THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No. 8001 of 2001 09-03-2010 Between: G.Gopal Reddy (Retd. DSP), Tadipatri, Ananthapur District. ……….Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No. 8001 of 2009 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. There is no representation on behalf of the non- official respondents. 2. The writ is filed seeking Certiorari to quash the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), dated 19-01- 2001 in O.S.No.6248 of 2000. 3. The petitioner was recruited as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1966 and promoted as Inspector, thereafter, as Deputy Superintendent of Police and retired as such on attaining the age of superannuation, in December 1998. 4. It is to be noticed that the petitioner was promoted from the category of Sub Inspector to Inspector of Police on inclusion in the 1980 ‘C’ list. There was repugnant litigation seeking review of inclusions in the ‘C’ lists from the year 1957. Several directions were issued by the Tribunal with regard to the grievances of police officers in several cases. The details of these cases and decisions are not relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudicating this writ petition. 5. Consequent on directions issued by the Tribunal in several cases, 1st respondent issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.300 Home Police-C Department, dated 13-05-1986, directing revision of the promotion lists (‘C’ lists) of Sub Inspectors for the periods 05-10-1957 to 14-09-1972. Some of the seniority lists of Sub-Inspectors were revised up to 1965 batch. The petitioner and others who belong to 1966 and subsequent batches of directly recruited Sub Inspectors also represented for revision of their seniority lists, for getting earlier promotion as Inspectors. There being no action, the petitioner submitted a representation on 16-03-1996 to the 1st respondent seeking revision of his seniority in the category of Inspector. Consequently, the 1st respondent issued a Memo, dated 26-10-1996 to the 2nd respondent stating that the representations including by the petitioner were examined and the State considered Sub Inspectors who had acquired eligibility between 01-01-1972 and 12-07-1972, (by completing six years of service) should be included in the ‘C’ list as existed prior to amendments issued to Order No.104 on 12-07- 1972, with all consequential benefits and to take immediate follow up action in the matter. 6. As the above direction was not complied with by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner and others initiated litigation seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to implement the Government Memo dated 26-10- 1996. The 2nd respondent raised queries with regard to the appropriateness of the directions in Government Memo, dated 26-10-1996. The State Government, by a Memo dated 24-04-1998 however reiterated its earlier order. The petitioner and another filed O.A.No.3619 of 1998 before the Tribunal seeking promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police in view of the orders of the Government in Memo dated 26-10-1996, whereby, revision of ‘C’ lists was ordered. This O.A. was allowed by the order, dated 03-06-1998 directing consideration of the applicants therein for promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police, within the time stipulated. Eventually, after an intervening contempt petition, the State issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.294 Home (Police.C) Department, dated 11-09-2000 including the petitioner in the 1974 ‘C’ lists (for promotion as Inspector), with effect from 01-01-1974. 7. Respondents 4 and 5 filed O.A.No.6248 of 2000 before the Tribunal assailing the Government Memo dated 26-10-1996 and the consequent order in G.O.Ms.No.294, dated 11-09-2000. It was contended in the O.A. that they were appointed as Sub-Inspectors in 1968; were presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police/Additional Superintendent of Police and are due for further promotion. On the admitted factual scenario, respondents 4 and 5 herein were promoted as Inspectors on inclusion in ‘C’ lists, prior to the petitioner’s promotion as Inspector, in 1980. As a consequence of the Government Memo dated 26- 10-1996 and G.O.Ms.No.294, dated 11-09-2000, the writ petitioner gained seniority over these respondents. Such revision of the seniority of the petitioner (on issuance of Memo dated 26-10-1996 and G.O.Ms.No.294, dated 11-09-2000) was clearly without notice and opportunity to the respondents 4 and 5 herein. This was the grievance presented by these respondents in O.A.No.6248 of 2000. 8. By order impugned dated 19-01-2001, O.A.No.6248 of 2000 was allowed and the State Government’s memo dated 26-10-1996 and order dated 11-09-2000 in G.O.Ms.No.294, were set aside. 9. Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that as the restoration of the petitioner’s seniority was ordered in Government Memo, dated 26-10-1996 and the consequent order in G.O.Ms.No.294, dated 11-09-2000, and in view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal regarding the interpretation of Rule 2 of the AP Police Subordinate Rules, the petitioners are entitled to anterior promotion as Inspectors and restoration of seniority, therefore, the petitioner’s seniority was rightly revised and the judgment of the Tribunal was erroneous. 10. It is however to be noticed that the orders in Government Memo, dated 26-10-1996 as well as the consequent order in G.O.Ms.No.294, dated 11-09-2000, were issued by the State after an inordinately long lapse of time, revising the ‘C’ lists of the year 1974 and revising the petitioner’s seniority in the category of Inspector from 1980 to 1974, in 2000. Before passing such an order, the State Government ought to have complied at least with the principles of natural justice by issuing notice to the persons affected including the respondents 4 and 5 (the applicants in O.A.No.6248 of 2000). No doubt, these respondents did not belong to the unit of appointment to which the petitioner belonged, in the category of Inspector of police. However, the next promotion from the category of the Inspectors is to the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which is on the basis of a State-wide seniority, arrived at by integrating the several range seniority lists of Inspectors. The revision of the petitioner’s seniority would thus eventually and directly impact the promotional aspirations of respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, in revising the seniority of the petitioner (in G.O.Ms.No.294, dated 11-09-2000), the State ought to have issued notice to the respondents 4 and 5 as well as others who would have been affected by such revision of seniority. Since the revision of seniority is not entirely a matter between the State and the petitioner and involving only monetary benefits, the 1st respondent should have given a notice to respondents 4 and 5 and others affected, by the revision of seniority of the petitioner. 11. Admittedly and demonstratably, respondents 4 and 5 were not given any such notice before restoration of the petitioner’s seniority from 1980 to 1974. The Government Order in Memo dated 26-10-1996 and G.O.Ms.No.294, dated 29-11-2000 are therefore, patently incompetent and void ab initio for transgression of the fundamental principles of administrative law viz., the audi alterm partem principle. These orders cannot therefore be sustained. 12. On the aforesaid analyses, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in its order dated 19-01-2000 in O.A.No.6845 of 2000. There are no merits in the writ petition. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 09-03-2010 ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI KVR