THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WP Nos.9420 of 2010, 10107 of 2010 & 10108 of 2010 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J ) All these writ petitions are filed against the common order dated 24-9-2009 passed in a batch of OAs by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner in WP No.9420 of 2010 filed the writ petition against the order dated 24-9-2009 passed in OA No.8810 of 2009 in so far the Tribunal holding that the appointing authority has no power to assign the dates of regularization basing on the year wise panels as being illegal, arbitrary and also contrary to the orders passed in OA No.8597 of 2008 and OA No.7755 of 2008. The petitioners in WP No.10107 of 2010 also assail the order in OA No.8810 of 2009 and they are aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in so far it sets aside the integrated statewide seniority list of Inspectors of Police issued in proceedings in Rc.No.888/E1/2008, dated 27-4-2009. The petitioners WP No.10108 of 2010 assail the order in OA No.9228 of 2008 and they are also aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in so far it sets aside the integrated statewide seniority list of Inspectors of Police issued in proceedings in Rc.No.888/E1/2008, dated 27-4-2009. A batch of OAs including the above OAs were filed before the Tribunal questioning the method of preparation of zonal seniority list, called “C” list of Sub-Inspectors fit for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. Areawise, the Department is divided into six zones. Zone-I is Visakhapatnam range, Zone-II is Eluru range, Zone-III is Guntur range, Zone-IV is Kurnool range, Zone-V is Warangal range and Zone-VI is Hyderabad range. The controversy relates to preparation of years wise panels in different Zones. 3. As per the Presidential Order and the AP Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres & Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, and as per Rule 12 of the AP Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules, issued in GO Ms.No.374 Home (Police-C) Department, dated 14-12-1999, the unit of appointment for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police is Zone. Likewise, the unit of appointment for the post of Inspector of Police is also a Zone as per Rule 10 of the AP Police (Civil) Service Rules issued in GO Ms.No.137 Home (Police-E) Department, dated 1-6-1998. As per Rule 6 (b) of the AP Police (Civil) Service Rules, no person shall be eligible for promotion unless he is an approved probationer and has put in not less than six years of service in the category of Sub-Inspector of Police for the post of Inspector of Police. No person shall be eligible for promotion unless one has completed six years of service in the category of Inspector of Police for attaining eligibility for promotion as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, which is also a selection post. It is to be noted that the promotions to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police will be effected from the statewide integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Police as per merit and seniority. The statewide integrated final seniority list of Inspectors of Police is prepared based on the final seniority list of all zones after integrating them. Zonal wise final seniority list of Inspectors is prepared on the basis of seniority list of SIs of Police. Appointment by promotion can be only from the panel. When the panel is not prepared, there cannot be any promotion. 4. The grievance of the applicants-party respondents herein before the Tribunal was that year wise panels were not prepared from 1990-91 on the basis of the vacancies that arose in the respective years and the same is bad in law. Whereas the respondent-Department’s case is that there were no vacancies upto the year 2001 in Zones I, II, IV and V. 5. As per Rule 6 of the AP State & Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996, (for short, ‘the Rules’) every year panels have to be prepared by taking into account the vacancies and non preparation of year wise panels affects the seniority of the candidates of the respective Zones. Under Rule 6(b) of the Rules, 1st September of every year is the commencement of panel year concluding on 31st August of the next calendar year. Except for the reasons that there are no vacancies for a particular panel year or the appointing authority may consider it not necessary, it is a statutory obligation on the part of the appointing authority to prepare year wise panels. 6. The facts in OA No.8810 of 2009 are the applicant therein respondent no.1 in WP No.10107 of 2010 and respondent no.8 in WP No.9420 of 2010 is working as Inspector of Police from Zone-III (Guntur range) and has assailed the final seniority list of Inspectors of Police dated 7-11-2008 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range, as amended by an order dated 23-7-2009 and also Statewide integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil) issued in Memo.Rc.No.888/E1/2008, dated 27-4-2009 issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, and, therefoere, seeks for a direction that his seniority is to be fixed in the cadre of SI of Police, Guntur Range, as per the marks obtained by him in 1985 batch and to prepare year wise panel from the year 1991 onwards in respect of Guntur Range and consequently include the name of the applicant in appropriate place in the statewide integrated seniority list. The applicant also contends that year wise panels from the year 1991 onwards were not prepared and his seniority in the Sub-Inspector cadre is not prepared as per the marks obtained by him in the examination conducted by the APPSC, whereas in Hyderabad Range the seniority list of SIs of Police was prepared on the basis of marks obtained by 1985 batch and the panels were prepared year-wise. 7. The facts in OA No.9228 of 2008 is that the applicant-party respondent no.4 in WP No.10108 of 2010 is an Inspector of Police from Zone-II (Eluru range). He was directly recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1989. He assailed the provisional seniority list dated 7-11-2008 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru range, calling for objections. The ground urged was that the said list dated 7-11-2008 was prepared contra to the direction issued in OA No.7755 of 2008, dated 6-11-2008. It was stated that in the order dated 6-11-2008 passed in OA No.7755 of 2008, the Tribunal directed the authorities to follow the uniform principle through out the State in preparing the year wise panels. 8. Basing on the pleadings of the parties in the OAs, the Tribunal in all framed ten points and by a speaking order gave its findings. The petitioners in these writ petitions are aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal in the above OAs on points 7, 8 & 9. The said points read thus:- 7) Whether the applicants are entitled for notional date of promotion from the date of vacancy ? 8) Whether assignment of notional date of vacancy by the Head of the Department, in the absence of orders from the Government, is valid ? 9) Whether the final statewide integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Police is bad under law ? 9. On point 7) the Tribunal observed that whether it is an appointment by direct recruitment or appointment by promotion, the employer has a right to take a decision to fill up a vacancy or not and, therefore, observed that the applicants in the OAs cannot claim notional promotion from the date of vacancy or notional seniority from the date of vacancy. On point 8) the Tribunal observed that seniority commences from the date of appointment to a service and the Director General of Police has no authority or jurisdiction to appoint Inspectors of Police with an anterior date and assign seniority with an anterior date. It was also observed that an appointment with an anterior date can only be done by relaxing the relevant rule by invoking the power under Rule 31 of the Rules. On point 9) the Tribunal in the light of Rule 24 of the Rules, observed that the Head of the Department has no authority or jurisdiction to assign them notional promotion from the date of vacancy. The Tribunal further held that merely because a candidate is included in the panel of a particular year, that does not mean that he has to be appointed from the date of the vacancy. Hence, the writ petitions. 10. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.10107 of 2010, Sri JR Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.10108 of 2010, Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.9420 of 2010, Sri M. Surender Rao, learned counsel for the party respondents and learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent-officers. Perused the material and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 11. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and officers of Zone-VI (Hyderabad range) contended that pursuant to the judgment in OA No.5045 of 2007 and batch, the petitioners though were promoted as Inspectors of Police on 10-11-1995 and 14-9-2004, consequent upon the revision of the seniority list and preparation of year wise panels, they were accorded notional date of promotion i.e. ante date promotion from 24-1-1992 and 29-6-2000 respectively and such assignment of notional seniority to them has become final, but in view of the directions now given in the impugned order adversely affects the petitioners and other officers of Zone-VI and, therefore, the impugned order has to be modified so as to restrict it to other Zones only. 12. Admittedly, the petitioners are not parties before the Tribunal. The assignment of notional date of promotion as Inspectors of Police from 24-1-1992 and 20-6-2000 respectively to the petitioners herein has become final and by virtue of this in the integrated statewide seniority list dated 27-4-2009, the petitioners stood at Sl.Nos.72 and 335 respectively and now the integrated statewide seniority list is set aside, the petitioners and other officers of Zone-VI will be adversely affected. A Division Bench of this Court, (to which I am member) in T. GANGANNA vs. GOVERNMENT OF AP1 while dealing with seniority and promotion of individuals of different multi zones at paras 9 & 10 held thus:- “9. As seen from the record, the petitioner- applicant joined the service as Assistant Training Officer on 20.7.1997 and he was promoted as Training Officer on 10.12.1998. On the other hand, the un-official respondent was appointed as Assistant Training Officer on 29.6.1981 and he was promoted as Training Officer on 17.10.1987. The un official respondent belongs to Zone-I and the petitioner-applicant belongs to Zone- IV. The post of Training Officer is a zonal post whereas the post of Principal is a multi-zonal post. Multi-zone-I consists of Zones I and II. Multi-Zone II consists of Zones III and IV and multi-zone III consists of Zones V, VI, and VII. According to Rules governing Gazetted Service issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 1416, Labour, Employment and Technical Education (TRG.I) Department, dated 19.12.1977, a distinct pattern is found. For instance, for promotion to the post of Principal, Industrial Training Institution, a Degree Holder with one year experience will be considered eligible for promotion. On the other hand, a Diploma holder needs Six years experience and a Certificate holder needs 10 years experience in the lower level post before they can be considered for promotion to the post of Principal of Industrial Training Institutions and similar distinction is to be found throughout the service rules. Therefore, based on a combination of academic qualifications and experience, promotional opportunities are sought to be provided under the Rules without depriving of any particular category the opportunity for being promoted, based on the initial academic qualification, and provided they gain sufficient experience. 10. Be that as it may, in this particular case, the petitioner-applicant is questioning the seniority and promotion of an individual who belongs to not only a different zone, but also different multi-zone. The question with regard to intra-zonal seniority is no longer res-integra. It is now well settled that an individual belonging to one zone cannot question the seniority of an individual belonging to a different zone. It cannot be called fortuitous from a legalistic point of view in view of the mandatory provisions under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India and the Presidential Order, 1975, which was a direct consequence of the special provisions under the said Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the O.A. observing that the applicant did not disclose any cause of action and he has also not placed any material based on which his relief can be granted.” 13. In view of the fact that in none of the OAs, the notional dates assigned to the petitioners and others officers in Zone-VI (Hyderabad range) in the cadre of Inspector of Police was in challenge and now that the integrated statewide seniority list in Rc.No.888/E1/2008, dated 27-4- 2009 is prepared, there is no need to set aside the same and it holds good in so far as Zone-VI (Hyderabad range) is concerned. 14. Sri JR Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners who are also officers of Zone-VI (Hyderabad range) submitted that the petitioners were directly recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police in the year 1985 in Hyderabad City and they were promoted as Inspector of Police on 10-11- 1995 and 10-7-2001 respectively. It is also stated that dispute arose between promotees and directly recruited SIs and ultimately this Court in WP No.24959 of 2008 and batch held that direct recruits are entitled for seniority over the promotees and as a consequence, the petitioners were given notional promotion from 3-7-1992 and 24-12-1992 respectively. The 4th respondent herein filed OA No.9228 of 2008 challenging the seniority list of Inspectors of Police of Zone-II (Eluru range). It is stated that they have nothing to do with Zone-II officers, but are aggrieved by the action of the Tribunal in so it relates to setting aside the statewide integrated seniority list. 15. Admittedly, the 4th respondent in WP No.10108 of 2010 challenged the seniority list of Inspectors of Police of Zone-II (Eluru range). The petitioners who are officers of Zone-VI (Hyderabad range) have nothing do in so far as zonal seniority of Zone-II is concerned. If at all the notional dates of seniority of the officers working in other Zones is not properly prepared, the Tribunal ought to have restricted to those zones only. As noted above, in none of the OAs filed before the Tribunal, the notional promotion dates assigned to the petitioners and other officers in Zone-VI (Hyderabad range) was in question. 16. The Supreme Court in GOVERNMENT OF AP vs. A. SURYANARAYANARAO2, with reference to the similar subject matter at para 12 held thus:- “12…..According to the learned counsel, if the promotions are to be made only on the basis of the zonal list then there is every possibility of some of the seniors in the Statewide list not getting promotions and the same would result in some of the juniors becoming seniors which would ultimately affect the promotional avenues for the Statewide higher post like Executive Engineer. But it must be noted that Article 371 D is of exceptional nature and the object is to provide equal opportunities in the backward areas in respect of the specified posts mentioned in the Third Schedule which are included in the local cadre which thus became zonal posts. As mentioned in para 5 of the Presidential Order and Rule 2-A of the Engineering Service Rules such zones should be treated as separate units for the purpose of promotions also. Therefore there is valid nexus to the object that is sought to be achieved and even if there is some anomaly it cannot on that basis be said that such promotions for zonal posts on the basis of the zonal seniority list amounts to discrimination. In S. Prakasha Rao v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (1990) 2 SCC 259 : (AIR 1990 SC 997), a Bench of three Judges of this Court affirmed the view taken by the Administrative Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh that the zonal seniority list prepared pursuant to the initial organization and creation of local cadres is to be maintained and such zonal seniority list is the criteria for promotion.” 17. The grievance of the petitioner in WP No.9420 of 2010 is also the same grievance as that of the petitioners in WP No.10107 of 2010 and WP No.10108 of 2010 since the petitioner is also an officer working as Inspector of Police in Zone-VI (Hyderabad range). 18. Though it is contention of Sri M. Surender Rao, learned counsel for the party-respondents that the order dated 6-11-2008 passed in OA Nos.8597 of 2008 and 7755 of 2008, the seniority list of the officers in Zone-VI was not upheld by the Tribunal and what ordered was only preparation of year wise panels for Zone-II (Eluru range) and Zone- III (Guntur range), but the fact remains that the proceedings dated 21-9- 2008 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad range, assigning the revised dates of notional seniority was not interfered with by the Tribunal. If a person, for reasons not concerning him was denied promotion on the date on which he is entitled to, then such person is entitled to restoration of his seniority with effect from the date on which he is entitled to, consequent upon the rectification of the anomaly by the authorities either pursuant to an order passed by the Tribunal/Court or on their own correction. In respect of Zone-VI (Hyderabad range) to which the writ petitioners belong preparation of seniority list of SIs (Civil) was revised consequent upon the orders of this Court in a writ petition filed by the direct recruits of SIs and that became final. 19. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal ought not to have set aside the integrated statewide seniority list of Inspectors of Police issued in proceedings in Rc.No.888/E1/2008, dated 27-4-2009, more so, it was not a subject matter of challenge before it. 20. Promotional avenues differs from zone to zone. Preparation and finalization of zonal seniority list depends upon various intra-disputes among the zonal cadre officers and regard shall have to be given to the orders of the Tribunal including this High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject matter by the respective Range Officers of the zones. It does not mean to say that for different zones different yardsticks can be followed, but it cannot be gainsaid that there should be universal principle in matters of finalization of zonal seniority list of the respective zones. If there are any errors in preparation of a particular zonal seniority list, integrated statewide seniority list can be revised to the extent of variation in the zonal list. 21. In UNION OF INDIA vs. HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN (3) (2010) 4 SCC 290) the Supreme Court with reference to the similar subject matter at paras 41 to 45 held thus:- 41. Learned counsel for the appellants has also urged that the statutory mandate of a cadre review exercise every five years is qualified by the expression 'ordinarily'. So if it has not been done within five years that does not amount to a failure of exercise of a statutory duty on the part of the authority contemplated under the Rule. 42. This Court is not very much impressed with the aforesaid contention. The word 'ordinarily' must be given its ordinary meaning. While construing the word the Court must not be oblivious of the context in which it has been used. In the case in hand the word 'ordinarily' has been used in the context of promotional opportunities of the Officers concerned. In such a situation the word 'ordinarily' has to be construed in order to fulfill the statutory intent for which it has been used. 43. The word 'ordinarily', of course, means that it does not promote a cast iron rule, it is flexible (See Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Others - (1976) 1 SCC 671, at page 682 (para 35). It excludes something which is extraordinary or special [Eicher Tractors Limited, Haryana vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - (2001) 1 SCC 315, at page 319 (para 6)]. The word 'ordinarily' would convey the idea of something which is done 'normally' [Krishan Gopal vs. Shri Prakashchandra and others - (1974) 1 SCC 128, at page 134 (para 12)] and 'generally' subject to special provision [Mohan Baitha and others vs. State of Bihar and another - (2001) 4 SCC 350 at page 354]. 44. Concurring with the aforesaid interpretative exercise, we hold that the statutory duty which is cast on the State Government and the Central Government to undertake the cadre review exercise every five years is ordinarily mandatory subject to exceptions which may be justified in the facts of a given case. Surely, lethargy, in- action, an absence of a sense of responsibility cannot fall within category of just exceptions. 45. In the facts of this case neither the appellants nor the State of U.P. has justified its action of not undertaking the exercise within the statutory time frame on any acceptable ground. Therefore, the delayed exercise cannot be justified within the meaning of 'ordinarily' in the facts of this case. In the facts of the case, therefore, the Court holds that there was failure on the part of the authorities in carrying out the timely exercise of cadre review. 46. In a somewhat similar situation, this Court in Union of India vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah - (1996) 6 SCC 721, while construing Regulation 5 of the I.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 held that the insertion of the word 'ordinarily' does not alter the intendment underlying the provision. This Court in that case was considering the provision of Clause (1) of Regulation 5 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations along with other provisions of Regulation 5. The interpretation which this Court gave to the aforesaid two Regulations was that the Selection Committee shall meet at an interval not exceeding one year and prepare a list of members who are eligible for promotion under the list. The Court held that this was mandatory in nature.” 22. From the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemraj Singh Chauhan’s (3 supra) and also from Rule 6 of the Rules, it follows that there is a duty cast on the part of the respective Range officers of the zones to prepare the year wise panel for effecting promotions on the basis of the available vacancies. A person who is qualified in a particular panel year, and if no panel is prepared in that year, it causes prejudice to him and certainly affects his promotional avenues. The authorities taking a conscious decision for not preparing a panel for a particular year for valid reasons covered by exception stated in Rule 6 of the Rules is altogether a different matter. But when once a person is qualified in a particular panel year and for no fault of his, the panel is not finalized, then he is entitled for his seniority from the date he is denied promotion. Since preparation of the yearwise panel is the foundation for promotion and its omission impinges upon the legitimate expectation of officers for consideration of their case for further promotion, the next higher post, it must be construed to be mandatory. The words ‘appointment to service’ occurring in Rule 2 of the Rules was taken into consideration by the Tribunal and concluded that the seniority commences from the date of appointment to service and therefore notional date of promotion cannot be given, and if all notional date is to be given it has to done only by invoking the power under