Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Principal v. L. Tirupathi

Telangana HC24 Mar 2014WP/37146/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismisses writ petitions challenging the Tribunal's order allowing two Head Constables to revert to Police Constable rank for District Armed Reserve. The Court finds no discrimination given past precedents but directs that posting is subject to the 40% quota.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the direction to relieve applicants and consider them for District Armed Reserve posting within the 40% quota.

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶3

These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the order dated 10.04.2013 in Original Application Nos.5900 of 2012 and 9104 of 2012 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), which were disposed of by the Tribunal along with a batch of Original Applications.

¶4

2. Since the point involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up together for disposal, by this Common Order.

¶5

3. Petitioners herein are respondents, and the first respondent herein is the applicant, in the respective Original Applications. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶6

4. The applicants are working as Head Constables in Andhra Pradesh Special Police (APSP), 13^th Battalion, Adilabad. They were selected as Police Constables in APSP in 1999 and completed 12 years’ of service by the date of filing the Original Applications. As per the Police

¶7

Subordinate Service Rules, if a Police Constable completes 10 years’ of service in APSP, he is eligible to be appointed as Police Constable in the District Armed Reserve. According to the applicants, they made representation in 2009 to the Commandant concerned with a request to convert them as Police Constable in the District Armed Reserve. Though proceedings dated 19.03.2012 were issued including their names for appointment as Police Constables in District Armed Reserve in the 40% quota meant for Police Constables of APSP, they have not been relieved to enable them to join in District Armed Reserve. Mean while, the applicants were promoted as Head Constables in APSP in September, 2010 and 2011 and were placed on probation. When the applicants made requests to relinquish their promotion as Head Constables and to revert them back as Police Constables so that they can be appointed as Police Constables in District Armed Reserve, on the ground that they were already promoted as Head Constables, the request of the applicants has been rejected vide the orders impugned in the Original Application.

¶8

5. The Tribunal, after relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in B.Boyanna v. Registrar (Administration), High Court of Andhra Pradesh & anothe r^[1] , as well as on Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh

¶9

State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, allowed the Original Applications setting aside the impugned proceedings with a direction to relieve the applicants immediately from APSP to enable them to join as Police Constables in District Armed Reserve. It is also observed by the Tribunal that probation of the applicants in the category of Head Constables was not declared by the date of filing of the Original Applications and so the applicants continue to be in the category of Head Constable as temporary promotees. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petitions are filed by the official respondents in the Original Applications.

¶10

6. Heard both sides.

¶11

7. Learned counsel for the first respondent in the Writ Petitions/applicants relied on a decision in G.Boyanna’s case (1 supra) wherein it is held thus: (para 7)

¶12

“It is relevant to note at this point that the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Junior Assistant but was appointed by transfer. In fact, he could not have been so promoted, as the post of Process Server is not in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. In this view of the matter, it is doubtful whether the act of the petitioner in seeking reversion from the post of Junior Assistant can be said to be one of relinquishment of his right to be considered for promotion. However, this is how the respondents have treated the matter and the petitioner also abided by it. Therefore, for the purpose of this case, it shall be presumed that the petitioner relinquished his right for promotion when he sought reversion to the post of Process Server.”

¶13

The above decision has no application to the facts of the present case. But, on the ground of discrimination, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is not in dispute before this Court that as per proceedings dated 21.10.2005, some of the Head Constables were reverted and posted to work as Police Constables in the District Armed Reserve in their respective Units. Therefore, there should not be any discrimination from one person to another person. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. However, the cases of applicants have to be considered if they fit into 40% quota. Therefore, we make it clear that after reversion, the applicants cannot be immediately sent to the District Armed Reserve but their cases have to be considered for posting to District Armed Reserve if they come within the 40% quota meant for Police Constables of APSP.

¶14

8. With the above observations, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶15

(K.C. BHANU, J.)

¶16

----------------( ANIS, J.)

¶17

24.03.2014 DRK

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶20

COMMON ORDER

¶21

¶22

WRIT PETITION Nos. 37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013 (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶23

24.03.2014

¶24

[1] 2009 (2) ALD 402 (DB)

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Principal v. L. Tirupathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Principal v. L. Tirupathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Narasimha Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Jeedi Dasthagiraiah , Medari Dastagiraiah, Vs Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

G. Soundarya, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Union of India, Vs B.N.Singh S/o. Brahmadeo Singh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Smt. P. Varalaxmi

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Smt. K.Rama Devi