IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 3074 of 2008 Between: S. Sudarshan S/o Chandraiah Bhiknoor (Village & Mandal) Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER And: 1 The Government of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Lakadikapool, 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner as Inspector of Police (Civil) and the orders passed by APAT in O.A. No. 431 of 2008 dated 23-1-2008 in so far as not granting interim direction as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil) basing on the length of the service of the petitioner on par with the 1991 batch Direct recruit sub-Inspectors and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Services-I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3074 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner as Inspector of Police (Civil) and also the order, dated 23.01.2008, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in O.A.No.431 of 2008, insofar as not granting interim direction as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also to declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil), basing on the length of the service, on par with the 1991 batch Direct Recruit Sub-Inspectors. 3. Petitioner is applicant and respondents are respondents, in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. The interim direction sought for by the petitioner, before the Tribunal, in the said O.A., is as under: - “To consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil) basing on the length of service of the applicant on par with the 1991 batch Direct Recruit Sub-Inspectors and pass such other orders.” 5. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was selected as Reserve Sub-Inspector in the year 1991, initially, his appointment was denied; that, later, by virtue of the order, dated 04.11.1995, passed by the Tribunal, in O.A.No.4728 of 1994, he was given appointment; that, the petitioner, having put in exemplary service as Reserve Sub-Inspector, in Naxal infested areas, was converted as Sub-Inspector (Civil), as per his option, with effect from 19.01.2004, and that, for one reason or the other, which is not on record, the seniority of the petitioner was not decided and kept pending Further, it appears that the Sub-Inspectors, belonging to 1992 and 1995 batches, were promoted to the posts of Inspectors of Police (Civil). 6. As already noticed, the petitioner belongs to 1991 batch of Direct Recruit Reserve Sub-Inspectors, but, owing to the fact that some litigation initiated by the petitioner was pending before the Tribunal, his seniority could not be finalized. Eventually, that issue had been settled and as a result, the seniority of the petitioner in the category of Reserve Sub-Inspectors was fixed. 7. But, it is to be noted that, during the interregnum, the Reserve Sub-Inspectors category, who belong subsequent to 1991 batch, i.e., 1992 and 1995 batches, were promoted as Inspectors of Police. 8. Obviously, all of them are juniors to the petitioner, if it were factually correct. Of course, this is a fact to be verified from the records. However, the seniority of the petitioner has been fixed in June, 2006. 9. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though several of his juniors, who were initially appointed as Reserve Sub- Inspectors, belonging to his subsequent batches i.e., 1992 and 1995 batches, and subsequently converted as Sub-Inspectors (Civil) were promoted to the post of Inspectors of Police (Civil), his case was not considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil). 10. Here, it is to be noted that there is a litigation viz., W.P.No.28373 of 2007 and batch pending before this Court as regards the validity or otherwise of the fixation of seniority inter se between the converted Reserve Sub-Inspectors and direct recruits of Sub-Inspectors (Civil), in which, this Court had passed an interim order, dated 31.12.2007, in W.P.M.P.No.37073 of 2007, directing the respondents therein to treat such promotions, made pursuant to the said interim direction, as adhoc promotions, without conferring right of seniority, and the same were subject to the result of the said writ petitions and batch. 11. That litigation, in fact, has nothing to do with the present writ petition and of course, there is some distant bearing on the main issue involved in this writ petition. 12. It is needless to mention, as already pointed out, that any decision, pursuant to the said interim order of this Court, would be subject to the remote chance of having any bearing on the batch of writ petitions which are referred to above. 13. In this context, it is to be further seen that, as a general principle, the High Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction of the Tribunal, either in granting the interim order or rejecting the same. However, in extreme cases, where total injustice is likely to be caused, this Court can interfere, in such matters, by exercising its power of judicial review. 14. In the instant case, the Tribunal had rejected to grant the interim direction, as sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the facts stated above, which are, prima facie, absolutely in favour of the petitioner, we see no ground to sustain the action of the Tribunal in not granting the interim direction. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, suffice it to close the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion i.e., if any Reserve Sub-Inspector category, who were appointed subsequent to 1991 batch, i.e., who belong to 1992 and 1995 batches, were promoted to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil), if he is otherwise eligible. 16. Our endeavour is only to give a quietus or to minimize the scope of litigation, apart from the apparent injustice that may likely to be caused to the petitioner. 17. For the foregoing reasons, in fact, nothing remains for adjudication in the said O.A., which is pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, we close the said O.A., also. 18. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is closed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Government of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad. 4. 2CCs to Government Pleader for Services-I, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. 2CD copies