Arumilli Chandrasekhar Vs the Government of Andhra Pradesh

Arumilli Chandrasekhar, S/o. Narasimha Murthy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Inspector of Police, O/o. Bhimavaram 2 Town P.S., Government of Andhra Pradesh, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Guntur Dist., Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

The Director General of Police Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalgiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶16

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

Andhra Pradesh Police Recruitment Board, Reptd., by its Chairman Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining note file No. 125-24/Services I/AI/20I5 dated 26-9-2015 and consequently direct the respondents to accord seniority to the applicant in the category of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) on par with his co-recruiters/batch mates in pursuance of the notification 1993-94

¶20

f

¶21

, f'A

¶22

as was done in several of such cases Direct the respondents^totreatthe applicant as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) on par with hisco-recruitees, based upon his PTC marks and to grant notional seniority in the category of Circle Inspector of Police and accordingly promote him as DSP based upon such altered/revised seniority with all consequential benefits to hold the action of the respondent ts in not doing so and keeping the matter pending as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following order:

¶23

APHC010466582021

¶24

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

¶25

[3311]

¶26

Friday, the eleventh day of July, two thousand and twenty five

¶27

Present

¶28

The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi

¶29

Writ Petition fA.P.A.T) No.1624 of 2021

¶30

(O.A.No.561 of 2018)

¶31

Between:

¶32

Arumilli Chandrasekhar

¶33

...Petitioner

¶34

and

¶35

The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶36

...Respondents

¶37

Counsel for the petitioner:

¶38

1.J. Sudheer

¶39

Counsel for the respondents:

¶40

I.G.P. for Services I

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

2

¶43

BSB,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1624 of 2021

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

This petition is originally numbered as O.A.No.561 of 2018 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. After transfer of the case to this High Court, it is re-numbered as W.P. (A.T.) No.1624 of 2021. The following relief is sought in this petition:

¶46

"... i. to call for the records pertaining to note^{fileNo. 125-} 24/Services-l/AI/2015, dated 26.09.2015 and consequently direct the respondents to accord seniority to the applicant in the category of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) on par with his co-recruitees / batch-mates in pursuance of the notification 1993-94 as was done in several of such cases.

¶47

ii. to direct the respondents to treat the applicant^asSub- Inspector of Police (Civil) on par with his co-recruitees,^based upon his P.T.C. marks and to grant notional seniority^inthe category of Circle Inspector of Police and accordingly promote him as D.S.P. based on such altered / revised seniority^with all consequential benefits.

¶48

iii. to hold the action of the respondents in not doing^soand keeping the matter pending as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and to pass such other orders...”

¶49

The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

¶50

a. The petitioner applied to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) [in short ‘S.l.’], published under a notification vide R.C.No.9/R&T-111/93 dated 07.07.1993. The petitioner participated in the written examination and passed out. He was called to attend interview which

¶51

BSB, J W.P.(A.T.) No.1624 of 2021

¶52

was scheduled between 17.10.1994 to 18.10.1994. However, the interview was postponed and held on 08.12.1994 without intimating the petitioner due to which the petitioner was under bona fide impression that he was not selected. While so, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.445, Home (Police-C) Department, dated 28.12.1996, appointing J.Murali Krishna as S.l. in O.C. quota in Eluru Range in pursuance of the said notification. As the petitioner is meritorious than J.Murali Krishna, a fresh call for selection process was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as S.l. on 16.01.1998 and posted to Krishna District and subsequently promoted to the cadre of Circle Inspector of Police in the year 2010. The government^issued Memo. No.3119/Legal.1/2003-1, dated 17.03.2003 by fixing seniority of the candidates who were sent for training belatedly along with their corecruitees. On knowing the same, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru / respondent No.3 requesting to count his seniority on par with his corecruitees of 1993-94 notification, but the same was rejected vide proceedings C.No.96/A/2007, dated 07.07.2009 without any explanation or reason.

¶53

b. Aggrieved by the rejection proceedings, the petitioner filed O.A.No. 12142 of 2009 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an interim direction to the respondents on 17.12.2009 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. As no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed C.A.No.825 of 2010 in the said O.A. Thereafter, the authorities considered the representation and rejected the same on 11.06.2010.

¶54

c. ..Further, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3112 of 2010 before the Tribunal seeking direction to the respondents to prepare seniority list

¶55

4

¶56

BSB,. W.P.(A.T.) No,1624 of 202]

¶57

¶58

treating the petitioner along with his batch mates. The Tribunal passed an interim order dated 13.05.2010 directing the respondents to prepare seniority list of the petitioner’s batch of S.ls. based on the ranking given by P.T.C. by following Rule 15 of Andhra Pradesh Police (Subordinate Service) Rules, 1971. As the same direction was not implemented, the petitioner filed C.A.No.1039 of 2010 in the said O.A.

¶59

d. Subsequently, O.A.No.12142 of 2009 was disposed of by order dated 26.06.2012 recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not want to pursue the application further, as the petitioner got promoted to the cadre of Circle Inspector of Police.

¶60

e. The subject matter is still under consideration by the government under note file No.125-24/Services-l/AI/2015, dated 26.09.2015. In similar matters, the government issued G.O.Rt.No.226, Home (Ser.l) Department, dated 24.02.2015 giving the similar relief to G.Madhav, etc. f. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not granting the relief sought, this petition was filed. 3. The petitioner filed additional affidavit on 28.12.2024 enclosing representations of the petitioner addressed to the respondents dated 05.12.2019, 30.01.2020 and 21.08.2020. He also enclosed a letter dated 28.06.2021 addressed by a Member of Parliament to the then Home Minister of Andhra Pradesh regarding the subject issue. The government issued a memo dated 08.07.2021 issuing a copy to the respondent No.2 for taking further action on petitioner’s representations. The respondent No.2 sent a memo vide Rc.No.485/E 1/2021, dated 26.07.2021 to the D.I.G. of police, Eluru Range to examine the representation of the petitioner.

¶61

l:'

¶62

5

¶63

BSB,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1624 of 2021

¶64

The respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit^on21.04.2025 stating briefly as follows:

¶65

The respondent No.2 issued notification dated 19.07.1993 for recruitment to the post of S.l. in Eluru range, in which, the age of the applicants was fixed at 25 years. The age of the petitioner^as on 01.07.1993 was 25 years, 3 months. As such, he became ineligible for applying to the S.l. post. However, as there are several O.As pending before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the government issued orders enhancing the upper age limit from 25 years to 26 years. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the written examination and passed out. However, J. Murali Krishna filed O.As before^theTribunal seeking his appointment to the post of S.l. under the category of ‘O.C’. As such, the appointment of the petitioner was stalled^duetoorderof the Court. The petitioner was allowed to participate in the selection process of S.ls. consequent to the orders issued in O.As filed by J.Murali Krishna and some others. After completion of necessary formalities, the appointment order was issued to the petitioner on 16.01.1998. The petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Inspector of Police vide R.O.No.482 / 2010 (C.No.22/A/2010), dated 16.12.2010. The contention of the petitioner that conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.445, dated 28.12.1996 of Home (Police-C) Dept., regarding fixation of seniority are equally applicable to the petitioner in fixing the seniority is incorrect. In the government Memo. No.3119/Legal.1/^2003-1, dated 17.03.2003, it was clarified that the candidates^{whowereselected} as S.l. in 1991 selections in different spells and sent for training in different periods. The delay in sending them to training^{occurreddueto} wrong calculations of vacancies i.e., P.M., P.E. and S.P. quota by the

¶66

6

¶67

BSB, J W.P.(A.T.) No.1624 of 2021

k:

y

1

1 ,•

concerned authorities. As such, the case of the petitioner,^cannotbe compared with above cases.

¶73

/

¶74

The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit on 07.05.2025 stating briefly as follows:

¶75

a. Some of the selected candidates were sent for training prior to J.Murali Krishna and the petitioner. Just as J. Murali Krishna accepted a subsequent date of seniority from a later date, it^isnot necessary^that the petitioner should also accept the same. The petitioner^wassentfor training belatedly in the above circumstances and therefore, his seniority shall be reckoned based on the marks obtained^byhimduring the training, but not on the date of joining. In this regard, he^relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in A.Raghu Vs. Government^ofAndhra Pradesh and others \

¶76

b. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner^{isover aged} is misleading as the upper age limit is increased to^{26yearsfrom25.} Due to the failure of the respondents in understanding the legal position, petitioner’s promotion to Circle Inspector of Police^{wasdelayedand} consequently his career progress is curtailed. The^question of delay does not arise in as much as the matter is under consideration despite earlier rejection. The issue for consideration is whether^{theseniorityof} the petitioner shall be fixed in accordance with law^orwithwrong understanding of the respondents. The petitioner is^{entitledtotreatment} similar to others whose cases were considered in the^{earlierbatchesas} admitted by the respondents themselves. In view of^{thesefacts,thewrit} petition may be allowed.

¶77

1 (2015) 14 see 221

¶78

7

¶79

BSB, J W.P.(A.T.) No.1624 of 2021

¶80

It is settled law that the candidates appointed under^the same notification shall be treated in the same list of seniority as per the aggregate marks in the written test and the training^test. Just because the petitioner appointed belatedly due to the reasons not attributable to him, he shall not be denied the benefit of being considered along with the candidates appointed under the notification in respect of which he was appointed. The same issue was covered by O.A.No.3112^of2010. Though the same issue was also taken up in O.A.No.12142 of 2009, it was disposed of on 26.06.2012 recording the statement as the petitioner got promoted to the post of Circle Inspector of Police. Thereafter, the petitioner again started fighting for the same seniority by submitting representation after representation as his grievance has not been addressed till now and whereas he is entitled to seniority along with the candidates appointed in the same notification, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.

¶81

However, as reshuffling of the past seniority would cause prejudice to those who were already promoted to various levels and they were not heard, the relief granted to the petitioner shall not cause prejudice to them, and therefore, the seniority of the petitioner shall be fixed notionally at the bottom of the list pertaining^{tothecandidates} appointed in the notification 1993-94, for the purpose^{ofconsiderationof} his seniority in future promotions. Accordingly, necessary steps shall be taken by the respondents to fix his seniority in the^records.

¶82

8

¶83

BSBJ W.P.(A.T.) No.1624 of 2021

¶84

''w_.

¶85

¶86

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶87

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if anv. shall stand closed.

¶88