THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23512 OF 2005 DATE: 8-2-2010 Between: B.Rama Rao …. Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23512 OF 2005 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.857 of 2004 dated 21.10.2005, and the proceedings of the Director General & Inspector General of Police in Rc. No.13/IP/2004 dated 28.01.2004 and Memo No.13/IP/2001 dated 29.01.2004, are under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner, now a post-graduate, was directly recruited as a Reserve Sub-Inspector of police in the year 1984. While he was working in the 6th Battalion the State Government established a printing press exclusively for the police department, sanctioned posts and posted employees working in other departments in various ranks to work thereat. The petitioner exercised his option and was posted to work in the Press from 06.10.1989. He claims to have undergone a refresher course in printing technology at the Government Institute of Printing Technology, Secunderabad while functioning as a manager of the printing press and to have been awarded several service entries in recognition of his meritorious service in bringing out a printed Police Manual. O.A. No.1576 of 1995 and batch was filed by some police constables attached to the printing press claiming absorption in the services of the Press. The Tribunal, by order dated 16.09.1997, directed the DGP & IGP (Printing) to re-assess their suitability and pass appropriate orders with regards their absorption depending on the vacancy position. The petitioner filed O.A. No.1585 of 1996 before the A.P.A.T. seeking absorption in the Printing Press. During the pendency of the said O.A. he was repatriated to the A.P. Special Battalion on 30.04.1996. Questioning his repatriation the petitioner filed O.A. No.2785 of 1996 and, pursuant to an interim order of the Tribunal, he was continued in the Printing Press. O.A. Nos.1585 and 2785 of 1996 were disposed of by a common order and the Tribunal granted the petitioner the relief sought for by him. The order of the Tribunal was subjected to challenge before this Court in W.P. No.34039 of 1998 and the Division bench, by judgment dated 28.08.2003, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the D.G.P and I.G.P directing him to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with Rules. The Division bench left it open to the authority to take into consideration the fact that, while similarly based persons from the police department had been absorbed, the petitioner’s case, though similarly situated, was not considered. The D.G.P and I.G.P, by proceedings No.13/IP/2004 dated 28.01.2004, rejected the petitioner’s claim for absorption in the Press on the ground that he did not possess the prescribed qualifications and did not fulfil the conditions laid down in the Rules; he had worked only as a security officer and not in the technical sections of the press; the Special Rules stipulated that officers in various ranks should work in the printing trade i.e., binding, printing, machine operator, compositor etc., before being considered for permanent absorption whereas the petitioner neither worked in any of the said branches of the Printing Press nor did he possess a diploma in printing technology. Consequent thereto, the Petitioner was sought to be relieved from the services of the Printing Press on 29.01.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted O.A. No.857 of 2004 and the operation of the impugned proceedings were suspended by the Tribunal by its interim order dated 09.02.2004, which order was extended until further orders on 30.11.2004. O.A. No.857 of 2004 was later dismissed by order dated 21.10.2005 resulting in the present writ petition being filed. In its order in O.A.No.857 of 2004 dated 21.10.2005, the Tribunal relied on Rule 13 of the A.P. Police (Printing) Subordinate Service Rules notified in G.O.Ms. No.211 dated 25.03.1994, (hereinafter referred to as the Special Rules), in recording its conclusions that, in order to hold the post of Sub-Inspector, it was mandatory that the person must possess a Diploma in printing technology awarded by the A.P. Board of Technical Education or its equivalent examination; the petitioner did not possess such a Diploma; the Special Rules contemplated possession of technical qualifications as a prerequisite for absorption; the petitioner did not possess the prescribed technical qualification; experience in the printing field was no substitute for failure to possess the prescribed academic/technical qualifications; the saving clause in Rule 13 was inserted only with a view to protect the interests of police personnel of different ranks who were drafted to work in the press especially Police Constables and Head Constables; the petitioner was not working in a post created in the press; he had been drafted on attachment basis to look after the security of the Press; he could not be treated as a regular employee of the Press; the respondents had absorbed Police Constables and Head Constables in accordance with the Special Rules and no officer in the rank of Sub-Inspector was absorbed; a person working on attachment basis/deputation had no right to be absorbed on permanent basis; the petitioner was not even working on deputation and was simply working on attachment basis and was not entitled to permanent absorption in the Press. In the additional counter-affidavit, filed before this Court on 26.11.2009, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Administration) states that the petitioner was appointed on 10.09.1984 as a Reserve Sub-Inspector in the 6th Battalion of Andhra Pradesh Special Police; as he sought posting at Hyderabad on personal grounds he was posted in the I.G.P. Press on attachment basis; he reported for duty at the I.G.P. Press on 06.10.1989; he never worked in the technical sections of the Press i.e., composing, binding etc; as he was brought on attachment basis it was his parent unit which regulated all his service conditions and he continued to draw his pay and allowances from the APSP Battalion; the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms. No.309 dated 25.07.1993 creating different categories of posts in the Press; Police Constables and Head Constables were temporarily drafted from various police units and were trained in printing activity to enable them to work in the Press; no person in the rank of Sub-Inspector was drafted to attend printing activity; the petitioner neither possessed the prescribed technical qualifications nor was he imparted training in the technical aspects of the Press; he never worked in the technical sections of the Press; he was merely discharging security and administrative duties relating to vigilance and was exercising supervision over Constables and Head Constables; the posts sanctioned in G.O.Ms. No.309 dated 25.07.1993 did not include the post of Sub- Inspector on the administrative side and all the sanctioned posts related only to the technical side; the savings clause in Rule 13 applied only to such of the police personnel who were drafted to work in any of the posts sanctioned by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.309 dated 25.7.1993, imparted training and were working in such posts on the date of commencement of the rules; neither was the petitioner drafted nor was he working in any of the technical posts relating to printing; he was drafted to work on attachment basis to attend security duties, and to maintain attendance and C.L. registers of police personnel; he was not imparted any training; the exemption clause in Rule 13 did not apply to him; he was promoted as a Reserve Inspector of Police in his parent unit retrospectively with effect from 01.09.2001; he cannot be absorbed as a Sub-Inspector or Inspector of Police in the Printing Press; against five posts of Sub-Inspectors (Printing) sanctioned in G.O.Ms. No.309 dated 25.7.1993 five Head Constables were promoted as Sub-Inspector (Printing) vide proceedings No.246/IP/2001 dated 29.10.2001; from out of these five one retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 10.11.2004 and the other four are still working in the Press. Reference is made to a complaint dated 26.05.2009 wherein the petitioner was alleged to have mis-behaved with a sweeper and it is stated that disciplinary action had been initiated against him. In his reply affidavit the petitioner denies that he was entrusted with the responsibility of security duties besides maintenance of attendance registers etc. He submits that these averments in the counter-affidavit were made solely for the purpose of this writ petition to deny the relief sought for by him. He would assert that all personnel working in the Printing Press were brought on attachment basis and their service conditions were regulated from their respective units; till their absorption in the services of the Printing Press Head Constables and Constables were also working on attachment basis; he was posted in the I.G.P press as Sub-Inspector (Printing); he was performing the duties of Sub-Inspector (Printing); the designation of the personnel working in the I.G.P press remained unchanged till G.O.Ms. No.309 dated 25.7.1993 was issued; no post of Sub- Inspector (Security) was created in the Press; no post relating to security of the Press was sanctioned under the Rules and, amidst the tight security in and around the DGP office wherein the press was located it defied reason that the responsibility of the security of the Printing Press would be entrusted to a single person without any other security personnel being attached to assist him; he was re-designated as Sub-Inspector (Printing) after G.O.Ms. No.309 dated 25.7.1993 was issued; he was exempted from passing the accounts test as per G.O.Ms. No.165 dated 22.04.1997 as he had crossed 45 years of age; the Constables and Head Constables initially drafted on attachment basis were absorbed in the services of the Press and that there was no justification in not absorbing him. The petitioner would further contend that he was sent for training along with other personnel whenever there was a need; he passed the Printing technology course in the year 2004; in 1993 he was entrusted with the duties of Manager of the I.G.P Press as incharge when the regular Manager went on leave and that he was entrusted with such responsibilities on several occasions thereafter. He would state that, keeping in view his managerial capacity and technical knowledge of the activities at the Press, the D.G.P. had instructed him, vide memo dated 21.03.2009, to maintain strict discipline among the Printing Press staff and to appoint a responsible officer from the Printing Press to look after the stores section of the Press. He would deny the allegations made by the sweeper in her complaint and contend that certain false allegations had been made only to harass him and that he had submitted his explanation denying the charge. Rule-2 of the Special Rules relates to the constitution of the service. Among the categories of posts which constitute the service is the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Printing) in Category I. Rule-3 prescribes the method of appointment for the category of Sub-Inspector (Printing). Appointment to the said post is either by direct recruitment or by promotion of Head Constable (Binding), Head Constable (Machine operator) or Head Constable (Compositor) from a common seniority list. For appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Printing) by direct recruitment Rule 5, which prescribes the qualification for appointment, requires the candidate to possess a Diploma in Printing Technology awarded by the A.P. Board of Technical Education or its equivalent examination. In case of appointment by promotion Rule 5 requires the promotee to have passed the 10th Class examination. Rule 13 is the savings clause and reads as under: 1. Nothing in these rules shall adversely effect any police personnel of different ranks, drafted, imparted training and working in any of the posts before the commencement of these rules. 2. Every person so appointed as specified in para (1) above, to any of the posts in this service, before the commencement of these rules shall be regarded as having been appointed on a regular basis notwithstanding the fact that any of them may not be qualified under these rules. The petitioner was drafted to work in the Printing Press on attachment basis on 06.10.1989 much before the commencement of these Special Rules which came into force on its being notified in G.O.Ms. No.211 dated 25.03.1994, and on its publication in the A.P. Gazette on 30.03.1994. The proceedings, whereby the petitioner was initially posted to the Printing Press, has not been placed before this Court. However the proceedings of the Commandant 6th A.P.S.P. Battalion, in D.O. No.659 of 1989 dated 30.11.1989, records that as per memo dated 02.11.1989 the petitioner was being continued in the I.G.P Press on attachment basis; he was attached to the I.G.P. Press from 06.10.1989 and he would continue at the I.G.P. Press on attachment basis until further orders. On a specific query from this Court, as to whether there were any proceeding to show that the petitioner was posted at the Press on attachment basis only as Sub-Inspector (Security), the Learned Government Pleader for Services would fairly state that there were no such proceedings available in the records. It defies reason that the security of the Press, located in the midst of the D.G.P’s office compound and which is highly secured, would have been entrusted to one single Sub-Inspector without any other police personnel being appointed to assist him. It is evident, therefore, that the initial appointment of all police personnel in the Printing Press, before posts were created under G.O.Ms. No.309 dated 25.07.1993 and Rules framed under G.O.Ms. No.211 dated 25.03.1994, was on attachment basis and that they were not specifically drafted to work in a particular technical section of the press. Under G.O.Ms. No.309 dated 25.07.1993 only one post of Sub-Inspector (Printing) has been created. No post of Sub- Inspector (Security) is created thereunder which also shows that the Government did not contemplate entrustment of the security of the Printing Press to any Sub-Inspector. The respondents have also not placed any material before this Court to rebut the petitioner’s contention that Head Constables and Constables were not imparted training prior to their being posted at the Printing Press on attachment basis. As such the petitioner’s assertion, that he and the other Police Constables and Head Constables posted at the Press on attachment basis are similarly situated and that none of them were imparted technical training in different areas of printing prior to their initial posting at the Press, merits acceptance. The petitioner was drafted to work and he was working in the Press before the commencement of the Special Rules. Several proceedings enclosed as part of the material papers annexed to the Writ Petition would show that the petitioner’s skill in different areas of printing was acknowledged by the respondents. The word “training” in Rule 13(1) would include "on the job training”. It is evident that the petitioner, the Constables and Head Constables initially drafted to the Press were only imparted on the job-training in different sections of the Printing Press. The petitioner has, therefore, satisfied all the conditions prescribed in Rule 13(1) of the Special Rules. Consequently Rule 13(2) required the respondents to treat the petitioner as a regular employee notwithstanding that he did not possess the technical qualifications prescribed in Rule 5. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the declaration, in Rule 13(2) of the Special Rules, that he was appointed on a regular basis as Sub-Inspector (Printing). The mere fact that the petitioner was promoted as Reserve Inspector in the A.P.S.P. Battalion would not disentitle him from being granted the relief of absorption as Sub-Inspector (Printing) in the Printing Press, more so as he is willing to forego the benefits he received consequent on his promotion as Inspector in the A.P.S.P Battalion. The order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.857 of 2004 dated 21.10.2005 and the consequential memos issued by the respondents dated 28.01.2004 and 29.01.2004 are set aside. In terms of Rule 13(2) of the Special Rules the petitioner is entitled for a declaration that he was appointed as Sub-Inspector (Printing) on regular basis. The Respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner as Sub-Inspector (Printing) in the Printing Press from the date of commencement of the Special Rules. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J Date: .01.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR/ASP