IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24959 of 2008 Between: 1 Narra Venkateswara Rao S/o.N.V.Krishna Rao Kovvur, East Godavari District. 2 Kudithi Raghuveer Reddy S/o.late Laxma Reddy Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Sandaka Raghava S/o.Ramulu Kaikaluru, Krishna District. 4 Pattaswamy Satyanarayana Rao S/o.Sitha Rama Murthy Gudivada Rural Circle, Krishna District. 5 Vasamsetty Gopala Krishna S/o. (late) Narasimha Swamy Bhimavaram Rural Circle, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Ranga, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 G.Venugopal S/o.G.Venkataswamy Central Crime Station, O/o. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 5 A.Prabhakara Rao S/o.A.Swamy Mahankali Police Station, Secunderabad. 6 P.Chalam S/o.P.Venkataiah Chilakalaguda, P.S. Secunderabad. 7 T.Raghupathi Goud S/o.Yalla Goud Vigilance & Enforcement, Hyderabad City, O/o. Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Office, Hyderabad City. 8 H.Kistaiah S/o.H.Pentaiah P.S. Osmania University, Hyderabad. 9 S.Rajasekhar Rao S/o.Santoji Rao Railway Police, Secunderabad. 10 P.R.Kosalram S/o.P.T.Ramchandra Naidu Abids P.S. Hyderabad. 11 A.V.Srinivas Traffic P.S. Saifabad, Hyderabad. 12 N.Sudhakar Reddy Chikkadpally P.S. Hyderabad. 13 S.Sarat Kumar O/o. Commissioner of Police, 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of "Certiorari" call for the records relating to order passed in O.A.No.1772/2008 by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 26.6.2008 and set aside the same as unjust and without any basis in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO : 22081 of 2008 Between: 1 Mohd. Zafar Javid, S/o. Mohd. Abdul Ghaffar, ACD Head Quarters, Hyderabad. 2 M.M. Ali Baig, S/o. Late Mirza Mohd. Ali Baig, H.No. 1-4-34/A, Rajender Nagar, Mahabubnagar. 3 S. Satyanarayana Rao, S/o. Keshava Rao, H.No. 7-1/44, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Temple Alwal, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Lakdikapol, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 State of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 K. Anil Kumar, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS, APCPDL, Gun Rock, Secunderabad. .....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 to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of 'Certiorari' call for the records relating to order passed in OA No. 4959/2007 by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 26-6-2008 and set aside the same as unjust and without any basis and also set aside the final seniority list of Sub Inspector of Police (Civl) upto 1985 batch of Hyderabad Range in Rc.No. 739/E1-202/HR/2007-2008 dated 13-9-2008 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO : 18161 of 2008 Between: 1 Jangiti Ranga Rao, S/o. J. Narasaiah, O/o. Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad. 2 Md. Jameeluddin, S/o. Md. Imamuddin, Asif Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Hyderabad Range, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 Sri K. Anil Kumar, S/o. Late Yogeswara Rao, Vigilance & APTS A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Gun Rock, Secunderabad. .....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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of "Certiorari" call for the records relating to order passed in OA No. 4959/2007 by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 26-06-2008 and set aside the same as unjust and without any basis in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO : 19502 of 2008 Between: 1 Jangiti Ranga Rao, S/o. J.Narasaiah, O/o. Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad. 2 Md.Jameeluddin, S/o. Md.Imamuddin, Asif Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 B.Gopal, C.C.S. Hyderabad. O/o. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City. 5 D.Chinna Hussain, P.S.Kulsumpura, Hyderabad. O/o. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City. 6 K.Jagannadha Reddy, P.S.Mirchowk, HYderabad.O/o. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 7 A.Srinivas Reddy, Commissioner Task Force, HYderabad.O/o. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 8 B.Venkata Ratnam, P.S.Kachiguda, HYderabad.O/o. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 9 M.Srinivas, Special Branch, HYderabad.O/o. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 10 S.Subba Raju, S.B.City, HYDERABAD, O/o. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 11 K.Sivaram Prasad, Special Investigation Team, HYderabad.O/o. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 12 B.Kamalakar Reddy, P.S.Abids, HYderabad.O/o. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 13 Y.Tulasi Ram Prasad, Jubilee Hills, P.S.HYderabad.O/o. Commissioner of Police, 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 To issue writ order or driection more particularly one in the nature of Writ of 'Certiorari' call for the records relating to order passed in OA.No.1564/2008 by the hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 26.06-2008 and set aside the same as unjust and without any basis in the interest of Justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO : 19483 of 2008 Between: 1 Jangiti Ranga Rao, S/o. J. Narasaiah, O/o. Inspector Genral of Police, Hyderabad. 2 Md. Jameeluddin, S/o. Md. Imamuddin, O/o. Asif Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 G. Venugopal, S/o. G. Venkataswamy, Central Crime Station, O/o. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 5 A. Prabhakara Rao, S/o. A. Swamy, Mahankali Police Station, Secunderabad. 6 P. Chalam, S/o. P. Venkataiah, Chilakalaguda P.S. Secunderabad. 7 T. Raghupathi Goud, S/o. Yalla Goud, Vigilance & Enforcement, Hyderabad City, O/o. Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Office, Hyderabad City. 8 H. Kistaiah, S/o. H. Pentaiah, P.S. Osmania University, Hyderabad. 9 S. Rajasekhar Rao, S/o. Santoji Rao, Railway Police, Secunderabad. 10 P.R. Kosalram, S/o. P.T. Ramchandra Naidu, Abids P.S. Hyderabad. 11 A.V. Srinivas, Traffic P.S. Saifabad, Hyderabad. 12 N. Sudhakar Reddy, Chikkadpally P.S. Hyderabad. 13 S. Sarat Kumar, CCS, O/o. Commissioner of Police, 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari" call for the records to order passed in OA No. 1772/2008 by the Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 26-6-2008 and set aside the same as unjust and without any basis in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos: 24959, 22081, 18161, 19502 & 19483 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed,J) Leave is granted to petitioners in these writ petitions to challenge the common order dated 26-6-2008 passed in OA No.1772 of 2008 and batch, by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. Since the subject matter in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are clubbed, heard together and being disposed of by this common order. As common question of law is raised in these writ petitions, suffice if facts in WP No.24959 of 2008 and the corresponding OA No.1772 of 2008 are adverted to. 3. The petitioners in these writ petitions are not parties to OA No.1772 of 2008 and batch. The applicants-un-official respondents herein ‘for short, ‘the applicants’ filed the said OA No.1772 of 2008 stating that they have been selected as Sub-Inspectors of Police after being selected by the APPSC in the year 1983 and were appointed as such by proceedings dated 12-9-1985. Their case was that the seniority list dated 2-7-2007 impugned in the OA has been prepared by the official respondents by giving regularization to them with effect from 12-9-1985 i.e. the date of joining. The case of the applicants was that the rank promotees from the cadre of head constables having appeared the required tests on 7-6-1985 and in view of passing of the tests subsequently, were included in “C” list by order dated 4/7-4-1986 and consequently rank promotees (un-official respondents in the OA) have been promoted as SIs of Police vide orders dated 18-2-1987 and placed on probation for a period of one year to be spent on duty within a continuous period of two years from 18-2-1987. It is further the case of the applicants that in the impugned seniority list, the rank promotees ought not to have been shown seniors to them i.e. reckoning their seniority with effect from 7-6-1985 (i.e. the date of examination of the required test) and the date of seniority in the cadre ought to have been reckoned from the date of their appointment as Sub-Inspectors of Police vide proceedings dated 18-2-1987. It was further case of the applicants that placement of rank promotees in the impugned seniority list above the applicants who are direct recruits as Sub-Inspectors of Police through the APPSC was contrary to Rule 15 of the AP Police Subordinate Service Rules, for short, ‘the Rules’ as the rank promotees were promoted in the year 1987, but their regularization in that cadre has been given effect from 7-6-1985 i.e. the date of appearing the qualifying test. 4. It is borne out from record that though notices were served on the un-official respondents in the OA i.e. rank promotees, none appeared for them. The official respondents have filed counter affidavit before the Tribunal stating that the rank promotees passed the qualifying test on 7-6-1985 and thereafter their names were included in “C” list on 7-4-1986 fit to act as Sub-Inspectors of Police and the same was approved on 7-4-1986 and the promotion orders were given basing on the inclusion of their names in the “C” list. It was also stated that the rank promotees have passed the qualifying test on 7-6-1985 and they are eligible to be promoted to the post of Sub Inspectors of Police from that date. 5. The Tribunal, by the impugned common order, in view of Rule 15 of the Rules and also the guidelines issued in GO Ms.No.270, dated 30-4-1984, allowed the OAs and held that regularization of the rank promotees w.e.f. 7-6-1985 was contrary to Rule 15 of the Rules and their seniority can be reckoned from 7-4- 1986 i.e. from the date of their entry into the “C” list and in view of the guidelines issued in GO Ms.No.270, dated 30-4-1984, the last date of passing the test can be taken into account for the purpose of releasing the increment, but not for the purpose of seniority. Hence, these writ petitions by the rank promotees. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the un-official respondents and the learned Special Government Pleader for the official respondents. 7. It is the contention of Sri M. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners that that final seniority list impugned in the OA rightly the rank promotees have been placed above the applicants, as the names of the rank promotees have been included in the “C” list of Sub-Inspectors of Police, fit to act as such in accordance with their seniority reckoned from the date of passing the qualifying test. Learned counsel also contended that the said seniority list has became final and the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the OAs without considering the fact that it will have far reaching consequences on the rank promotees who are not at all made parties to the OAs filed by the applicants. Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.24959 of 2008 submitted that settled things cannot be unsettled at this length of time inasmuch as basing on the date of seniority reckoned from the date of including the names of the rank promotees in “C” list, the rank promotees are further promoted as Inspectors of Police and further promoted as Dy. Superintendent of Police and if the impugned order is allowed to stand, the promotions shall have to be reviewed and this exercise cannot be permitted to be done at this long length of time. Learned counsel in support of their contentions relied on the decision in BS BAJWA v. STATE OF PUNJAB1. 8. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants contended that nowhere there is any averment in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions, as to how the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is bad and not according to law and liable to be set aside. The inter-se-seniority between the parties was prepared by the department between the rank promotees and the direct recruits was contrary to Rule 15 of the Rules and the guidelines issued in that behalf, the Tribunal rendered a judgment giving and cogent and convincing reasons and therefore is no error of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri T. Surya Karan Reddy, learned counsel also contended that in a representative capacity some of the rank promotees have been made parties to the OAs and though notices were served, the rank promotees did not contest the matter and therefore the petitioners-rank promotees cannot now contend that they are the affected parties and they were not put on notice. 9. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that under Rule 15 of the Rules, seniority of a person in the class or category or grade shall unless he has been reduced to lower rank as a punishment be determined by the date of his first appointment to such class or category or grade and the rank promotees of Hyderabad Range Zone-VI were actually promoted on 18-2-1987, but their seniority was fixed w.e.f. 7-6-1985, that the Department having realized that the impugned orders are in accordance with the rules, seeks to implement the Tribunal’s order. 10. The matter rests on a very narrow compass. The dispute relates to inter-se-seniority between the rank promotees and direct recruits in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Police. The applicants before the Tribunal belong to direct recruit Sub-Inspectors of Police of 1985 batch and they belong to Zone VI i.e. Hyderabad Range, whereas the petitioners in WP No.24959 of 2008 belong to the batch of the year 1989 and they belong to Zone-II i.e. Eluru Range. A reading of Rule 15 of the Rules it is clear that the seniority of a person in the class or category or grade shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such class or category or grade. This rule postulates that an employee commences his seniority in a particular category from the date on which he was actually appointed to the said category, but cannot be any other date of earlier to the said date. Rule 15 of the Rules further clarifies that seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of service of an employee which counts towards probation. In other words, there cannot be a seniority prior to commencement of probation in a particular category. Under 10 of the Rules every person appointed to a class or category shall from the date on which he joins duty be on probation. The question of any employee joining duty would be only after such an employee has been appointed to a particular category. In other words, there cannot be a join in duty without appointment and there cannot be commencement of probation without joining the duty and there cannot be counting of seniority in a particular category, without commencement of probation. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners (1 supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case as in this case the promotions were effected without considering the effect of Rule 15 of the Rules and the guidelines issued by the Government in GO Ms.No.270, dated 30-4-1984. The rank promotees i.e. the writ petitioners in respect of Zone-VI Hyderabad Range, were actually promoted on 18-2-1987, which is not in dispute, but their seniority was fixed w.e.f. 7-6-1985 which is the date of last examination conducted by the Department upon completion of training. 11. The writ petitioners-rank promotees could not point out, in the teeth of Rule 15 of the Rules, and also the guidelines issued in GO Ms.No.270, dated 30-4-1984, any error committed by the Tribunal in allowing the OAs filed by the direct recruits, except harping upon the ground that they were not heard. The Tribunal categorically dealt with the rule position before arriving at the conclusion in setting aside the impugned seniority list. The writ petitions have not placed any material to nullify the findings of the Tribunal. There cannot be two opinions about the legal position that a employee cannot seek for seniority from a date earlier to his actual appointment to a particular post. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the rank promotees that they were put to prejudice as the seniority of all the persons in that cadre are affected is untenable. 12. The Division Bench of this Court in K. Natarajan’s case discussed the parameters for exercise of the High Court’s power to issue a writ of certiorari and observed that finding of fact reached by the inferior Court, Tribunal etc., as a result of the appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings except when the judgment, order or award suffers from an error of law apparent on the fact of the record. 13. In the instant case, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The writ petitions fail they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ B. Seshasayana Reddy, J Dated: 30-12-2008 Tnb/Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} 1 AIR 1999 SC 1510