IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16176 of 1999 Between: V.V.Satyanarayana Rao O/o.Commissioner of Police Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P Rep.by its Prl.Secretary Home Dept Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 The Director General and Inspector General of Police Govt. of A.P Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Police Communications Govt. of A.P Hyderabad. 4 A.Ravindranath O/o.Director of Police Communications D.G.P.Office Compound Lakdikapul Hyderabad. 5 Registrar A.P.Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as DSP Communications in preference to the 4th respondent from the date from which he was promoted as DSP with all consequential benefits such as Seniority, pay, allowance and other attendant benefits holding that the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal Dt.14-7-99 in O.A.NO.73/98 and also the orders of the 1st respondent in their G.O.Rt.No.3369, Home Dept., Dt.31-12-97 as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14,16 of constitution of India and consequently set aside both the judgment of the Hon'ble Admn Tribunal Dt.14-7-99 and also G.O.Rt.No.3369, Home Dept., Dt.31-12-97 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GOPALA RAO GANDRAKOTA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was directly recruited as Sub Inspector of Police, Communications in the year 1976 and he was promoted as Inspector of Police on 10.3.1983 and he was awarded number of rewards in appreciation of work and earned a good name as one of the efficient officers in the Department. Whereas the 4th respondent was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on 2.11.1969 and subsequently promoted as Sub Inspector of Police and then promoted as Inspector of Police a day later to the petitioner i.e., 11.3.1983. As per the seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.19 and the name of the 4th respondent was shown at Sl.No.20 and thus, the 4th respondent is a junior to the petitioner and the 4th respondent was promoted as Inspector of Police on 13.3.1987, whereas the petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police on 10.3.1983. However, the 4th respondent was given notional date of promotion as Inspector of Police with effect from 11.3.1983. According to the petitioner, the next promotional post from the post of Inspector of Police is to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Communications and that he was fully qualified for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Rules and he has completed his probation on 10.3.1984 and the required period of minimum three years service was also completed in 1997 for his promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the year 1997, a panel of Inspector of Police for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was prepared by the Government and the 4th respondent, who is a junior to the petitioner, was included in the said panel for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police without considering the case of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that his name was not considered by the D.P.C purely basing on the memo, dated 4.8.1997, issued by the Director of Police Communications in Procs.C.No. 58/DPS/97 on the ground that he went on medical leave with effect from 23.3.1996 to 1.9.1996 when he was posted as Inspector of Police at Adilabad and after joining also, he went on medical leave from 5.2.1997 to 10.3.1997 and thereby, it had caused much inconvenience to the administration. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7046 of 1997 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to declare the action of the respondents in denying his claim for promotion to the post of D.S.P Communications as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the said memo dated 4.8.1997. The Tribunal by order, dated 20.11.1997 disposed of the said O.A. holding that the said memo dated 4.8.1997 cannot be construed as an adverse report, but it can only be construed as advisory report and therefore if the petitioner was overlooked for promotion purely basing on the said memo then the authorities are required to reconsider the whole decision and if the D.P.C is already held and if it did not consider the name of the petitioner on the basis of the said memo, the authorities were directed to consider the case of the petitioner along with other eligible candidates, if he comes within the zone of consideration, in the event of any promotion being made from the post of Inspector of Police to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Communications). The Tribunal has further made it clear that the said memo dated 4.8.1997 should not be taken as an adverse report on the performance of the petitioner for assessing his eligibility and suitability. According to the petitioner, even pursuant to the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal, the case of the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent was not placed before the D.P.C. But, pursuant to the earlier decision taken by the D.P.C, the Government issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.3369, dated 31.12.1997, promoting the 4th respondent, who is junior to the petitioner, to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police Communications. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.73 of 1998 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the case of the Government is that pursuant to the earlier order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.7046 of 1997, dated 20.11.1997, the Government issued a memo dated 7.3.1998 informing that the earlier D.P.C did not overlook the case of the petitioner basing on the memo dated 4.8.1997 and that the overall consideration of his merit and performance was taken into consideration. In this background of the matter, the fact that remains undisputed is that the D.P.C or the Government have not reconsidered the case of the petitioner in the light of the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.7046 of 1997. But, the Tribunal without properly appreciating the earlier decision, dismissed the subsequent O.A filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Screening Committee considered the service records of the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent and the claim of the petitioner was overlooked and it is not for the Tribunal to review the decision of the D.P.C and make recommendations. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, this writ petition has been filed contending that the authorities in the D.P.C never reconsidered the case of the petitioner, as directed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.7046 of 1997, and they have taken further action pursuant to the earlier decision of the D.P.C alone. The material on record makes it clear that the Tribunal in the earlier O.A.No.7046 of 1997 filed by the petitioner clearly held that the authorities are required to reconsider the whole decision and that the memo dated 4.8.1997 should not be taken as an adverse report while considering the promotion of the petitioner, but the said order has not been complied with. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct the authorities to reconsider the whole decision of its earlier D.P.C in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal in O.A.No.7046 of 1997 while considering the performance of the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent for assessing their ability and suitability for promotion to the post of D.S.P. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.73 of 1998. Consequently, the order of the Government in G.O.Rt.No.3369, dated 31.12.1997, is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. We are of the opinion that at this length of time it may not be just and proper to reverse the promotion of the 4th respondent till a decision is taken by the D.P.C. and accordingly we direct the official respondents to reconsider the whole decision taken by the earlier D.P.C which led to the promotion of the 4th respondent to the post of D.S.P vide orders of the Government in G.O.Rt.No.3369, dated 31.12.1997, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The D.P.C shall consider afresh the case of the petitioner, 4th respondent and any other persons who comes in the zone of consideration and shall take appropriate decision without any delay. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 16.7.2009 kpr