IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 8348 of 2008 Between: R. Madhava Rao S/o Veerabhadraiah Central Crime Records Bureau, Cyberabad, Hyderabad r/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General and Inspector General of Police, AP., 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 a Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari after calling for the records, pertaining to the Judgment in O.A. No. 4725/2003 dated 06-11-2007 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same and consequently declare that the petitioner in entitled to be promoted to the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police by inclusion in the panel of 2003 for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police and direct that the petitioner should be promoted on that basis and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Petitioner ﬁled this writ petition seeking a direction to quash the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A.No.4725 of 2003 dated 06-11-2007 and consequently, he is entitled to be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police by including his name in the panel of the year 2002-03. Petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1974 and was promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 1988. Petitioner asserts that on the basis of seniority, performance and merit, the Screening Committee prepared a list of eligible candidates to be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) for the year 2002, that the recommendations of the Screening Committee were accepted by the authorities and the panel was approved by the ﬁrst respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.131 dated 20-05-2002 and promotions were eﬀected upto Sl.No.44. Petitioner also asserts that the DPC held on 10-07- 2003 adopted a peculiar methodology of awarding gradation system and as a result, he could not be promoted as DSP. The Tribunal, on the contention raised by the petitioner that the DPC which met on 10-07-2003 had adopted gradation or some other system for the panel year 2002-03, diﬀerent from the normal procedure that was adopted for the panel year 2001-02, called for the records relating to the panel year 2002-03 and held that the gradation system has not been followed by the respondents and the normal procedure which had been followed for the previous panel year 2001-02 has only been adopted for the next panel year i.e., 2002-03 and promotions were made accordingly, for the post of DSP. The Tribunal also observed that though the name of the petitioner was included in the panel for the year 2001-02, his name was not recommended by the Screening Committee as he was below “par record of service”. The Tribunal, on veriﬁcation of the records, rejected the contention of the petitioner that the Screening Committee has adopted a diﬀerent procedure of gradation and he was singled out for promotion to the post of DSP for the panel years 2001-02 and 2002-03. Heard both sides. A perusal of records would reveal that the Tribunal, on veriﬁcation of the records, found that the authorities had not adopted diﬀerent procedure for the panel year 2002-03 from the one adopted in the previous panel year 2001-02. The Screening Committee has not recommended the name of the petitioner as he was below “par record of service”. Hence we do not ﬁnd any merits in the writ petition. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from considering the case of the petitioner in the subsequent panel years for promotion to the DSP as per law. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ C.V.RAMULU,J Dt:10-07-2008 usd