IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THUSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 30182 of 1997 Between: Mohd. Ismail S/o Mahaboob Saheb O/o. Dy.Commissioner of Police Detective Department Police Control Room,Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Administrative Trubunal Rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary for Home Department,Secretariat Hyderabad 3 The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Hyderabad City, Hyderabad. 5 Sri G.Someswara Rao S/o Naganna Lunger House Police Station, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS 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 especially one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records in O.A.No.1131 of 1997 dt.31.7.1997 and quash the same as illegal and further held that petitioner is entitled to be shown as senior to Sri G.Someswara Rao and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.5: Sri P.V.KRISHNAIAH The Court made the following : ..... THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRIAAH WRIT PETITION No. 30182 OF 1997 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meena Kumari) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 31-7-1997 in O.A.No.1131 of 1997 wherein the relief sought by the petitioner-applicant to set-aside the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.425, Home, dated 03-12-1996 in which the Government have relaxed Rule 15(a) of the A.P. Police Subordinate Rules (in brevity “the Rules”) in favour of the unofficial respondent for restoring his seniority, was dismissed. The petitioner herein is the applicant in the O.A and he filed the above O.A. seeking to set-aside the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.425, Home, dated 03-12-1996, whereby the Government relaxed Rule 15(a) of the Rules in favour of the unofficial respondent for restoring his seniority, on the ground that the unofficial respondent was not given appointment and not sent for training along with others of 1985 batch of Sub- Inspectors even though the unofficial respondent was originally selected in the year 1985, in view of a criminal case pending against him. Ultimately, by virtue of the orders passed by this court, the unofficial respondent was appointed as Sub-Inspector on 18-01-1988 and joined duty on 20-01-1988 and was sent for training along with 1989 batch of Sub-Inspectors. Thereafter, on his representation, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.425, Home, dated 03-12-1996 fixing the seniority of the unofficial respondent along with 1985 batch by relaxing Rule 15(a) of the Rules, which is illegal. The petitioner-applicant contended that as per the Rules, the seniority of a person should be counted from the date on which he reports for duty and as the unofficial respondent reported for duty on 20-01-1988 and was sent for training in January,1989, the seniority of the unofficial respondent should be reckoned from 1989 onwards. Because of relaxation, the seniority of the applicant is affected and this court while passing the orders, has not given any direction with regard to fixation of his seniority along with 1985 batch Sub-Inspectors. Therefore, challenging G.O.Ms.No.425, Home, dated 03-12- 1996, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1131 of 1997 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal after going through the material available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, has dismissed the O.A. Having aggrieved by the same, he filed the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the unofficial respondent was selected as Sub-Inspector along with the applicant and others through A.P. Public Service Commission in the year 1985, but he was not appointed on the ground that he had suppressed the information relating to his involvement in a criminal case in the antecedents verification form. Aggrieved by the action of the authorities, the unofficial respondent has filed W.P.No.8935 of 1985 before this court and this court disposed of the writ petition on 7.11.1985 directing the respondents to consider the case of the unofficial respondent for issue of appointment order in view of the acquittal in the criminal case, but the Commissioner of Police by his proceedings dated 9-4-1986 informed the unofficial respondent that appointment order cannot be issued to him. Aggrieved by the same, he filed another W.P.No.4800 of 1986 challenging the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, dated 9-4-1986 and this court directed the Commissioner of Police to issue an order of appointment as S.I. of Police and send him for training along with other candidates in terms of the earlier judgment passed in W.P.No.8935 of 1985. Aggrieved by the same, the Government filed W.A.No.1052 of 1986 and the same was dismissed on 22- 9-1986 against which the Government filed S.L.P. and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13.4.1987. In view of the orders of this court, the authorities by proceedings dated 18-1-1988 appointed the unofficial respondent as Sub-Inspector of Police. Subsequently, when junior to the unofficial respondent was promoted as Inspector of Police, he made a representation to the Government and the Government considered his representation and issued G.O.Ms.No.425, Home, (Police-C) Department, dated 03-12-1996 relaxing the relevant rules while exercising the powers conferred by Rule 47 of the Rules and directed the authorities to fix the seniority along with 1985 batch of Sub-Inspectors as per the A.P.P.S.C. ranking. In support of his contention that the reckoning of the seniority of the unofficial respondent from the date of selection instead of the date of posting orders, is illegal and arbitrary, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on a decision reported in N.K.Durga Devi Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad and others[1] wherein it is held that relaxing the rules to give notional seniority to the respondent therein with effect from a date earlier than the date of the appellant’s promotion as Superintendent, as a result, the appellant becoming junior to the respondent and therefore, reverting as superintendent, in the absence of affording opportunity to the appellant, is a bad notion. There is no dispute as to the principles laid down by the Apex Court. But, now, coming to the facts of the case on hand, they are quite different with that of the above decision. Therefore, the proposition relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant, has no application to the case on hand. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the unofficial respondent has suppressed the fact of criminal proceedings, it is to be noted that for the selection of the post of this nature, it is practice of the authorities to verify the antecedents of the incumbents before issuing any appointment orders. Therefore, for the failure to verify the antecedents of the incumbent before issuing the appointment orders, the incumbent cannot be penalized. Apart from that, the fact that remains undisputed is that the unofficial respondent was selected to the post in question during the course of selection in the year 1985. But, for the objection taken by the authorities, he was made to move around the Courts till he gets the appointment order. Therefore, the delay in giving the appointment orders, cannot be fastened against the unofficial respondent. In this back ground of the matter, We feel that the tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim of the applicant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the unofficial respondent was also selected in the year 1985 selections, we have no hesitation to hold that the order impugned herein does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___​___________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 04-03-2008 Stp REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JCS} THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRIAAH WRIT PETITION No. 30182 OF 1997 04-03-2008 [1] (1997) II SCC 91