IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9810 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Raju S/o. G. Fakhera RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 2 P. Venkataiah S/o. P. Bhemanna RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 3 Chandramurali Kumar S/o. Rangaiah RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 4 Shake Mohammed S/o. Ramzan RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 5 K. Mallikharjun S/o. Venkatachary RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 6 T. Shyam Sundar S/o. yellaiah RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 7 Nagaraju S/o. Narayana RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 8 G. Anjaneyulu S/o. Ramanjaneyulu RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 9 P. Sathyanayana S/o. Ramu RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 10 R. Ramachary S/o. R. Naghabhushanachary RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 11 Sudharshan S/o. Babya Naik RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 12 B. Bhaskar S/o. Mallaiah RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 13 R. Balaram S/o. Lalya RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 14 S. Sudhakar Reddy S/o. Linga Reddy RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 15 B. Balu S/o. Surya RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 16 V. Narsimha S/o. Sakru RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 17 B. Ramakrsihana S/o. B. Nageshwara Rao RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 18 D. Yaladri S/o. Venkatesham RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 19 A. Srinath S/o. Narayana Swamy RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 20 Md. Shafiuddin S/o. M.D. Gowsuddin RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 21 J. Shivanarayana S/o. Brahmaiah RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 22 D. Ravi S/o. Ramakoti RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 23 A. Purushotham S/o. Narsaiah RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 24 R. Narendar S/o. Beechya RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 25 Jetavath Ravi S/o. Gopya RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 26 M. Sudhkar Babu S/o. Late Obulesu RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 27 V. Jagadesh Kumar S/o. Late Ravi Kumar RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. 28 T. Vijayaraju S/o. Danam RPF Training Centre, Moulali, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Union of India, rep by 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 Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, S.C.Railway, Rail Nilayam,Secunderabad. 4 The Principal, Railway Protection Force Training Center, 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 a writ, 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 Battalions 1) Battalion No.1 Lambdi 2) Battalion No.4 New Jalpaiguri 3) Battalion No.8 Chittranjan 4) Battalion No.10 Dhanbad as per the Proc. No.2008/SEC(ABD)/TRG/2/1, Dt.11.03.2008 based in the 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 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.01.05.2008 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{MSN}