K.Vykunta Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

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 issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the seniority list of Head Constables in AR/SARCRL issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 108, Home (Ser.ll) Department, dated 6-9-2019^is

¶22

/

¶23

as Illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of. Articles 14, 16 ^ fSilci 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same i^h^’^hpld that the orders issued ■i in. G.O.Ms.No. 1, Home, dated 7-1-2016 -• C. are not applicable to the persons who were appointed prior to cut Of date i.e. 1-1-2008 like the petitioners and consequently, the petitioners are entitled for seniority from the date of their initial appointment in APSP in terms of Rule 15 (c) and 15 (e) of the Police Subordinate Service Rules and entitled for promotion, to the post of AR Sub Inspectors with all consequential and attendant benefits.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2niQ

¶25

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 suspend the operation of the impugned seniority list of Head Constables in A.R/SARCPL issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 108, Home (Ser.ll) Department, dated 6-9-2019, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners ; SRI A. TIRUPATHI GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 19482 OF 2019

¶28

Between:

¶29

S/o. Narayana, aged about 55 years, A.R.H.C.

¶30

326, District Armed Reserve, Anantapuram.

¶31

1. ^•.^h.®'JJJ3''ayudu, S/o. Bala Chennaiah, aged 56 Years,. A.R H C 821 District'Armed Reserve, Kadapa. , AA.r^.^.v.. i, ARHONTfL ^Sed 55 years, A.K.H.C.No. 168, District Armed Reserve, Kurnool.

¶32

...PETITIONERS

¶33

AND

¶34

State of Andhra Pradesh ^ X ’ Principal Secretary, Home

¶35

(Services -II) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶36

V

¶37

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

¶38

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range,^Eluru.

¶39

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool.

¶40

The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram, Anantapuram^District.

¶41

The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, Kadapa District.

¶42

The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶43

...RESPONDENTS

¶44

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 issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the seniority list of Head Constables in AR/SARCPL issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 117, Home (Senn) Department,^{dated20-9-2019} is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set-aside^thesameand hold that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 1, Home, dated 7-1-2016 are not applicable to the persons who were appointed prior^tocutofdate i.e. 1-12008 like the 'petitioners and consequently, the petitioners^are entitled for seniority from the date of their initial appointmentⁱⁿ APSP^{intermsofRule} 15 (c ) and 15 (e) of the Police Subordinate Service Rules and entitled for promotion to the 'post of AR Sub Inspectors with all consequential and attendant benefits.

¶45

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶46

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned seniority list of Head Constables in AR/SARCPL issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 117, Home (Ser.ll). Department, dated 20-9-2019, pending disposal of the^{aboveWritPetition.}

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI A. TIRUPATHI GOUD

¶48

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶49

WRIT PETITION NO: 19505 OF 2019

¶50

Between:

¶51

Shaik Mahabub, aged about 57 Years ARHC

¶52

1934, District Armed Reserve, Guntur.

¶53

K.L.Narayana, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 55 years, A.R.H.C,. 2176, District Armed Reserve, Nellore.

¶54

S.Yesob, S/o. Ramaiah,. aged 55 years, A.R. H.C. No 2120 District Armed Reserve, Prakasam District.

¶55

...PETITIONERS

¶56

AND

¶57

^ate of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary,^Home (Services -II) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶58

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur L/ISTrlCT.

¶59

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range,^Guntur.

¶60

The Superintendent of Police. Guntur, Guntur District.

¶61

The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, Nellore District.

¶62

The Superintendent of PolicerOngole, Prakasam District.

¶63

...RESPONDENTS

¶64

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 issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the seniority list of Head Constables in AR/SARCPL issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 118, Horrie (Ser.ll) Department, dated 20-9-2019 is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and hold that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 1, Home, dated 7-1-2016 are not applicable to the persons who were appointed prior to cut of date i.e. 1-12008 like the petitioners and consequently, the petitioners are entitled for seniority from the date of their initial appointment in APSP in terms of Rule 15 ( c) and 15 (e) of the Police Subordinate. Service Rules and entitled for

¶65

promotion to the post of AR Sub Inspectors with all^{consequentialand} attendant benefits.

¶66

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶67

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned seniority list, of Head Constables in AR/SARCPL issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 118, Home (Ser.ll) Department, dated 20-9-2019, pending disposal of the^{aboveWritPetition.}

¶68

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI A. TIRUPATHI GOUD

¶69

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶70

WRIT PETITION NO: 19507 OF 2019

¶71

Between:

¶72

Ch.Ramakrishna, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged about 59 Years, A.R.H.C. 2935, District Armed Reserve, East Godavari District.

¶73

G.Sri Rama Shekar, S/o. Ramana Murthy, aged 57 years,^A.R.H.C. 1972, District Armed Reserve, West Godavari District.

¶74

CH.Govinda Rajulu, S/o. Sankar Rao, aged 54 Years, A.R.H.C. 211, on deputation to Intelligence Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District,

¶75

D.Moulali, S/o. Khasim, aged 59 years, A.R.H.C. 668, District Armed Reserve, Vijayawada City. .

¶76

...PETITIONERS

¶77

AND

¶78

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home (Services -II) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,^Amaravathi.

¶79

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri,^Guntur District.

¶80

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range,^Eluru. 4. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Vijayawada,^Krishna District.

¶81

The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District^atKakinada.

¶82

The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at Eluru.

¶83

The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam.

¶84

...RESPONDENTS

¶85

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 issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the seniority list of Head Constables in AR/SARCPL issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 107, Home (Ser.ll) Department, dated 3-9-2019 is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside^thesameand ■hold that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 1, Home, dated 7-1-2016 are not applicable to the persons who were appointed prior^tocutofdate i.e. 1-12008 like the petitioners and consequently, the petitioners^areentitled for seniority from the date of their initial appointment in APSP in terms of Rule 15 (c) and 15 (e) of the Police Subordinate Service Rules and entitled for promotion to the post of AR Siib inspectors with all consequential and attendant benefits.

¶86

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶87

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned seniority list of Head Constables in AR/SARCPL issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 107, Home (Ser.ll) Department, dated 3-9-2019, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI A. TIRUPATHI GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶88

APHC010406092019

¶89

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

¶90

[3396]

¶91

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶92

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶93

PRESENT

¶94

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHfRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos. 19453. 19482, 19505 & 19507/2019

¶95

Writ Petition No.19453 of 2019:

¶96

Between:

¶97

1.K.VYKUNTA RAO, S/0. ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,^ARHC 2428, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶98

2.YELAMANCHILI SURYA RAO, S/0. LATE RAMULU, AGED 56 YEARS A.R.H.C. 252, DISTRICT ARMED, RESERVE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶99

3.T.RAMBABU, S/0. SUDARSHAN RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, A.R.H.C 1256, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE SRIKAKULANN.

¶100

...PETITIONER(S)

¶101

AND

¶102

1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (SER-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶103

2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶104

3.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶105

4.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶106

5.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶107

6.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶108

Writ Petition No.19482 of 2019: Between;

¶109

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶110

1.A.NAGESHWARA RAO, S/0. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS A.R.H.C. 326, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, ANANTAPURAM.

¶111

2.T.CHENNARAYUDU, S/0. BALA CHENNAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS,. A.R.H.C. 821, DISTRICTARMED RESERVE, KADAPA.

¶112

3.K.SIVA KUMAR REDDY, S/0. LATE ROSI REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS A.R.H.C.NO. 168, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, KURNOOL.

¶113

2

¶114

...PETITIONER(S)

¶115

AND

¶116

1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (SERVICES -II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶117

2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶118

3.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ELURU RANGE ELURU.

¶119

4.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL RANGE, KURNOOL.

¶120

5.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPURAM ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶121

6.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT 7.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S):

¶122

Writ Petition No.19505 of 2019: Between:

¶123

1.SHAIK MOULALI, S/0. SHAIK MAHABUB, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS A.R.H.C. 1934, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, GUNTUR.

¶124

2.K.L.NARAYANA, S/0. VENKATAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, ARHC 2176, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, NELLORE.

¶125

3.S.YESOB, S/0. RAMAIAH,. AGED 55 YEARS, A.R. H.C. NO 2120 DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S)

¶126

AND

¶127

1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (SERVICES -II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI..

¶128

2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶129

3.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GUNTUR RANGE GUNTUR.

¶130

4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 5.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶131

6.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S);

¶132

Writ Petition No.19507 of 2019:

¶133

Between:

¶134

1.CH.RAMAKRISHNA, S/0. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 59

¶135

3

¶136

YEARS, A.R.H.C. 2935, DiSTRICT ARMED RESERVE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶137

2.G.SRI RAMA SHEKAR, S/0. RAMANA MURTHY, AGED 57 YEARS, A.R.H.C. 1972, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶138

3.CH.GOVINDA RAJULU, S/0. SANKAR RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, A.R.H.C. 211, ON DEPUTATION TO INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT,

¶139

4.D.MOULALI, S/0. KHASIM, AGED 59 YEARS, A.R.H.C. 668, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, VIJAYAWADA CITY.

¶140

...PETITIONER(S)

¶141

1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (SERVICES -II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶142

2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶143

3.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ELURU RANGE, ELURU.

¶144

4.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA CITY, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶145

5.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA.

¶146

6.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU.

¶147

7.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM.

¶148

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶149

Counsel for the Petitioner{S):

¶150

1.ATIRUPATHIGOUD

¶151

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶152

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶153

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶154

The Court made the following:

¶155

COMMON ORDER:

¶156

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the application of G.O.Ms.No.1, Home, dated 07.01.2016 to the Petitioners, despite they entered A.R.Service from APSP much prior to the cut^{ofdateoftheG.Oi.e.}

¶157

4

¶158

01.01.2008 and consequently issuance of G.O.Ms.No.107, Home (Ser.ll) Department, dated 03.09.2019 by giving notional seniority to the direct recruities of A.R, finalization of seniority ignoring the rights of the Petitioners regarding their seniority from the date of their initial appointment in APSP and seeking a declaration that they are entitled for promotions as A.R SubInspectors.

¶159

Since the issue involved in these petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶160

Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel representing Sri A.Tirupathi Goud, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Gujjarlapudi Raju, learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

¶161

Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that. Petitioners herein are working as Head Constables in Armed Reserve (A.R) Police. They work under A.P.P.S.Service Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.1263, dated 26.08.1959. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has vehemently argued that, a right which is accrued in favour of the Petitioners cannot be wiped out by way of amendment after 18 years of their entry into A.R. It^is further submitted that the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 05.10.1999 incorporating a provision for appointment of A.P.S.P.Constables as Armed Reserve Police. (ii) Learned counsel for the Petitioners would further submit that, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.299, learned Director General of Police had clarified vide Memo dated 04.05.2001 regarding the procedure to be followed for

¶162

5

¶163

I

¶164

transfer of A.P.S.P.Constable as A.R.Constable and their seniority, wherein, it

¶165

is clearly held as follows;

¶166

“9. SENIORITY OF THE PCs OF APSP TRANSFERRED TO DAR/CAR/SAR.

¶167

The seniority of the PCs of APSP selected and transferred to DAR/CAR/SAR will be fixed with reference to the date of their first appointment in APSP Units as their transferee to DAR/CAR/SAR are ordered on administrative grounds and under specific provisions contained in the special rules covering the conditions of appointment^{bytransferinthe} Police force.

¶168

They are also eligible to appear for promotion tests^conductedfor AR PCS for promotion to the posts of HCs in district^{AR/CAR/SARafter} completing the period of probation as PCs in DAR/CAR/SAR.^Theperiodof service rendered by the PCs in APSP shall also be countered^forthe purpose of promotion tests to the text higher post."

¶169

(iii) Learned counsel for the Petitioners finally would^{submitthatthe} orders passed in earlier litigation between APSP (PC)^{andA.R(D)doesnot} come in the way of this Court for giving the clarity^{regardingapplicabilityof} G.O.Ms.No.1 to the case of the Petitioners.

¶170

submit 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services-I^would that the plea of the Petitioners regarding the seniority^{fromthedateoftheir} initial appointment was unturned by the Tribunal in^O.A.No.2352 of 2007 stating that Rule 15(e) is applicable and it was upheld by the Hon’ble Composite High Court of A.P., Hyderabad vide Common Order in W.P.Nos.21610 of 2007 and Batch, dated 08.10.2013,^wherein the Court directed the Government to consider the feasibility of evolving a formula to extend the benefit of weightage of service rendered^{bytheA.P.S.P(PC)i.e.,} the Constables appointed to A.R by transfer from Special^{Battalionsubjectto}

¶171

6

¶172

certain limit, duly taking into account the interests of Constables appointed through direct recruitment and other modes over the period.

¶173

(ii) Learned Government Pleader would further submit that, in pursuance of such orders. Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 07.01.2016 and it is applicable to the Petitioners. Learned Government Pleader would finally submit that, in the light of^{theorderofthisCourt} in W.P.No.14013 of 2019, dated 11.02.2020, wherein, the Court categorically held that, regarding the seniority Rule 15(e) is only applicable. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petitions.

¶174

Refuting the submissions of learned Government Pleader, learned counsel for the Petitioners, in reply, would submit that, they are not challenging the validity of G.O.Ms.No.1 in these petitions. The query raised in these petitions is as to the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1 to the case of the Petitioners, despite the G.O. is vivid regarding the effective date i.e.. 01.01.2008. Whereas the Petitioners entered in A.R.Service during the period from 2001 to 2005 and also promoted as Head Constables^inA.R.

¶175

Now the point that would emerge for determination is; Whether G.O.Ms.No.1, Home, dated 07.01.2016, is applicable^tothe case of the Petitioners regarding seniority?

¶176

Admittedly, Petitioners herein were initially appointed^asConstables in A.P.S.P.Battalion during the period from 1983 to 1987. They have joined as Constables in A.R during 2001 to 2005 on conversion. The Petitioners belong to Anantapur, Kadapa, Kurnool, Prakasam, Krishna, West Godavari, East

¶177

1

¶178

Godavari, Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam Districts. It^is also^notin dispute that the Petitioners were promoted as Head Constables in A.R during 2008 to 2012 and have been working as such. The service conditions of the Petitioners are governed by A.P.P.Subordinate Service Rules (Special Rules) notified in G.O.Ms.No.1263, dated 26.08.1959.

¶179

The entry of the Petitioners into A.R is by virtue of an amendment brought to the Service Rules by G.O.Ms.No.299 Home (Police Department), dated 05.10.1999. It is so relevant to examine the object and reasons behind to bring such an amendment to the Service Rules. G.O.Ms.No.299,^dated 05.10.1999 and also the Memo issued by the Director^General of Police relating to clarification as to the point of the seniority^{aftertheirentryinto} A.R.Service.

¶180

For ready reference, G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 05.10.1999 is extracted hereunder:

¶181

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT

¶182

Police Department - Andhra Pradesh Special Police - Certain Amendments for the method of Recruitment in DAR/SAR/CPLamendments for the method of Recruitment of Police^Constablesin DAR/CAR/SAR-Orders issued.

¶183

Home Police Department

¶184

GO Ms. No.299 Dated: 05.10.1999

¶185

Read the following:1) GO Ms. No. 270 Home (Police) Department dtd. 02.04.1999.

¶186

From the DG & IGP Rc.No. 314/R&T (Admn.2)/97, dtd. 19.02.1999.

★

8

c

Order: The Director & Inspector General of Police, Andhra^Pradesh, Hyderabad in the ref 2nd read above, the reported that^atpresent 85% force of Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions being deployed in Telangana Districts and Hyderabad City^wherethere is serious extremist and L&O problem. Hyderabad City being communally hypersensitive requires deployment of large components of Armed Forces to ineet security and L&O requirements. Acute shortage of Armed Forces has been necessitating continuous deployment of Andhra Pradesh Special Police in these areas for long spells without relief to the men deployed. The un-duly long deployment is leading to^{seriousadverse} affect on the Andhra Pradesh police men and they are^notableto attend to their domestic obligations. In order to relieve^theAndhra Pradesh Special Police men from continuous tension^andlongerout door duties, the Director General & Inspector General^ofPolicehas proposed to fill-up the posts of Police Cumtables in^{DistrictAnned} Reserve/City Armed Reserve/Special Armed Reserve/Central^Police lines by transfer from Andhra Pradesh Special Police Constables who have completed 10 years of service and "STRICTLY^ON SENORITY BASIS. BY DISPENSING WITH THE DIRECT RECURITMENT TO THE POST OF POLICE CONSTABLES IN DAR/CAR/SAR CPL". 2) The Government after careful examination of the^{matter,accept} that proposal of the Director General and Inspector^{GeneralofPolice} and direct that direct Recruitment to the posts of^{PoliceConstablesin} District Armed Reserve/City Armed Reserve/Special Armed Reserve/Central Police lines dispensed with the immediate^effectand that the posts of Police Constable in District Armed^Resen/e/City Armed Reserve/Special Armed Reserve/Central Potice^{tinesfilled,up} by transfer of Police Constables of Andhra Pradesh^{SpecialPolice} Battalions who have completed 10 years of service. 3) The following notification will be published in^{theextraordinary} issue of the Andhra Pradesh gdzette. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the provision^toarticle 309 of the constitution of India and of all other powers^hereunto enabling, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following amendments to the special rules for the Andhra^Pradesh Police Subordinate service issued in GO Ms.No. 1263^and G.A (Rules) department dated the 26th day of Aug. 1959^asamended from time to time.

¶191

AMENDMENT

¶192

The said rules is in Annexure-I under "Class-1 under Category 6 (b) Constables District Armed Reserve, City^Armed Reserve, Head Quarters and Special Armed Reserve, Central^Police lines) In Column (1) and the corresponding / in Column^2.3thereof, the following shall be substituted namely:-

¶193

4

¶194

9

¶195

Class & Category Method of appointment Limitation Appointing Authority

¶196

1 Class-1	2 By Transfer from	4 Inmuffasil,theSupdt.
Category 6(b)	Andhra Pradesh	of Police concerned in
Constables (District armed Reserve,	Special Police Battalions	Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada Cities, the
City armed Reserve, Head		Commissioner of Police concerned and in
quarters and Special armed		Hyderabad City, the Dy.Commissioner of Police
Reserve, Central		City Armed Reserves, Head Quarters, Hyd City
Police lines)		allotment from State Level Recruitment Board.

¶197

In the said rules, in Annexure-ll under Class-ll in Col.I for entries against Category 6 (b) (Constables (District Armed Reserve, City Armed Reserve, Head Quarters and Special Armed Reserve, Central Police lines) for the corresponding entries in Col. I, II & III thereof, the following shall be substituted Namely:-

¶198

Class & Category Appointing Authority	Age limit for appointment otherwise than promotion	Qualification
Class-I Category 6(b) Constables (District armed Reserve, City armed Reserve, Head quarters and Special armed Reserve, Central Police lines)	Nil	Police Constables of Andhra Pradesh Special Police who have completed (10) years of service are eligible forappointment as Police Constables in Constables (DistrictArmed Reserve, City Armed Reserve, Head Quarters and Special Armed Reserve, Central Police Lines) by recommendation of the Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions and subject to full-filling the local candidature of the respective district (or)unit.

¶199

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

¶200

10

¶201

The particulars of the Petitioners, which are crucial, are mentioned

¶202

herein in a tabular form:

¶203

Case No.	Name of the	Age	Native District	Entry	into the	category
	Petitioner			APSP	ARPC	ARHC
W.P.No.19453 of 2019	K.Vykunta Rao	56	Visakhapatnam	1983	2005	24.10.10
	Y.Surya Rao	56	Visakhapatnam	1983	2001	01.07.08
	T.Rambabu	58	Srikakulam	1983	2002	19.05.09
W.P.No.19482 of 2019	A.Nageswara Rao	55	Anantapuramu	1987	2002	2010
	T.Chennarayudu	56	Kadapa	1983	2004	2010
	K.Siva Kumar Reddy	55	Kurnool	1983	2003	2010
W.P.No.19505 of 2019	Shaik Moulali	57	Prakasam	1983	2004	01.11.11
	K.L.Narayana	55	Prakasam	1985	2001	23.03.12
	S.Yesob	55	Prakasam	1983	2005	04.04.11
W.P.No.19507 of 2019	Ch.Ramakrishna	59	East Godavari	1983	2001	18.07.08
	G.Srirama Sekhar	57	West Godavari	1983	2001	10.06.09
	Ch.Govindarajulu	54	Krishna	1983	2004	08.10.08
	D.Moulali	59	Vijayawada	1983	2004	21.07.10

¶204

Before taking a decision over this issue, it is essential to look into the

¶205

earlier litigations on the subject seniority and the same is mentioned below:

¶206

In the year 2007, direct recruities of A.R filed O.A.No.2352 of 2007 before the APAT, Hyderabad questioning the higher seniority^tothePolice Constables appointed by transfer in A.R from APSP Battalions. Similarly, some of the O.As were also filed before the APAT. The learned Tribunal disposed of O.A.No.2352 of 2007 vide Order dated 23.08.2007 directing to

¶207

11

¶208

determine the seniority of the unofficial respondents^{thereinfromthedateof} their confirmation in the service of DAR in terms of^{Rule15(e)oftheService} the orders of the Tribunal, the Government filed Rules. Aggrieved by W.P.No.24847 of 2007 before the Composite High Court of A.P and^someof the aggrieved persons also filed Writ Petitions against^{thesimilarorders.The} vide Common Order dated 08.10.2012. upheld the orders^passed High Court by the Tribunal in the respective O.As and also directing the Government to consider the feasibility of evolving a formula to extend^{thebenefitofweightage} of service rendered by the Constables appointed to AR by transfer from certain limit, duly taking into account the Sepcial Battalions, subject to interests of the Constables appointed through direct recruitment^andother modes over the period. In obedience to the said orders,^{theGovernmenthave} issued G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 07.01.2016. Aggrieved by the said G.O., some^of of the Petitioners also approached the the APSP Constables including some Tribunal and filed O.A.No.317 of 2006 and the same was dismissed on 04.04.2023. While so the convertee constables filed O.A.No.954 of 2018 before the Tribunal to send them for pre-promotional^{training,wherein,the} Tribunal directed the Respondents therein not to proceed with the prepromotional training without finalizing the seniority. Again the Petitioners herein filed W.P.No.8857 of 2019 before this Court^{fornon-implementationof} O.A.No.954 of 2018, wherein, this Court directed the the orders passed in within a period of three months. Respondents to complete the process of the Petitioners herein filed W.P.No.14013 of 2019^not Subsequently, some

¶209

12

¶210

to conduct pre-promotional training for ARHCs until finalization of the seniority list. This Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.1 is not applicable to them. 13. In the light of the Orders passed by a Coordinate Bench^ofthisCourt and also the Hon’ble Division Bench judgments apart from the Orders passed by A.P.A.T, one thing is clear so far. The Orders would show that, in case of transfer of A.P.S.P.Police Constable as A.R Police Constable, seniority shall be reckoned from the date of entry as A.R subject to calculation of their past service in A.P.S.P as per G.O.Ms.No.1. It is pertinent to mention that, at every stage. Courts protected the right of the persons and directed the authorities not to revert the persons till the fixation^offormula. 14. It is needful to mention that Section 15(e) is not in existence. It is beneficial to extract Rules 15(c) and 15(e), which^readasunder:

¶211

“Rule 15(c): The transfer of a person from one class^or category of the service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority^and the seniority of person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the date of his first appointment to class or category from which he was transferred. Where any difficulty^or doubt arises in applying this sub-rule, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority.

¶212

Rule 15(e): The seniority of qualified Special Policemen appointed by transfer as Constables in this service shall be determined by the date of their first appointment in^thisservice for purposes of confirmation in vacancies in this service.”

¶213

In the earlier litigation. Courts categorically held that Rule 15(e) is applicable but not Rule 15(c) as decided by A.P.A.T in O.A.No.2352 of 2007,

¶214

13

¶215

dated 23.08.2007 which was upheld by the Composite High Court of A.P in W.P.No.21610 of 2007 and Batch dated 08.10.2013, which was reiterated in W.P.No.14013 of 2019, dated 11.02.2020 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Hence, the prayer regarding applicability Rule 15(c) to the Petitioners falls to ground.

¶216

Be that as it may, this Court would like to examine the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1 to the present Petitioners. It is profitable to extract G.O.Ms.No.1, which reads as follows:

¶217

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶218

ABSTRACT

¶219

HOME (LEGAL.II) DEPARTMENT Police Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules Fixation of seniority of Police Constables in AR/SARCPL Police Constables who are appointed by transfer (by Conversion) from APSP in terms of orders dated 8.10.2013 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in .WP.No.26765/2011 and batch cases by applying weightage formula for the purpose of further promotion in Armed Reserve Adhoc Rules Orders Issued.

¶220

HOME (LEGAL.II) DEPARTMENT

¶221

G.O.MS.No. 1 Dated: 07-01-2016 Read the following:-

¶222

G.O. Ms. No. 1263 General Administration (Rules) Dept, dated 2608-1959.

¶223

G.O.Ms.No. 270 Home Department, dated 2-4-1990.

¶224

G.O.Ms.No. 299. (Home Police. D) Department, dated^5-10-1999.

¶225

G.O.Ms.No. 329 Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 28-12-2010. 5. APAT order dated 9-9-2011 in O.A.No. 10216/2008 and other cases.

¶226

G.O. Ms. No. 54, Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 18-02-2013.

¶227

High Court order dated 08-10-2013 in W.P. Nos. 26765/2011 and batch cases.

¶228

14

¶229

A'

¶230

From the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Lr.Rc.No.59/E3/2014, dated 22-2-2014 & 09-12-2015.

¶231

From the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Lr.Rc.No.59/E3/2014, dated 22-2-2014 & 09-12-2015. 9. Opinion of the Government Pleader, High Court of AP, Hyderabad, dated 13-10-2015. *****

¶232

ORDER:

¶233

In the letters 8'^ read above, the Director General^ofPolice, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, has stated that the Government^intheG.O. read above, Issued Police Sub-Ordinate Service Rules from^{therankofPolice} Constable to Sub-Inspector for different organizations^{inPoliceDepartment} and the Provisions were made for fixation of seniority^{totheindividualswho} were appointed by transfer as follows:-

¶234

Rule 15 (c): "The transfer of a person from one class^{orcategoryofthe} service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority and the seniority of person so transferred^{shallbedeterminedwith} reference to the date of his first appointment to class or category from which he i/i/as transferred. Where any difficulty or doubt arisesⁱⁿ applying this sub-rule, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority". Rule 15 (e).: "The seniority of qualified Special Policemen^appointedby transfer as Constables In this service shall be determined by the date of their first appointment in this service for purposes of confirmation In vacancies in this service". 2. In the reference 2"'^ read above, an amendment i/vas issued to G.O.Ms. No. 1263 General Administration (Rules) Department,^dated26-8- 1959 by making a provision for appointment by transfer^{ofeligiblePolice} Constables to District Armed Reserve and Cite Armed Reserve from Special Police Battalions and in the G.Os 3'^ and 4‘^^{readabove,theterms} and conditions for such appointment, by transfer were^specified.

¶235

Seniority of PCs(AR) / PCs (SAR CPL) who were appointed^by transfer from PCs (APSP) was fixed from the date of^{initialappointments} PC (APSP) by following the Rule 15(c) in all Districts. However, in the year 2008, direct recruit ARPCs and convertee ARPCs of Srikakulam and Vizianagaram Districts assailed the system of following^{Rule15(c)initially} in the APAT and subsequently in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and obtained “Status-Quo@ orders.

¶236

He has also stated that Sri Lundu Krishna Rao direct^recruitARPC& others of Srikakulam District filed O.A.No. 10216/2008 against the seniority list prepared by SP, Srikakulam District as per flute^{15(c)oftheAndhra} Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules. The APAT^{initsordersdt.9-9-} 2011 have directed the respondents to count the seniority^{oftheunofficial} respondents In terms of Rule 15 (e) of the AP Police^{SubordinateService} Rules. Against the above APAT orders, the Convertee^PCs (AR) of Srikakulam District i.e., Sri P.Kokanadham, PC 183^{ofSrikakulamDistrict} and others filed the WP No.26765/2011 in the High Court^{tosetasidethe} above APAT Orders dated 9-9-2011 in O.A.No.10216/2008.

¶237

15

¶238

A

¶239

The High Court on 14-10-2011 in WP No. 26765/2011 have^issued orders to maintain Status quo

¶240

Further, Sri Jummu Krishna, direct recruit AR PC & Others of Vizianagaram District fiied an O.A.No. 2857/2008 in the APAT against the seniority iist prepared by the Superintendent of Poiice, Viziariagaram District as per Ruie 15 (c) of the AP Poiice Subordinate^{ServiceRotesvide} Memo No. 625/A1/2008, dated 8-3-2008. The APAT in its^{Ordersdated3-} 2-2012 directing the respondents to take further action regarding seniority of the unofficiai respondents after the disposal of^{theWPNo.24847/2007} (which was fiied by the Medak District) in the erstwhiie State of AP pending before the High Court on the basis of the Judgment of the High Court

¶241

The Hon'bie High Court disposed the .WP.Nos. 21610/2007, 24847/2007, 26765/2011, 31595/2012, the 33217/2012 and 18254/2013 by upholding the above APAT orders and directed the Government^toconsider the feasibiiity of evotving a formuia to extend the benefit of weightage of service rendered by the ARPCS who were appointed by^transferfrom APSP subject to certain iimit, duty taking the interest^{oftheConstabies} appointed by direct recruitment or other modes over the period and titi such time the formula is evolved, the reversion which are^{warrantedonaccount} of implementation of the orders passed by the Tribunal shall stand stayed.

¶242

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has requested to approve the following formula for fixation of seniority with effect from 1-1-2008 since the litigation started from 1-1-2008 in respect of APPCS and SARCPL PCs who were appointed by transfer^fromtheAPSP by taking into consideration of the orders of the Hon'bie High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad: "Shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service rendered as PC In APSP, subject to a maximum^ofseven years. For the purpose of calculation of weightage under this clause, fractions, if any are to be Ignored.”

¶243

Date of fixation of seniority: If length of service^{asPCAPSPisabove} 13 years and less than 14 years, then weightage is 6 years. If the date of appointment as PCAR is 18-01-2014 then date of fixation of seniority is 18-01-2008.

¶244

Government after careful examination of the entire matter hereby approved the following formula as proposed by the Director^Generalof Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for fixation of seniority in respect of APPCs and SARCPL PCs appointed by transfer from the^APSP.

¶245

The adhoc Rule hereby made shall be deemed to have^come into force with effect from 01-01-2008. 11. Accordingly, the following notification is published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette:

¶246

16

¶247

NOTIFICATION

¶248

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 1263 General Administration (Rules) Department, dated: 26-8-1959 as amended from to time makes the following Adhoc Rule:-the Governor of Andhra Ad-HOC RULF The seniority of Police Constables in Armed Reserve, appointed bv transfer from Special Police Battalions shall be fixed giving weightage of one year of service for every completed two years of service rendered as Police Constables in Special Battalions, subject to a maximum of seven years."

¶249

Note. For the purpose of calculation of weightage under this clause fractions, if any are to be ignored..

¶250

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad shall take further necessary action in the matter.

¶251

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

¶252

Dr. MANMOHAN SINGH

¶253

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FAC)"

¶254

A fair look at the G.O referred to supra would show that, there IS no ambiguity about the effective date mentioned. Doubtlessly G.O.Ms.No. 1 was issued on 07.01.2016 w.e.f 01.01.2008. At this juncture it is contextual to look into the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Courts of Telangana and this Court in W.P.Nos.4636 of 2018 and its batch dated 25.01.2022 and 15291 of 2022 & Batch, dated 03.10.2023 respectively.

¶255

j^P.No.4636 of 2018 & Batch of High Court of Telangana fPivision Bench) between D Swamy Joshua & Others vs. State of Telannana A Others, dated 25.01.2022:

¶256

Petitioners in this case were initially appointed as PCs in A.P.S.P under service rules vide G.O.Ms.No.1263. After completing ten years of service, they opted for transfer and have become members of A.R. Service rules were

¶257

17

¶258

amended for PC (Civil) vide G.O.Ms.No.374, dated 14.12.1999. As there was a provision for transfer to Civil Police from AR(PC), Petitioners were transferred to Civil Police. State has amended said rule by G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.02.2018 and for the first time introduced a weightage formula to the effect that, in case of conversion from PCs (AR, SARCPL) to Police (Civil) the individual shall be given weightage of one year for every completed two years of service rendered in his parent wing subject to a^{maximumofsevenyears.} 19. Petitioners who are aggrieved by the said amendment,^preferredthe batch of cases. Rule is silent about retrospective^effect. The Court, after scrutinizing the issue thoroughly by placing reliance^{onthejudgmentsofthe} Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, categorically held^{that,alltheseConstables} who have come prior to 06.02.2018 are entitled for grant^ofseniority and^all those who have come on transfer after 06.02.2018 shall be governed by the amended recruitment rules. The cases referred and the analogy that was drawn, points raised regarding applicability of the^{amendment,werediscussed} at length and after extracting relevant discussion and findings in W.P.No.21610 of 2007, dated 08.10.2013, the Division Bench of High Court of Telangana in W.P.Nos.4636 of 2018 & Batch, dated 25.01.2022,^heldatPara No.49 as follows:

¶259

‘‘49. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the Recruitment Rules provided for transfer only to the^extentof 10% posts, the petitioners at the relevant point of^timeoptedfor transfer to Civil Police and they would have certainly^received promotions by now in the parent organisation. The Amendment in the Recruitment Rules, I.e., G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.08.2018 has been introduced and for the first time, a

¶260

weightage formula has been introduced by the State Government under the Recruitment Rules governing the field, meaning thereby, wiping the past seniority and therefore, once a right which has accrued in favour of the petitioners cannot be wiped out by the impugned Amendment and the Amendment is certainly not at all applicable with retrospective effect. The question of depriving the petitioners by making the Amendment applicable with retrospective effect does not arise. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that^all those constables who have come prior to 06.02.2018 are certainly entitled for grant of seniority and all those constables who have come on transfer after 06.02.2018 shall be governed by the Amended Recruitment Rules. 20. Coming to the facts of the present case, the language employed in G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 06.02.2018, is very same in G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 07.01.2016. The only difference is G.O.Ms.No.1 is meant for the persons who converted as AR (PC) from APSP Battalion, whereas, G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.02.2018 issued by Telangana State is for conversion of AR (PC) as Civil Police. In G.O.Ms.No.19, retrospective operation of G.O is absent, whereas, G.O.Ms.No.1 shows that it is w.e.f 01.01.2008. Such being the case, the same analogy is applicable to the present set of facts, since the Petitioners herein have become AR (PCs) much prior to the date of retrospective effect.

¶261

W.P.No.15291 of 2022 & Batch of High Court of A.P.fDivision Bench) between A.Sow Reddy vs. State of A.P, dated 03.10.2023:

¶262

It is a case where Petitioners were initially appointed^{asP.CinA.Rand} thereafter converted as Police Constables (Civil). Their initial appointment is under Service rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.1263, General^{Administration} (Rules) Department, dated 26.08.1959. Subsequently, a provision was made for appointment of Police Constables AR, City AR and Special AR by transfer of PC (Civil) specifying cadre strength and eligibility being one should

¶263

19

¶264

complete the age of 40 years vide G.O.Ms.No.194, Home (Police-B) Department, dated 22.07.1999. While so, the D.G.P., while referring to the judgment of the Composite High Court of A.P., in W.P.No.26865^of2011and Batch, made certain recommendations for amendment of Rules. In pursuance of such order. Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.95 Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 31.05.2017 to the effect that the seniority in respect of P.Cs of (Civil) appointed by transfer from AR / SAR CPL shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years^{ofservicerenderedas} PC (AR / SAP CPL) (Men) subject to a maximum of seven years. For the purpose of calculations, fractions if any are to be ignored.

¶265

Challenging the said amendment and its applicability. Writ Petitions were preferred. The Writ Petitions were allowed holding^{thatthePetitioners} expressed their willingness for being appointed as PCs (Civil) in terms of unamended rules, as such, applying the amended rule, is a clear infraction of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India.

¶266

The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.15291 of 2022 & Batch, dated 03.10.2023 held as follows:

¶267

“17. Admittedly, all the writ petitioners were initially appointed as Armed Reserve Police Constables during the years spreading over 1989 to 1998. It is absolutely not in controversy that as per the unamended Rule 10 (ii) (ii), the seniority would have to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment in the former category i.e., Armed Reserve Police Constable. The amended Rule 10 (Ii) (ii) came into effect by virtue of the notification issued by the^{StateGovernmentvide} G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 31.05.2017. The unamended and amended position of Rule 10 (ii) (ii) is as follows:

¶268

. 20

¶269

“Unamended Rule:

¶270

The seniority of police constables of Armed reserve or Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions transferred to this service shall be determined with reference to their date of first appointment in the former category.

¶271

Amended Rule: Rule 10 (ii) (li):

¶272

The seniority in respect of PCs of (Civil) (Men) appointed by transfer (Conversion) from PCs (AR/SAR CPL) (Men) shall be fixed as follows:

¶273

“shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service rendered as PC (AR/SAR CPL) (Men), subject to a maximum of seven years.

¶274

Note: For the purpose of calculation of weightage under this clause fractions, If any are to be Ignored.”

¶275

¶276

In the case of Sub-Inspector Rooplal and another vs. LT.Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at

¶277

Paragraph

¶278

Nos. 15 and 16, held as follows:

¶279

“15. We will now take up the question whether the appellants are entitled to count their service rendered by them as Sub-Inspector in the BSF for the purpose of their seniority after absorption as Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police or not. We have already^{noticedthefactthat} It is pursuant to the needs of Delhi Police that these officials were deputed to Delhi Police from the BSF following the procedure laid down in Rule 5(h) of the Rules and subsequently absorbed as contemplated under the said Rules. It is also not in dispute that at some point of time in the BSF, the appellants' services were regularised in the post of SubInspectors and they were transferred as regularly appointed SubInspectors to Delhi Police force. Therefore, on being^absorbedinan equivalent cadre in the transferred post, we find no reason why these transferred officials should not be permitted to count^{theirserviceInthe} parent department. At any rate, this question is not res Integra and is squarely covered by the ratio of judgments of this^{Courtinmorethan} one case. Since the earlier Bench of the tribunal relied upon Madhavan's case to give relief to the deputationists, we will first consider the law laid down by this Court in Madhavan's case (supra).

¶280

1 see 644

¶281

21

¶282

T\hs Court in that ease while considering a similar question, came to the following conclusion:

¶283

"We may examine the question from a different point^ofview. There is 'not-much difference between deputation and transfer. Indeed, when a deputationist is permanently absorbed in the CBI, he is under the rules appointed^oh transfer. In other words, deputation may be regarded^as a transfer from one government department to another. It will be against all rules of service jurisprudence, if a government servant holding a particular post is transferred to^thesameor an equivalent post in another government department, the period of his service in the post before his transfer^isnot taken Into consideration in computing his seniority in the transferred post. The transfer cannot wipe out his length of service in the post from which he has been transferred.^Ithas been observed by this Court that it is a just and wholesome principle commonly applied where persons from different sources are drafted to serve in a new service that their pre existing total length of service in the parent department should be respected and presented by taking the same^into account in determining their ranking in the new service cadre. See R.S. Mokashi and Ors, v. I.M. Menon and Ors., [1982] 1 see 379 and Wing Commander J, Kumar V. Union of India and Ors., [1982] 3 SCR 453."

¶284

Similar Is the view taken by this Court in the^{casesofK.S.Mokashi} and Ors. and Wing Commander J, Kumar (supra) which judgments have been followed by This Court in Madhavan's case. Hence, we do not think it is necessary for us to deal in detail as to the view taken by this Court in those judgments. Applying the principles^{laiddowninthe} above referred cases, we hold the appellants are entitled^tocountthe substantive service rendered by them in the post of Sub-Inspector in the BSF while counting their service in the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) In Delhi Police force. ”

¶285

In the case of State of Gujarat and another vs.Raman^LaiKeshavLai Soni and others^, a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 6, 22, 24, 26, 48, 51 and 52, held as follows;

¶286

“6. At this juncture, we may mention that prior to^{theenactmentof} the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, there were in force^intheState of Gujarat the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, the Bombay Local Boards Act, 1923, the Bombay District Municipal^Act, 1901

^ 1983) 2 see 33

22

I

and the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1958 and the Bombay Local Boards^Act, 1923 are repealed by Secs. 325 and 326 of the Gujarat^Village Panchayats Act, 1961. A local area declared to be a^villageunder the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and a Panchayat constituted under that Act, are deemed to be gram and panchayat under the Gujarat Gram Panchayats Act. 1961. The Secretaries and all officers and servants under the employment^ofthe old village Panchayats are to be Secretaries, officers^{andservantsof} the new gram panchayats. A District Local Board constituted under the Bombay Local Boards Act for a local area^istostand dissolved. All property which stood vested in the district local board P immediately before the appointed day Is to^bedeemed transferred to the district panchayat constituted for^{thelocalarea,} called the successor panchayat. All officers and servants^inthe employment of the District Local Board are similarly^tobedeemed transferred to the service of the successor panchayat.^Wherelocal areas are declared to be grams or nagars under Sec. 9 of the Gujarat Gram Panchayats Act, 1961 and such areas correspond to the limits of a municipal district or municipal^{boroughunderthe} Bombay District Municipal Act or Bombay Municipal Borough^Act, it is provided by Sec. 307 of the Gujarat Panchayats^Actthatthe municipality previously functioning in such local area^shallcease to exist and that the councilors of such municipality^{shallconstitute} an interim gram panchayat or interim nagar panchayat^asthecase may be for the gram or nagar. It is also provided that^allofficers and servants in the employment of the municipality^immediately before the date of declaration of the local areas as gram or nagar, shall be officers and Servants of the interim panchayat.

¶291

Subject to the rules made under Sec. 203, appointment^to posts In the panchayat service. Sec. 205 provides,^shallbemade by direct recruitment by promotion or by transfer of^amemberof the State service to the panchayat service. Sec. 206^obligesthe State Government by general or special order to allocate^tothe panchayat service:

¶292

"(i) such number of officers and servants out of the^{staffallottedor} transferred to a panchayat under sections (157, 158^and325)asit may deem fit,

¶293

(ia) all officers and servants of the municipalities^{dissolvedunder} Sec. 307,

¶294

(ii) all officers and servants in the service of district^localboards and district school boards immediately before their^dissolution under this Act and transferred to the panchayats under^secs.155 and 326".

¶295

23

¶296

It is further provided that officers and servants so allocated^shall be taken over by such panchayats in such cadre and^onsuch tenure, remuneration and other conditions of sen/ice,^astheState Government may determine. Sec. 204 provides that, subject^tothe rules which the State Government may make, the expenditure towards the pay, allowances and other benefits allowed^to an officer or servant of the panchayat service serving for the time being under any panchayat shall be met by that panchayat^fromits own fund. Sec. 207 enables the State Government to direct the posting of officers of the Indian P administrative service and^of Class II services of the State under panchayat institutions. Sec. 208 enables a panchayat to obtain the services of any^officerof Government on loan. Sec. 210 provides for the constitution^ofa Panchayat Services Selection Board and Sec. 211 provides^forthe constitution of District Panchayat Service Selection^Committees and District Primary Education Staff Selection Committees.

¶297

After the coming into force of the 1961 Act, several^setsof rules were promulgated and orders were made which concerned the Gujarat Panchayat service. One such order u/as^thatmadeon January 2, 1967 under Sec. 203 (2) directing that the Panchayat sen/ice shall consist of district cadre, taluqa cadre^{andlocalcadre} and further specifying the posts which belonged to^eachofthe cadres. Amongst the rules made were the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Absorption, Seniority, Pay. and Allowances) Rules, 1965, which provided for the equation of posts, fixation of seniority, scales of pay and allowances of "allocated employees".^"Allocated employees' were defined in the rules to mean persons^allocatedto the panchayat service under the provisions of Sec. 206 (I). The rules provide that every allocated employee holding a corresponding post, immediately before the appointed day, shall be appointed to the equivalent post. Equivalent post^isdefinedto mean a post in the panchayat service, which the State Government may, by order, determine to be generally corresponding to a post held by an allocated employee immediately before the appointed day (called corresponding post) having regard to the pay scales, the minimum educational^and other qualifications prescribed for the equivalent post and the corresponding post and the nature and magnitude of responsibilities attached to such posts. Therefore, unless equivalence of posts is first determined, by order, by the Government the Gujarat Panchayat Service Absorption Seniority Pay and Allowances Rules, 1965 cannot be effectively applied. Even so, the State Government did not make any order regarding equation of posts of the staff in the local cadre and^{thefixationof} their scale of pay, although such orders were made in respect of posts of other cadres. The State Government did not also extend to the staff borne on the local cadre of the panchayat^servicethe benefit of revision of scales of pay, etc. which were^madeonthe

¶298

24

¶299

basis of the recommendations of the two Pay Commissions, though such benefit w/as extended to the District and Taluqa cadres; nor did the Government make any order providing for promotional avenues to employees of the local cadre. Aggrieved by the deaf ear turned to their representations, certain ex municipal employees now included in the local cadre of the Panchayat Service, for themselves and on behalf of^otherex municipal employees now in the local cadre of the Panchayat Service, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Gujarat seeking various reliefs. The Writ Petition was resisted by^the State of Gujarat and the Development Commissioner on the principal ground that the members of the Panchayat Service were^not Government servants and therefore, they were not entitled to claim the reliefs asked by them. The High Court of Gujarat allowed the Writ Petition holding that the members of the panchayat service belonging to the local cadre were Government servants and directed the State Government. "(1) To make suitable orders under the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Absorption, Seniority, Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1965 as regards the equivalence of posts, fixation of pay^{scalesforsuch} posts, fixation of the petitioners and the person to whom they represented an appropriate stage In such pay scales^andother incidental matters covered by the said rules and to give effect to such orders from the date of allocation of the petitioners^andthe persons whom they represent to the Panchayat Service,^thatisto say, from February 11, 1969.

¶300

(2) To initially fix the pay scales and allowances and other conditions of service, including the grant of house rent allowance, compensatory local allowance, leave benefits, medical benefits, retirement benefits, etc. Of the petitioners and the persons whom they represent In the equivalent posts in the Panchayat^Servicein accordance p with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Service (Absorption, Seniority, Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1965 and simultaneously give to them the benefit of such of the accepted recommendations of the First Pay Commission (Sarala Commission) In the said matters as were extended to the other officers and servants of the Panchayat Service; alternatively, having initially fixed the pay scales, allowances and other conditions of sen/ice In the equivalent post in accordance^withthe said rules, to revise subsequently such pay scales^and other conditions of service as per the accepted recommendations^ofthe First Pay Commission (Sarala Commission) in the said^matters with effect from February 11, 1969.

¶301

(3) To further revise the pay scales and allowances^and other conditions of service, including the grant of^house rent allowance, compensatory local allowance, leave benefits, medical

¶302

25

¶303

benefits, retirement benefits, etc. of the Second Pay^Commission (Desai Commission) in the said matters and to give^effecttosuch revision on and with effect from January 1, 1975.

¶304

(4) To extend to the petitioners and the persons whom they represent the benefit of interim relief in the same manner in which such benefit was extended to the other officers and servants of the Panchayat Service.

¶305

(5) To pay to the petitioners and the persons whom they represent the amount payable to them as a consequence^ofthe rationalisation or revision of pay scale and allowances^andother conditions of service in pursuance of the directions contained in clauses (!) to (4) hereinabove. (6) To consider the question of making suitable provisions in the Gujarat panchayats Service (Promotion to Cadresⁱⁿ State Service) Rules, 1974 or by framing appropriate Rules for promotion of the ex-municipal staff of the Panchayat^Sen/Ice to consider the question of providing to such staff, by framing appropriate rules, pro motional avenues to the other two cadres in the Panchayat Service, namely, the taluka cadre and^thedistrict cadre". 26. The appeal was argued first as if the Amending^Acthad not been passed and the main question argued in the appeal was whether the members of the Panchayat service were Government servants. The Writ Petitions were argued next and the question argued in the Writ Petitions n/as about the constitutional validity of the Amending Act.

¶306

From the summary of the provisions of the Amending Act that has been set out above it requires no perception to recognise the principal target of the amending legislation^asthe category of ex-municipal employees', who are, so to say, pushed out of the Panchayat Service and are to be denied the status of Government servants and the consequential benefits. The ex municipal employees are virtually the "poor relations", the castle, the Panchayat Service, is not for them nor the attendant advantages, privileges and perquisites, which are all for the "pedigree descendants" only. For them, only the out-houses.^Asa result of the amendments they cease to be Government servants with retrospective effect. Their earlier; allocation to the Panchayat Service Is cancelled with retrospective effect. They become servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats with retrospective^effect. They are treated differently from those working In taluqa and district panchayats as well as from the talatis and Kotwals working in Gram and Nagar Panchayats. Their conditions of service are to be prescribed by panchayats, by resolution, whereas the conditions of service of others are to be prescribed by the

¶307

26

¶308

$

¶309

Government. Their promotional prospects are completely wiped out and all advantages which they would derive as a^resultofthe judgments of the courts are taken away.

¶310

Now, in 1978 before the Amending Act was passed, thanks to the provisions of the Principal Act of 1961, the ex municipal employees who had been allocated to the Panchayat Service as Secretaries, officers and servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats, had achieved the status of government servants. Their status as Government servants could not be extinguished, so long as the posts were not abolished and their services^were not terminated in accordance with the provisions of^Art.311ofthe Constitution. Nor was It permissible to single them out for differential treatment. That would offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. An attempt was made to justify the purported differentiation^onthe basis of history and ancestry, as it were. It was said^thatTalatis and Kotwals who became Secretaries, officers and servants, of Gram and Nagar Panchayats were Government servants,^evento start with, while municipal employees who became such secretaries, officers and servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats were not. Each carried the mark or the 'brand' of his origin and a classification on the basis of the source from which they came into the service. It was claimed, was permissible. We are^{clearthatItIs} not. Once they had joined the common stream of service to perform the same duties, it is clearly not permissible to make any classification on the basis of their origin. Such a^{clarificationwould} be unreasonable and entirely irrelevant to the object sought to be achieved. It is to navigate around these two obstacles^ofArt.311 and Art. 14 that the Amending Act is sought to be made retrospective, to bring about an artificial situation^{asiftheerstwhile} municipal employees never became members of a service^under the State. Can a law be made to be destroy today's^accrued constitutional P rights by artificially reverting to^{asituationwhich} existed seventeen years ago? No.

¶311

The legislation is pure and simple, self- deceptive, if we may use such an expression \v/ith reference to a legislature-mad^e law. The legislature is undoubtedly competent to legislate with retrospective effect to take away or impair any vested right acquired under existing laws but since the laws are^madeundera written Constitution, and have to conform to the do's^anddon'tsof the Constitution neither prospective nor retrospective^lawscanbe made so as to contravene Fundamental Rights. The law^must satisfy the requirements of the Constitution today taking onto account the accrued or acquired rights of the parties today. The law cannot say, twenty years ago the parties had no rights, therefore, the requirements of the Constitution will^besatisfied if the law is dated back by twenty years. We are concerned^with today's rights and not yesterday's. A legislature cannot legislate

¶312

27

¶313

today with reference to a situation that obtained twenty years ago and ignore the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued in the course of the twenty years. That would be most arbitrary, unreasonable and a negation of history. It ivas pointed out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in BS. Yadav and others etc. V. State of Haryana and others etc.(1) Chandrachud CJ., speaking for the Court, "Since the Governor exercises the legislative power under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, it is open to him to give retrospective operation to the rules made under that provision. But the date from which the rules are made to operate, must be shown to bear either from the face of the rules or by extrinsic evidence, reasonable nexus with the provisions contained in the rules, especially when the retrospective effect extends over a long period as in this case". Today's equals cannot be made unequal by saying that they were unequal twenty years ago and we will restore that position by making a law today and making It retrospective. Constitutional rights, constitutional obligations and constitutional consequences cannot be tempered with that way law which if made today would be plainly^invalid as offending constitutional provisions in the context of the existing situation 3 cannot become valid by being made retrospective.^Past virtue (constitutional) cannot be made to wipe out present vice (constitutional) by making retrospective laws. We are, therefore, firmly of the view that the Gujarat Panchayats third Amendment) Act, 1978 is unconstitutional, as it offends Arts. 311 and 14 and is arbitrary and unreasonable. We have considered the question whether any provision of the Gujarat Panchayats (Third Amendment) Act, 1978 might be salvaged. 1/Vfe are afraid^thatthe provisions are so interwined with one another that It is well-nigh impossible to consider any life saving surgery. The^wholeofthe Third Amendment Act must go. In the result the Writ Petition Nos 4266-70 are allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 15,000. The directions given by the High Court, which we have confirmed, should be complied with before June 30, 1983. In the meanwhile, the employees of the Panchayats covered by the appeal^andthe Writ Petitions will receive a sum of Rs. 200 per month^overand above the emoluments they were receiving before February 1, 1978. This order will be effective from February 1, 1983 The interim order made on February 20, 1978 will be effective upto January 31, 1983. The amounts paid are to be adjusted^later.”

¶314

A Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana. when the

¶315

same issue fell for consideration in W.P.Nos.4636 of 2018 and batch, at paragraph Nos. 17, 35, 43, 45, 46 to 49, held as follows:

¶316

28

¶317

“17. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, a right^whichhas accrued in favour of the petitioners cannot be wiped out by amending the statute especially when the applicability of the statute is not with retrospective effect. In the present case, the amending^notification uses the phraseology “shall be substituted” which clearly indicates that the amendment is prospective and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the question of making the Rules applicable with retrospective effect does not arise. The amendment in the Rules shall be applicable to all those persons who are now joining the Telangana Civil Police after the amendment only. 35. In the light of the aforesaid Judgment, the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment^with retrospective effect. 43. The dispute Involved in the present case is altogether different and the amendment to the recruitment rules has to be prospective In the absence of any such specific provision and the right accrued in favour of the employees who have come on transfer prior to amendment cannot be wiped out. 45. In the present case, the State Government has not been able to point out the public interest involved In the matter, on the contrary the benefit of seniority M/as granted to the persons who come on transfer from branch to another branch and are now being deprived^oftheir accrued right of their past seniority and their accrued right for consideration of promotion and therefore, the Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable on facts. 46. Learned counsel for the respondents 18 to 43 has placed reliance upon the Judgment delivered in the case of K.Jagannadha Rao (supra). In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench has held that the benefit of past service rule is a matter of policy for the Government, however, past service must be of an equivalent post. In the present case, the past service is an equivalent post and the right accrued already in favour of the employees cannot be wiped out by making the Rules applicable to the retrospective effect.

¶318

Learned counsel for the respondents 18 to 43 has also placed reliance upon the Judgment delivered in the case of K.Rajaiah (supra). This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid Judgment. It M/as a case relating to direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer for the 65 purpose of Sub Inspector of Police. There was no such issue of retrospective applicability of the Recruitment Rules involved in the aforesaid case and therefore, the Judgment relied upon does not help the respondent respondents 18 to 43.

¶319

Lastly, he has also placed reliance upon the Judgment delivered In the case of Palure Bhaskar Rao (supra).^{Intheaforesaid} case also, the issue of retrospective applicable of the Rules M/as not In question and therefore, the Judgment is distinguishable^onfacts. 49. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the Recruitment Rules provided for transfer only to the extent of 10% posts, the petitioners at the relevant point of time opted for^{transfertoCivilPolice} and they would have certainly received promotions by now In the parent

¶320

T?

¶321

29

¶322

organisation. The Amendment in the Recruitment Rules, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.08.2018 has been introduced^{andforthefirst} time, a weightage formula has been introduced by the State Government under the Recruitment Rules governing the field, meaning thereby, wiping the past seniority and therefore, once a right which has accrued in favour of the petitioners, cannot be wiped out by the impugned Amendment and the Amendment is certainly not at all applicable with retrospective effect. The question of depriving the petitioners by making the Amendment applicable with retrospective effect does not arise. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that all those constables who have come prior to 06.02.2018 are certainly entitled for grant of seniority and ail those^{constableswho} have come on transfer after 06.02.2018 shall be governed by the Amended Recruitment Rules. ”

¶323

Coming to the facts of the present case, the amendment^whichwas referred in the judgment vide G.O.Ms.No.95 Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 31.05.2017 is pari material with G.O.Ms.No.1. The Hon’ble Division Bench referred various judgments including the judgment of High Court of Telangana referred to supra, and came to the conclusion that, by the date of willingness there was no amendment and so the amendment^{hasnoeffecton} the services of the Petitioners therein.

¶324

To summarise: (i) Petitioners initially entered into APSP Battalion from 1983 to 1987.

¶325

(ii) They were appointed in PC (AR) during 2001 to 2005 by transfer in the light of the circumstances mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.299 coupled with clarification Memo issued by the Director General of^Police in 2001 to the effect that their seniority in AR would continue from^{thedateoftheir} initial appointment in APSP.

¶326

I

¶327

30

¶328

(iii) The Hon’ble Division Bench of Composite High Court of A.P., in W.P.No.21610 of 2007, dated 08.10.2013 though upheld the order of APAT regarding application of Role 15(e) to the persons iike the Petitioners, at the operative portion of the Order, directed the Authorities not to revert the persons based on Rule 15(e), but directed to frame a formula balancing the interests of the persons appointed through transfer as well as direct recruitees in AR. Hence, the application of Rule 15(c) or Rule 15(e) looses all its importance. In fact, Rule 15(e) is not in existence. (iv) G.O.Ms.No.1 itself is clear that it is with effect from 01.01.2008. The reason is direct recruitees initiated the litigation regarding seniority from 2007. (v) When the Petitioners entered AR even earlier to the effective date i.e., 01.01.2008, the application of G.O.Ms.No.1 to them is not sustainable under law.

¶329

(vi) The same analogy has been taken by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21610 of 2007, dated 08.10.2013, and the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Telangana in W.P.Nos.4636 of 2018 & Batch, dated 25.01.2022 and G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.02.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 31.05.2017 have been issued, which are pari materia to G.O.Ms.No.1. (vii) Petitioners are entitled for promotions if they are eligible otherwise without reference to G.O.Ms.No.1. In case of their retirement, they are entitled for monetary benefit for fixation of pay for pension.

¶330

31

¶331

(viii) Consequently, while doing this exercise, Respondent^Authorities need not revert the promotions if any given to others, but they need be adjusted in further vacancies.

¶332

(ix) Though there is a clear finding upholding the opinion of the Tribunal that Rule 15(e) has to be applied for the persons who are converted as AR from APSP Battalion, the Hon’ble Division Bench^{didnotchooseto} direct the Respondent Authorities to apply Rule 15(e) and prepare the seniority list. The direction would show that the persons^{shallnotbereverted} till the finalization of the seniority list and to^fixaformula. 29. The Government in its wisdom issued G.O.Ms.No.1 on 07.01.2016 by fixing the date of its effect as 01.01.2008 i.e., with retrospective operation of the said G.O. Such being the case, the argument of^{thelearnedGovernment} Pleader that, in pursuance of the Common Order of the Composite High Court of A.P., Hyderabad vide in W.P.Nos.21610 of 2007 and Batch, dated 08.10.2013, Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.1, dated^{07.01.2016and} it is applicable to the Petitioners, cannot be accepted. 30. After paying utmost attention and scrutiny of the material on record, this Court is iof the humble view that G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 07.01.2016 G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 31.05.2017, G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.02.2018 have brought the very same amendment regarding the formula^{tobefollowedfor} fixation of seniority of persons who are transferred from one wing to another like APSP (PC) to AR (PC) and AR (PC) to PC (Civil) by giving weightage of one year for every two years of their service in the parent wing. Undisputedly,

¶333

32

¶334

these amendments are introduced in pursuance of the Common Order of the Composite High Court of A.P. vide W.P.Nos.21610 of 2007 dated 08.10.2013.

¶335

In the light of the aforementioned premises, Petitioners herein cannot be deprived of their seniority since the amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.1 is not applicable to their case even going by the very language^used in the order i..e, with effect from 01.01.2008. 32. In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed. By virtue of interim order of this Court, any proceedings effected vide G.O.Ms.No.107, Home (Ser.ll) Department, dated 03.09.2019. is subject to the result of the present writ petitions. That being so, in case. Petitioners already retired from service, they are entitled to promotion and the consequential benefits for fixation of pension as in the promotional post. The persons, who are already promoted are ordered to be adjusted subject to the vacancy. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶336

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶337

closed.

¶338

Dhiraj Sin^^Thakur^The^hieAj’usti'’** as above witness^the Hon’ble Sri seventeenth day of

¶339

RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //trubgopy//

¶340

To,

¶341

SECTION OFFICER

¶342

Pradesh. &cret^rilt^ VelagdpudtXmLravatm"^® of Andhra General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur

¶343

" Visakhapatnam Range,

¶344

The commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam, 5. The Superintendent of Policy, Srjkakulam, Srikakulam District.

¶345

The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam'.

¶346

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Rang^ Eluru. 8. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool^{Range,Kurnool.} 9. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapui^, Anantapuram^District.

¶347