ivil Appeal No 173 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 293
1985 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in Repre sentation Petition No 1589 of 1983
WITH Writ Petition Civil Nos
11135 37 of 1984
485 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
C Sitharamaiah G Prabhakar D Prakash Reddy B Rajeshwar Rao and Vimal Dave for the Appellants
Subodh Markandeya WA Nomani Seshagiri Rao Mrs Chitra Markandeya and A Subba Rao for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
Civil Appeal No 173 of 1986 By the judgment under appeal the Andhra Pradesh Adminis trative Tribunal has accepted the claim of seniority pressed by the respondents in their Representation Petition No 1589 of 1983
The respondents were working as Lower Division Clerks LDCs in the district police officesunits in Andhra Pra desh when the question of appointing LDCs in the Chief Office arose
It was decided to give an opportunity to the LDCs working in the district police officesunits on the condition that they would be willing not to rely upon their service rendered in the district police officesunits for the purpose of seniority and that their seniority would be counted with effect from the date they joined the Chief Office
Accordingly a Memorandum Rc
No 1020S168 dated 2111
1968 Annexure A  was issued to the district police officesunits
The choice was limited to probationers and approved probationers having good service records
The letter expressly stated that the appointees were to be put at the bottom of the list of probationers or approved proba tioners already working in the Chief Office
Immediately thereafter the respondents and two other LDCs who are not parties to the present case expressed their desire to join the Chief Office on the condition as mentioned in the said memorandum
They in positive terms declared in Annexure C  series their willingness to forego their seniority
After examination of their service records orders were passed and accordingly Memorandum Rc
No 1020S168 dated 16
197 1 Annexure 0  was issued to the heads of departments of the concerned district police officesunits
A pointed reference to the memorandum of 2111
1968 was made stating that the clerks in question were to take their seniority from the date of their joining the duty in the Chief Office as already mentioned in their letters
Accordingly all the five respondents joined their duty in the Chief Office after submitting with reference to the memorandum dated 16
1970 separate letters at pages 40 44 of the 486 paper book addressed to the Inspector General of Police stating that I submit that I am willing to take the last rank in senior ity in the category of LDCs
in Chief Office from the date reporting duty in Chief Office
 Their respective dates of joining the Chief Office are detailed in the Memorandum dated 791970 Annexure H  page 47 of the paper book
They were placed on probation with the condition that if they failed to complete their probation satisfactorily they would be sent back to their original districtunit offices
The respondents satisfactorily completed their proba tion and were substantively confirmed in the Chief Office and their seniority was counted with effect from the dates they joined the Chief Office
In 1983 they filed an applica tion before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal claiming that they were entitled to count their service rendered in the district police officesunits for the pur pose of their seniority in the Chief Office which has been allowed by the impugned judgment
In support of their claim the respondents relied on the Memorandum Rc
No 1020S168 dated 181
1969 Annexure B  issued by the office of the Inspector General of Police to the heads of the district police organisationsunits stating that In continuation of the Chief Office memorandum cited the Commissioner of Police all Superintendents of Police and Commandants etc are requested to state whether there are any LD Clerks willing to come on transfer to Chief Office if the condition stipulated in the Memorandum cited regarding taking of last rank is not insisted upon
The records of the LD Clerks recommended should be good
 It has been argued before the Tribunal as also before us that this letter clearly indicates that adequate number of clerks from the district police officesunits were not available and a decision to forgo the condition in regard to the seniority of the clerks was taken
It has been contended that in view of this departmental decision the respondents should not be bound down by their statements made in Annex ures C  series and in their letters Annexures E  series
The Tribunal has accepted their plea
487 5
Mr C Sitharamaiah the learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal has urged that the Memorandum Annex ure B  does not indicate any final decision taken by the Department
The learned counsel appears to be right
A perusal of the letter makes it clear that the office of the Inspector General of Police was only making an inquiry in the terms indicated therein
It is true that presumably
sufficient number of volunteers from the district police officesunits were not available which promoted the authori ty concerned to issue the letter Annexure B  but it does not go beyond circulating a query
It cannot be suggested on its basis that there was a reversal of the policy with respect to the counting of the seniority of the incoming LDCs from the district police officesunits
It has been asserted in the counter affidavit of the State filed before the Tribunal that not a single person was allowed to join the Chief Office on the condition indicated in Annexure B  and it has not been denied on behalf of the respondents either before the Tribunal or before us
The respondents have not been able to produce a copy of any decision taken on the lines indicated in Annexure B  nor have they been able to cite even a single case of an LDC joining the Chief Office on such a supposed decision
We have therefore no hesitation in holding that the condition mentioned in Annex ure B  is of no avail to the respondents
The learned counsel for the respondents referred to r 16 of the AP Ministerial Service Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules and urged that when the respond ents were permitted to join the Chief Office they were allowed to do so by way of a regular transfer from one department to another and this was done for administrative exigencies of the Police Department within the meaning of the said Rules and not on their own request
They are therefore entitled to count their earlier service for the purpose of seniority
It is alleged that the fact that the respondents were paid travelling allowances for joining the Chief Office corroborates their stand
We have considered the argument addressed on behalf of the respondents along with the relevant documents but do not find any merit in their stand
It has to be appreciated that the cadre of the Chief Office is altogether different from cadreof the district police officesunits where the respondents were earlier appointed and they were not liable to be transferred to the Chief Office
The service conditions at the Chief Office were better which was presumably the reason for the respondents to give up their claim based upon their past services
It is true that the differential advantage was not so substantial as to attract every LDC working in the dis trict officesunits and in that situation the letter Annex ure B  had to be circulated
However so far the respond ents and the two others 488 were concerned they found it in their own interest to forego their claim of seniority on the Oasis of their past services and they did so
It is significant to note that their letters Annexures E  series were sent to the Inspec tor General of Police many months after the issuance of Annexure B  and they were allowed to join the Chief Office on clear Understanding that they would not be entitled to count their past services
It is therefore idle to suggest that the respondents cannow turn back and repudiate their commitment expressly made many months after Annexure B 
So far the allegation regarding payment of travelling allowance is concerned the same has been dealt with in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the appellant filed before the Tribunal in the following terms They cannot claim seniority now after a lapse of 13 years on the ground that they were given TTA at the time of their transfer
No orders were issued from this office to the Subordinate Officer that the petitioners are eligible for TTA and joining time
In fact the Dy
Inspr
of Police Hyderabad Range in his order No 534E25670 Hr
Dt 5670 addressed to Supdt
of Police Medak had specif ically informed that the petitioners No 1 and 2 are not entitled for any TTA and joining time t is urged that inspite of the clarification made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police as stated above if some officers permitted the respondents to draw travelling allow ance this cannot be a ground to hold that it was a case of regular departmental transfer
The 
16 cannot therefore be held to be applicable in the present case
Mr Sitharamaiah urged that having regard to the entire circumstances as spelt out of the different documents on the records of the present case it should be held that the Memorandum Annexure A  issued by the Office of the Inspector General of Police was a mere invitation to the LDCs in the district police officesunits to apply for appointment in the Chief Office with the condition mentioned therein
and availing of the opportunity the respondents accordingly requested by their statements and letters for appointment in the Chief Office
It is suggested by the learned counsel that if the case be treated to be one of transfer it has to be held in the circumstances to be at the request of the LDCs concerned within the meaning of r 16 of the Rules
There considerable substance in the alter native argument of Mr Sithara 489 maiah also but it is not necessary to go into this ques tion deeper as the absorption of the respondents in the Chief Office cannot be treated by way of transfer within the meaning of the Rules
Besides the above infirmities there are two other important considerations which weigh heavily against the respondents
The petition before the Tribunal was filed by the respondents after a period of 13 years of their initial appointment in the Chief Office during which period many orders consistent with the terms of service as indicated in the Memorandum Annexure A  must have been passed in favour of the other incumbents of the service
The courts and tribunals should be slow in disturbing the settled affairs in a service for such a long period
Besides the respond ents in the application before the Tribunal did not im plead their colleagues who have been prejudicially affected by the impugned judgment
It cannot be assumed that the respondents had no knowledge about them
As was rightly pointed out by Mr Sitharamaiah although in paragraph 4d of their application before the Tribunal page 53 of the paper book the respondents mentioned one Vijaya Chand alleged to be an officiating LDC who was put over them they did not implead even him
We are therefore of the view that apart from the merits of the case the petition of the respondents before the Tribunal was fit to be rejected on the ground of the above mentioned last two points
Finally the learned counsel for the respondents said that in any event they should not be put below those persons who had not successfully completed their probation in the Chief Office on the date the respondents joined there
We do not find any merit in this submission either
Accordingly the judgment under appeal passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the Representation petition of the respondents is dismissed
The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs
Writ Petitions Civil Nos
11135 37 of 1984 11
These applications under Article 32 of the Constitu tion have been filed by the three petitioners who were appointed during the years 1965 67 in the Central Office of the Inspector General of Police now redesignated as Direc tor General and Inspector General of Police Andhra Pra desh
Since they had not passed the general examination held for the purpose a special qualifying examination was held in 1968 to facilitate the petitioners and other similarly situated persons to pass at the test
The petitioners however did not appear at this 490 examination
Another special qualifying examination was held in 1974 and the petitioners successfully cleared the same
Thereafter by an order dated 176
1976 Annexure E  their services were regularised with effect from 181972
Their claim in the present case is for counting their sen iority with effect from their initial dates of appointment in the years 1965 67 12
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were not qualified for the 1968 exami nation and at the very first opportunity available to them in 1974 they passed the special qualifying examination and therefore they should not be penalised by ignoring their services rendered before 18 1972
It is significant to note that although the impugned order was passed in 1976 the petitioners did not commence any legal remedy before the year 1984 when they filed the present application directly before this Court after a period of 8 years
By way of a preliminary objection Mr Subbarao the learned counsel appearing for some of the officers impleaded as respondents in this petition has drawn our attention to the fact that earlier a writ application being WP No 106 of 1980 was filed by some of the employees of the central office making similar claim of seniority and the present petitioners specifically stated that their case would be governed by the judgment in the earlier writ petition which was ultimately dismissed by this Court on August 8 1986 M Nirmala and Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Mr Subbarao contends that after the dismissal of the earlier case the petitioners now cannot be permitted to urge any new ground in support of their claim
The reply on behalf of the petitioners is that if the earli er writ application had been allowed they would also be entitled to succeed but after its dismissal their claim cannot be rejected without examination of the additional questions which did not arise in the earlier case
On merits the reply on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh is that the respondent officers had joined the office of the Inspector General of Police after qualify ing at the general examination held for the purpose and since the petitioners did not appear at the examination they cannot be equated with the respondent officers
The general examinations for recruitment to the central office were held in 1964 1965 1966 1967 and 1968 but the peti tioners did not choose to avail of the ordinary method for joining the service
Instead 491 they entered the service by the side door and their depart ment taking an attitude liberal to them and other similar officers decided to hold special qualifying examinations
It is contended that in these circumstances the rule as laid down in Memorandum No 473Y170 5 dated 247
1970 Annex ure VII  is clearly applicable and for the purpose of seniority the petitioners were given the advantage of two years of service rendered by them prior to their successful ly completing the special qualifying examination
The argu ment is well founded
The learned counsel also pointed out that the standard of the special qualifying examination was not the same as that of the general examination held for recruitment
Besides the weakness in the case of the petitioners as mentioned above the delay of 8 years on their part to initiate legal remedy is fatal and these writ petitions are fit to be rejected on this ground alone
The writ applica tions are therefore dismissed with costs payable to the respondents represented by Mr Subbarao
GN Appeal allowed and writ petition dismissed


Summary:
Section 4 Of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act 955 provided for vesting of all estates held by intermediaries as defined in the Act in the State from a date to be notified and the petitioners who were affected thereby filed petitions under article 32 Of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the Act and in particular sections 8 and 38 of the Act on the grounds that 1 entry 36 of List 11 of the 479 Seventh Schedule to the Constitution gave power to the State legislature to acquire property for purposes other than the purposes of the Union while the property acquired under the Act vested in the President and therefore the Union after its acquisition and the Act was really for the acquisition of property for the purposes of the Union and could not have been passed by the Ajmer legislature 2 section 8 provided for retrospective cancellation of leases granted at a time when the land owner had a right to dispose of his property as he liked under article 191f of the Constitution and there was no restriction on such right and 3 section 38 which fixed a maximum rent was an unreasonablerestriction on the right of the land owner to let his holding
It was also contended for some of the petitioners who were assignees of land revenue as also owners of land that under the Act an intermediary included a jagir and that as a jagirdar was merely an assignee of land revenue only that assignment could be said to have been acquired under the Act
Held 1 that the purposes for which the estates were acquired were purposes of the State of Ajmer and consequently the Act was within the competency of the Ajmer legislature as it fell within entry 36 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and it was not necessary to consider where the property should vest after acquisition in deciding the ambit of the competence of the legislature under the entry  2 that the provisions in section 8 of the Act which gave power to the Collector to cancel leases which were found to have been made in anticipation of legislation for abolition of intermediaries and which were consequently a fraud upon the Act subserve the purposes of the Act and would therefore be an integral part of the Act though ancillary to its main object and were protected under article 31 A1a of the Constitution  3that the intention of the Act was that the intermediaries who were allotted lands should cultivate them personally and the object of section 38 was to discourage them from letting the land and becoming a new kind of intermediaries and consequently the section being an ancillary provision necessary for the purposes of carrying out the objects of the Act was protected under article 31 A1a of the Constitution and 4that in view of the origin of the title of the holders of these estates who were called jagirdars a distinction could not be made between jagirdars as assignees of land revenue and the same persons as land owners and therefore the State could take over the entire interest in the estate under section 4 Of the Act