THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.21044 OF 2010 01-02-2011 Between: M.Krishna Reddy and others ……….Petitioner And The Government of AP rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and others. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.21044 OF 2010 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioners, who are the applicants in O.A.No.5357 of 2010 on the file of the AP Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’), Hyderabad, have filed this writ of Certiorari with the following prayers: a) Call for records pertaining to orders passed in O.A.No.3597 of 2010, dated 13-08-2010 of the Tribunal and quash the same; b) Declare the proceedings in R.O.O.No.882/2008/C/No. 739/E1/202/HR/2007-08, dated 21-09-2008 and proceedings in R.O.O.No.251 of 2009 and R.C.No.739/E1/2002/HR/2008-09, dated 14-05-2009 of the 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary; c) Declare the action of the respondents in not preparing the integrated state wide seniority list of Insepctors of Police (Civil) in pursuance of the judgemtn of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.5141 of 2002, dated 09-10-2009 as illegal and arbitrary; d) Directing the respondents to re-draw the seniority list of Inspector of Police (Civil) in Hyderabad Range (zone-IV) by deleting and separating the Inspectors of City from the seniority list of Hyderabad Range (zone-VI) in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.5141 of 2002, dated 09-10-2009; e) Directing the respondents to prepare the seniority list of Inspectors of City Range and Inspectors of Zone-VI based on the dates of their actual promotion to the post of Inspector (Civil); f) Declare the applicants are entitled to be promoted as Deputy Superintendents of police basing on the actual date of appointment and legth of service in preference to all those who were actually promoted as Inspectors after the promotion of the applicant and g) Declare the action of the respondents in promoting several persons whose names were not even shown in the seniority list dated 27-04- 2009 as illegal. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners are working as Inspectors of Police, Hyderabad city and they were appointed as direct recruities Sub Inspectors (Civil) of 1989 batch. They were included in the ‘C’ list of S.I. fit to act as Inspectors of Police for the year 1998 of Hyderabad Range. They have started working as C.Is from different dates in 2001 and they have completed more than 6 years of service. They are the local candidates of zone VI as their appointment and promotions were made in Zone VI. However, the persons appointed in city were never treated as persons appointed to zone VI or Hyderabad Range. The grievance of the petitioners is that several persons were appointed to city range as Direct recruitment S.Is (Civil) without following the local area reservation. It is further stated that as per para 5 (1) of the Presidential order, zone VI (Hyderabad Range) for which local cadres have been organized for the posts of S.I’s and C.I’s is a separate list for the purposes of recruitment, appointments, discharge, seniority, promotions and transfers and such other matter as may be specified by the State Government. However, a final seniority list of C.Is. of the State was prepared on 27-04-2009 based on notional seniority and the said list was challenged in several O.As and the Tribunal set aside the same by its order dated 24-09-2009 in O.A.No.5767 of 2007 on the same ground as raised in the present O.A. The Supreme Court also rendered in its judgment, dated 09-10-2009 in C.A.No.5141 of 2002 and batch holding that no separate cadre has been organized for the city of Hyderabad and that the Inspectors of police working in the Hyderabad city police establishment either on promotion to that post or by direct recruitment must be considered as belonging to zone VI in the zonal cadre cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Hence, the petitioners alleged that there was a need to redraft the seniority list of Inspectors of Zone VI and also the seniority list of Inspectors of city separately, and the said lists are liable to be prepared based on the actual date of promotions as Inspectors of police which should be after the inclusion of the candidates in the respective ‘C’ lists. It is further alleged that as the separate seniority lists of city and zone VI were liable to be prepared afresh after 09-10-2009, there was a need to prepare another integrated state-wide seniority list of Inspectors of Police. Since the said procedure was not followed, the juniors of the applicants were promoted by order dated 04-05-2010, though they do not figure in the seniority list dated 27-04-2009, but the case of the applicants was not considered for promotion. Therefore, the action of the respondents in promoting their juniors is illegal and if a seniority list is prepared, they shall invariably figure as juniors to the applicants. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Tribunal and filed the present O.A. to declare the action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary in not preparing the integrated state wide seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil) in pursuance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in S.L.P.No.5141 of 2002, dated 09-10-2009 as illegal and arbitrary etc. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 13-08-2010, directed the respondents to complete the exercise and finalize the preparation of the seniority lists as per the directions of the Apex Court in its judgment dated 09-10-2009 in S.L.P.Nos.5142 of 2002 and batch. Meanwhile, the promotions effected to the post of Deputy Superintendent of police as the direction issued by the High Court in W.P.M.P.No.11865 of 2010 in W.P.No.9186 of 2010, dated 26-04-2010 shall be subject to the result of the O.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending that the respondents failed to implement the local area reservation while making recruitment. They further contended that as per AP Public Employment (OC & RDR) Order, 1975, the State was divided into 6 zones. Zone VI comprised of the districts of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy, Nizamabad, Mahaboobnagar, Medak and Nalgonda Districts. For making direct recruitment to the posts of S.I’s in the said zone, which is popularly known as Hyderabad zone, local area reservation is followed and that the petitioners were appointed and promoted in Zone VI as S.Is. since they were local candidates. There cannot either be state wide provisional seniority list of Inspector of Police or the State wide Final seniority list of Inspector of Police in the absence of separate seniority list of Inspector of Police belonging to Hyderabad Range and Hyderabad city. Therefore, the respondents are bound to prepare the seniority list of Inspectors of City Range and Inspectors of Zone VI based on the dates of their actual promotion to the post of Inspector (Civil) and consider them for promotion as DSP’s, based on their actual date of promotion and length of service as Inspectors, in the available vacancies. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents, and perused the record. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the order passed by the Tribunal, and especially in view of the fact that the O.A. is still pending before the Tribunal, and since the lis between the parties are yet to be decided by one way or other by the Tribunal, we are declined to exercise the certiorari jurisdiction at this stage. However, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with certain direction to the Tribunal. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Tribunal to consider the case of the petitioners on the basis of length of service and dispose of the main O.A. itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from today and till such time, the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.26778 of 2010, dated 13-09-2010 shall continue. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated: 29-01-2011 ________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Issue C.C. in two days. B/o. kvr