, and Memo NO.1300/E1/2006, dated 01.12.2006. These instructions^were issued after extensive litigation before the Court and applied^tocaseswhere Sub-Inspectors were sent for training in different batches purely on administrative reasons, but not due to personal reasons.

¶65

g- The earlier O.A. No.2139 of 2010 was dismissed for default on 09.11.2012. The present petition, which reiterates^{thesamecontentions} without raising any fresh grounds, has been filed after a delay of nearly five years.

¶66

h. The appointing authority, i.e., respondent No.3 (DIG, Visakhapatnam Range), fixed the seniority of the petitioner in accordance with rules and based on merit. The appellate authority, i.e., respondent No.2 (ADGP, Administration), issued a detailed speaking order upholding the same. There is no illegality or irregularity in the seniority determination, and therefore, the petitioner^{isnotentitled} to any relief as claimed in W.P. (AT) No. 1153/2021.

¶67

Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions;

¶68

(i) The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Rambabu and others\ wherein it was held at para No. 10 as follows:

¶69

Coming to the other aspect of merits of the matter, i.e., as to whether the petitioners were justified in fixing^interse seniority among the candidates selected under the same

¶70

1 W.P.No.5323 of 2018, dated 13.12.2024

¶71

6

¶72

BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1153 of 2021

¶73

f

¶74

notification i.e., 1990 notification based on their dates of appointments as batch-wise rather than the order of merit in the examination and training, as rightly submitted by counsel for the respondent, the very issue has already received consideration of this Court in W.P.No.36675 of 2016. A coordinate Bench of this Court in N. Bhujanga Rao and other Vs. Government of A.P and others [2005) 3 ALT⁷² (D.B)] has categorically held that as long as the candidates were selected in the same recruitment, and delay either^on account of the commissions or omissions on the part of authorities or due to any other circumstances which may have resulted in their being appointed and treated as separate batches must be considered as part of same recruitment^and should be ordered for inter se seniority as per the^meritand marks. This view has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex^Court in A. Raghu Vs. Government of A.P and others [(2015)¹⁴ see 221] ”

¶75

(ii)

¶76

(ii) A. Raghu Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others^ wherein it was held at para No.22 as follows:

¶77

Having given our thoughtful consideration, and keeping in mind the basic principle underlying the^relevant proviso to Rule 15, we are of the considered view, that the mandate for the determination of seniority under the^aforesaid proviso is to the following effect. Firstly, inter se seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police is not to be determined in accordance with the merit list drawn up, “at the time^oftheir

¶78

2 <2015) 14 see 221

¶79

7

¶80

BSBJ W.P (AT) No.1153 of 2021 \

¶81

selection”. And secondly, inter se seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police has to be determined on the basis of “the aggregate of marks obtained by each probationer, “at the final examination” on the conclusion of their training, at the police training college (s).”

¶82

(iii) Yelukolu Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P and others^, the decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’^Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(1990) 2 SCC 715]^wasreferred wherein it was held as follows:

¶83

“...Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his, appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules^and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.”

¶84

V. Vincent Velankanni Vs. Velankanni Vs. Vs. Union of India India and others'*:

¶85

iv) V. Vincent Velankanni Vs. Velankanni Vs. Vs. Union of India India and others'*: The question in this case mainly relates to the date^fromwhich seniority of the appellant to be reckoned, whether the date of induction^/

¶86

3 W.P.No.967 of 2020, dated 30.01.2021 4 (2024) 10 SCR 126 # 2024 INSC 748

¶87

8

¶88

c

¶89

BSB, J W.P(AT) No.1153 of 2021

¶90

initial appointment or as per the date of promotion / confirmation in the skilled grade. The issue relates to promotion to skilled grade and semi skilled grade posts. It was observed that when an employee completes the probation period and is confirmed in service albeit with some delay, the confirmation in service shall relate back to the date of the initial appointment. In this backdrop of the legal position, the question was decided in the light of two G.Os. Hence, this decision does not help in deciding the case on hand..

¶91

V)

¶92

M.P. Chandoria Vs. State of M.P. and others®.

¶93

The appellant was a directly recruited and put on probation^from the date of appointment, but he passed the required test later. His seniority fixed from the date of passing test was challenged by him and contended that he has not been discharged from the^{serviceduetohis} failure to pass the test earlier. It was decided, in the light of the M.P. Civil Services (GCS) Rules, 1961, negativing the argument and upheld the seniority fixed by the department.

¶94

Vi)

¶95

Roshan Raja Vs. Union of India and others®

¶96

The petitioner got All India Rank No.8 out of 594 selected candidates in 2010 (26**^ batch). As per the appointment letter, he was asked to join for basic training on 05.09.2011. Instead, he requested for extension of time for 2 months to join as he was qualified in another test. His request was accepted for the next batch. Thus, he joined in the next batch (27^'^ batch) for training. His date of actually joining training was taken as the date appointment and placed at the^endofthe27 th batch). The department contended that in view of the office memo

¶97

5 AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2397 6 2017 Law Suit (Del) 5692 (D.B)

¶98

'V

¶99

9

¶100

B5B, J W.P(AT) No.ll53of 2021

¶101

dated 06.061978, issued by the DoPT read with communication^dated 28.09.2012 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the petitioner was ranked. After examining the letter of the petitioner, the procedure and the above said references, it was found that the letter of request of the petitioner was wrongly recorded as though he requested to extend time to join with the^{nextbatchandthat} the department could have clearly informed and told the petitioner that if he joins the training with the next batch, his seniority would be depressed to the bottom of the next batch as it is important in view of the letter dated 28.08.1997 of the Ministry of Home^{Affairswasnotin} the public domain. Under these circumstances and looking^thematter from equity, fairness and justice as he secured 8th rank and observing that he should not be made to suffer for incoherent and vague communication, allowed his seniority as per the rank^secured in the written examination, 2009, however, the matter of promotion^was left him to meet the criteria as per the rules.

¶102

In all these cases, the matter was decided in the light^ofitsown facts and circumstances. Fixation of seniority at the initial stage is different from that at the promotional stage. Though^{thenormalruleisto} fix seniority in the same batch of S.ls., as also stated in the memo NO.1300/E1/2006, dated 01.12.2006 which is in consonance with Rule 15(a) of the Service Rules, irrespective of the fact that they are trained in different batches as the aggregate marks in the written test and the training test determine the rank in the seniority, in the present case, the petitioner has not shown that he was assured of the seniority when he made a request nor has he shown to this Court any other^{serviceruleor} the like, that he is entitled to retain Ns seniority by virtue of such rule etc., even where the delay is on his account. The petitioner was placed

¶103

10

¶104

BSB, J W.P(AT) No.1153 of 2021

¶105

\

¶106

in the same batch, but at the bottom of the list and not in the next batch with which he was trained. The memo dated 01.12.2006 reads as:

¶107

“Attention of the Inspr. Genl. of Police, Warangal Region and Dy. Inspr. Genl. of Police, Warangal Range, Warangal is^invitedto the references cited and they are informed that the^instructions issued in the Government Memo. 2nd cited in respect^offixation of seniority is applicable (i.e., those who were selected in one Notification and sent for training in different dates)^toallsuchSis of 1995 batch along with the 1995 1st batch of Sis of Police by interspersing them at their rightful places taking^PTCmarksinto account other things being equal.

¶108

(2) All the Range Dy.lnsprs.Genl.of Police and Inspector^General of Police, Guntur Range, Guntur are requested to fix the seniority of all such Sis of 1995 batch along with^the1995 1st batch of Sis of Police by interspersing them at their rightful places taking PTC marks into account.” (Reference 2nd cited IS Govt. Memo. No.30958/legai.1/A1/2005, dt; 13-7-2006 communicated with C.O. Endt. No. 1533/El/2005, dt;22-7-06)

¶109

Obviously, the reason behind the memo, dated 01.12.2006, is to secure equity among the members of the batchmates as they could not be trained at the same time. But, the delay in the training is because of the petitioner and in the impugned order, it was rightly^heldthat it was not the administrative delay. Moreover, the order,^dated 17.06.2010, was challenged for the first time before the Administrative^Tribunalby filing the petition on 16.09.2014 and after the delay in filing it was condoned, the petition was registered in the year 2017. Of course

¶110

11

¶111

BSB, J W.P(AT) No.1153 of 2021

¶112

dismissal of the previous petition O.A.No.2139 of 2010 for default, though on the same grounds is not a bar as the present^petition was filed challenging the proceedings passed in furtherance^oftheinterim order. The order challenged now is different from the one challenged in the previous petition. That apart, the persons likely to be affected by the relief sought by the petitioner have no opportunity to get their interest protected as none of them is a party to the proceeding^hereand it is not known how many of them would be affected. Principles of natural justice which are integral part of administrative law require notice to them also. Some of them might have been promoted basing^onthe seniority by now.

¶113