IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10463 of 2008 Between: 1 P.N. Phaneendra Kumar S/o P. Ch. Subba Rao 2 p. Roshaiah S/o Polaiah 3 K. balakondaiah s/o K. Katamaiah 4 K. Eshwar Nailk S/o Somla Naik 5 P. shivanarayana S/o Suryanarayana 6 Ch. Sreenuvasulu S/o Ch. Narayana 7 N. Muralimohan Rao S/o Krishna Murthy 8 Ch. Suribabu S/o Ch. Suryanarayana 9 K. Lingya S/o K. Sukya 10 L. rAju S/o Sammaiah 11 B.Y. Murthy S/o N.K. Baney 12 S.K. Nagulmera S/o Shaikmadar 13 V. Paramesh S/o Anjaiah 14 B. Thirupelu S/o Peddanaganna 15 G. Shravan S/o Sambaiah 16 C. Srinivasulu S/o Venkataramudu 17 G. RAvi Kumar S/o Lingappa 18 P. Krishna s/o Tataiah 19 Y. Suraya s/o P. Prasad 20 M. Vijayasingh S/o Tulsya 21 B. Rajashekar S/o Nagendrappa 22 V. Balakrishna murthy S/o K. RAmulu 23 S. Ramatulla S/o Samad 24 K. Venkateshwr Naik S/o Narayana Naik 25 G. Pornachandra Rao S/o venkateshwarlu 26 K. Chandra Sekhar S/o Krishnaiah 27 P. Venkata Rao S/o Polaiah 28 D. Sarish S/o Sathaiah 29 S. Suman S/o Rajanna 30 G. Shravan Kumar S/o Kishan 31 Ch. Mohana Krishna s/o Venkateshwarlu 32 P. Sivakoteshwar Rao S/o Venkataswarlu 33 G. Rajendra Prasad S/o Raja Rao 34 P. Mahender S/o Ramulu 35 Leesnin S/o Ph. Saleem 36 N. Hussain S/o Guravaiah 37 A. Nagabhushanam S/o Sheshanna 38 Shaik Dhawood Saaheb S/o Saheb John 39 Manojsatish Waghmore S/o Satish Waghmore 40 S. Chandranaik S/o Somla Naik 41 M. Veeralingam S/o Ramaiah 42 P. Ramakrishna S/o Pullaiah 43 N. Vihnushekhar S/o Sambaiah 44 N. Murali S/o Keema 45 Ravi S/o Gasya 46 B. Ranga Rao S/o B. Augustine (all are residing at RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Union of India, repby its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board Rail bhavan, new Delhi. 2 The Director General, Railway Protection Force Rail bhavan, new Delhi. 3 The Chief security Commission Railway Protection Force, S.C. Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 4 The Principal, Railway Protection Force Training Centre s.C. Railway, Moulali, Secunderabad. .....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 Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in transferring and posting the petitioners in Railway protection Special Force Battalion 1) battalion No.1 Limbdi 2) battalion No. 4 New Jalpaiguri 3) battalion o. 8 Chittaranjan 4) battalion No. 10 Dhanbad as per the Proc. No. 2008/Sec (ABE)/TRG/2/1, dt 11-03-2008 based onthe desire of the 2nd respondent vide Railway Board Letter., No. 2007- SEc(E)/RC-3/27 dt 10-03-2008 even though they were recruited in Railway protection Force Department for the South Central Railway Zone is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to perform their duties in Railway protection Force Department in south Central Railway and pass such other or futher orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : ORDER: The respondents issued Employment Notice, dated 09.01.2007, inviting applications for 217 posts of Constables, in RPF/RPSF, from eligible candidates. The petitioners and several others submitted applications. The selection process comprised of holding a written test, verification of physical condition, and interview. All the petitioners were selected as Constables and were sent for training. The petitioners state that depending on the merit of the selected candidates, some of them are to be appointed in RPF, which is zonal in its purport, and others in RPSF, which is of all India basis. Their grievance is that though 165 vacancies exist in the zone, all of them are being posted in RPSF, in compliance with a letter, dated 11.03.2008, issued by the first respondent. They challenge the action of the respondents in proposing to appoint, in the RPSF. Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the action of the respondents in posting all the petitioners in RPSF is contrary to the purport of the notification as well as the relevant provisions of law. He contends that in the employment notice itself, it was clearly mentioned that candidates, who secured higher merit, shall be allotted to RPF, and contrary to the same, the petitioners are being posted in RPSF. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that having regard to the exigency of service, all the candidates that were selected in pursuance of the notification, dated 09.01.2007, have been drawn for RPSF and that the petitioners cannot insist on being posted in RPF. The notification, dated 09.01.2007, by itself did not maintain any distinction, as to the candidates to be posted in RPF, on the one hand, and in RPSF, on the other hand. The selection process is a combine one and the respective vacancies in categories referred to above were not mentioned. Para 14.2 of the notification reads as under: “Selected candidates are liable to be posted anywhere in India in RPF/RPSF. However, the candidates who secure higher merit position shall be allotted to RPF and those lower in merit shall be allotted to RPSF, as per availability of vacancies.” From this, it is evident that the selected candidates are liable to be posted either in RPF, or in RPSF, and as and when any postings are to be made to RPF, merit shall be treated as the criterion. It is not even alleged that any specified number of vacancies of the respective categories was mentioned in the notification. Further, the petitioners have not placed the orders of posting. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot interfere with the decision taken through the impugned proceedings or the consequential orders of posting. It is needless to observe that as and when appointments are made to RPF, which is zonal in nature, the respondents shall follow the procedure prescribed in para 14.2 of the notification and the cases of the petitioners shall also be considered. The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.02.05.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note:Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}