THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No.12353 of 2005 & W.P. No.19076 of 2009 Dated 22-11-2011 W.P. No.12353 of 2005 Between: K. Sreenivasulu and others …Petitioners Vs. The Govlkernment of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents W.P. No.19076 of 2009 Between: D.V. Suryanarayana Rao and others. …Petitioners Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No.12353 of 2005 & W.P. No.19076 of 2009 Dated: 22-11-2011 COMMON ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR,J) Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel representing Sri K.Ram Mohan Mahadeva, for the applicants; Sri K. Anantha Rao for the unoﬃcial respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for official respondents The two writ petitions are instituted with leave of this Court by persons who are not parties to O.A.Nos. 894 of 2001 and 8335 of 2005, aggrieved by the orders dated 16-04-2004 and 10-07-2009 respectively in the above two Original Applications. The learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by the order dated 10-07-2009, in substance, allowed O.A.No. 8335 of 2005 in terms of its earlier orders dated 16-04-2004 in O.A.No. 894 of 2001. The order of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 894 of 2001 is therefore the substantive grievance of the petitioners herein. The order of the Tribunal (dated 16-04-2009 in O.A.No. 894 of 2001) directed: “Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned G.P. and in the circumstances stated above, there shall be a direction to the respondents to reckon the seniority of the applicant and others who are similarly placed as per their original promotion as Head Constables without giving any preferential treatment to Lance Naiks and Naiks at the time of promotion to the cadre of Assistant Sub-Inspectors and if any further promotions made, it will be in strict conformity with the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 237 without any deviation. The respondents shall also publish the seniority list strictly in accordance with the rules in the ﬁrst instance after receipt of the objections from the aggrieved parties and ﬁnalize the same. All further promotions from the cadre of Head Constables shall be based on the said ﬁnal seniority list ﬁnalized as directed above.The O.A. is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The non-oﬃcial respondent in W.P.No. 12353 of 2005 (respondent No.4 in W.P.No. 12353 of 2005) is the applicant in O.A.No 894 of 2001. The relief sought in this O.A. is: …this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to reckon the seniority of the applicant and others as per their promotions as Head Constable and consider their cases for further promotion on the said basis declaring the action of the respondents in deviating from the same without a proper seniority and without notice to the aﬀected persons and contrary to the Government orders as illegal and arbitrary and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deems ﬁt and proper under the circumstances of the case.” Either on its terms or in the context of the grievance presented in O.A.No. 894 of 2001, the relief sought is not clearly comprehensible. It is not clear whether the applicant seeks promotion to the next higher category of Assistant Sub- Inspector from the category of Head Constable in the Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force (for short ‘APSP’), on the basis of inter se seniority derived from the dates of respective promotions of Constables as Head Constables; or is aggrieved that in further promotions to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector there was a deviation from the inter se seniority obtaining in the category of Head Constables in the APSP; or is aggrieved by erroneous promotions to the category of Head Constables from its feeder category, of Constables. Be that as it may. The APSP was constituted in 1993 under the Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force Act, 1993 (A.P. Act 25 of 1993) (for short ‘the Act’). During its initial period, the APSP cadre was manned by drafting personnel from several central police organizations (for short ‘CPOs’) such as C.R.P.F; B.S.F; I.T.B.F; Assam Riﬂes; C.I.S.F etc., on deputation basis. Prior to 1979, categories of Lance Naiks and Naiks along with Constables formed the constitution of the constabulary in the State. The categories of Lance Naiks and Naiks were abolished in 1979 and persons holding these posts in the A.P. State Police Forces were accommodated in the posts of Head Constables. By the time the persons working in several CPOs were drafted to the APSP during 1993, and beyond the A.P. Police Services did not have the categories of Lance Naik and Naik. Only the categories of Constables and Head Constables were there on account of the re-categorization in 1979. Among the persons drafted from several CPOs to the APSP also came individuals from the categories of Constables, Lance Naiks and Naiks as these categories continued to exist in CPOs, when personnel belonging to diﬀerent categories were drafted to the APSP during 1993 and beyond, the administration had to grapple with the issue as to determination of inter se seniority, ﬁtment of oﬃcers having diﬀerent designations in parent organizations, for accommodation in the hierarchy of APSP. With a view to enrich the APSP with the experience and expertise gained by personnel serving in several CPOs, the State formulated a scheme for absorption of the personnel deputed from the several CPOs into APSP, on a permanent basis. G.O.Ms.No. 237 Home (Police.F) Department dated 07-06-1993 (for short G.O.Ms.No. 237’) was accordingly issued. The State agreed with proposals of the Inspector General of Police, APSP and spelt out several guidelines and instructions for payment of salaries; scales of pay; ﬁtment; and inter se seniority of personnel drawn from the CPOs into APSP. Since the dispute presented in this lis concerns inter se seniority, clause (d), paragraph No.3 of G.O.Ms.No. 237, which deals with these aspects is relevant and reads as under: d) Seniority of the transferees shall be reckoned from the date of their appointment in the organization in that particulars category of posts in which they are absorbed in the Special Protection Force. However, ﬁxation of inter seniority among such transferees shall be with reference to the total service rendered by them in equivalent post in the parent organization to the time of their transfer to Special Protection Force (A.P). (emphasis is added). In the APSP seniority lists in initial category of Constables were drawn up and notiﬁed in 1996. Following the mandate of clause (d) of Paragraph No.3 of G.O.Ms.No. 237 the seniority lists reﬂect t he inter se positions and ranking of personnel drawn from the CPOs as follows: a) Personnel drawn from the CPOs to APSP whether they served as Constable, Lance Naik or Naik in CPOs, were all absorbed and treated as Constables in the APSP; b) Since the categories of Naik, Lance Naik and Constable are hierarchically ranked in that order in the CPOs, persons who were Naiks in CPOs were treated en bloc higher in seniority to those who served as Lance Naiks and these in turn as higher to those who served as Constables in the CPOs. T h e inter se seniority of persons in each block followed their inter se seniority in the parent CPOs. At any rate, there is no dispute as to inter se seniority of persons who served as Lance Naik, Naik or Constable in the CPOs, respectively. It is also the admitted and demonstrable factual scenario that on the basis of the inter se seniority of Constables drawn up as above and the seniority lists of 1996 adverted to supra; promotions to the next higher category of Head Constables in the APSP were made. There is no apparent dispute that promotion to the category of Head Constable was made from the category of Constable in accordance with the inter se seniority of Constables drawn up in 1996 in APSP. It is also the indisputable position that promotion to the next higher category of Assistant Sub-Inspector is from the feeder category of Head Constable to which all the petitioners and non-oﬃcial respondents and other applicants before the Tribunal in this clutch of connected original petitions, are serving. None of the non-oﬃcial contesting parties are serving as Constables now. In this factual scenario, seniority in the category of Constable is of no consequence for promotion to the category of Assistant Sub-Inspector since the feeder category to the later post is the category of Head Constable. Some time in 2001, promotions to the category of Assistant Sub-Inspector from the category of Head Constable was under consideration. At that point, one Sri Anandaiah (respondent No.4 in W.P.No. 12353 of 2005 and applicant in O.A.No. 894 of 2001) realized that he must yield place to others ranked seniors to him as Constable vide 1996 seniority of constables in APSP; and who were consequently promoted earlier to him to the category of Head Constable. Anandaiah therefore ﬁled O.A.No. 894 of 2001 seeking the relief already adverted to. The core of his grievance (not clearly reﬂected in the reliefs sought) was that though persons belonging to diﬀerent categories of Constable, Lance Naik and Naiks in CPOs were appointed to the category of Constable in the APSP, the inter se seniority on absorption as Constables in the APSP should reﬂect the generic seniority in the CPOs, irrespective of whether these persons were employed in the categories of Constables, Lance Naiks or Naiks, as the case may be, in the CPOs. Some equivocal pleading in this direction is set out in O.A.No. 894 of 2001, but the relief as already adverted to, is structured incoherently. The Tribunal, by the order dated 16-04-2004 disposed of O.A.No. 894 of 2001 ﬁled by Sri Anandaiah and reiterated the equivocation found in the reliefs sought therein. The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 894 of 2001 has already been extracted herein before. The Tribunal directed the oﬃcial respondents therein to reckon Sri Anandaiah’s seniority and of others similarly situated as per their original promotions as Head Constables and added a rider that this should be without any preferential treatment to Lance Naik and Naik at the time of promotion to the category of Assistant Sub-Inspector and any further promotions made and that all promotions should be in strict conformity with the orders in G.O.Ms.No. 237, without any deviation. The order of the Tribunal is incongruent. That promotion as Head Constables is in conformity with the 1996 seniority lists in the category of Constables issued by the APSP is not in dispute. No question of preferential treatment to Lance Naiks and Naiks (the nomenclature in the CPOs) operates while promoting Head Constables as Assistant Sub-Inspectors, since Lance Naik, Naik or Constable of CPOs were not absorbed as Head Constables. All were absorbed only as Constables. The direction of the Tribunal to make promotions in strict conformity with the orders in G.O.Ms.No. 237 and without any deviation is a non- sequitur. Earlier in its judgment the Tribunal observed, reacting to the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the oﬃcial respondents by stating that if Lance Naik and Naik were to be promoted, it could only be done as per rules and that the action of the respondents in maintaining separate seniority list of Constables on one hand and Lance Naik and Naiks on the other for the purpose of promotions to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, is not based on any justiﬁable legal foundation. The Tribunal erred in failing to notice that the inter se seniority principle set out in G.O.Ms.No. 237 was clearly that the seniority of men (in APSP) must be reckoned from the date of their appointment in the organization (APSP), in that particular category of posts in which they are absorbed (in this case as ‘Constable’) and that the ﬁxation of inter se seniority among the transferers shall be with reference to the total service rendered by them in equivalent post in the parent organization at the time of their transfer in APSP. The Government order therefore recognized that the persons holding diﬀerent and hierarchically dis-similar category of posts in the CPO were drawn into the common category of Constable in the APSP and therefore enjoined that the inter se seniority positions of such drafted personnel must be with reference to the category of posts held by them in the parent organization. The relevant provision of G.O.Ms.No. 237 could be understood fairly as enjoining that the inter se seniority of Lance Naiks, Naiks and Constables in the CPOs must be maintained inter se when there is amalgamation into the common category of Constable in the APSP. This instruction was translated in practice by the issuance of separate seniority lists in the category of Constables, for Lance Naiks, Naiks and Constables (the erstwhile designations in the parent CPOs). In the absence of any challenge to the inter se seniority in the category of Constables and challenge to the dates of promotions to the category of Head Constables, Sri Anandaiah could not have gainfully challenged the inter se seniority principle enjoined in G.O.Ms.No. 237. Perhaps faced with the predicament of laches and delay, Sri Anandaiah contrived the forensic strategy of presenting an ambiguous and equivocal relief for acceptance. Following its order dated 16-04-2004 in O.A.No. 894 of 2001, the Tribunal allowed O.A.No. 8335 of 2005 by the order dated 10-07-2009 with a direction to the oﬃcial respondents to prepare a revised seniority list (in what category, it is not clear?) as per its earlier order dated 16-04-2004 in O.A.No. 894 of 2001. Since the petitioners in W.P.No. 12353 of 2005 had obtained an interim order in the writ petition (which was brought to the notice of the Tribunal while adjudicating O.A.No. 8335 of 2005), the Tribunal observed that the revision of seniority list should be without disturbing the seniority of the petitioners in W.P.No. 12353 of 2005. Essentially therefore the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 8335 of 2005 was consequent on its order in O.A.No. 894 of 2001. On a true and fair construction of the Government orders in G.O.Ms.No. 237, in particular clause (d) of paragraph No.3 thereof and the matrix of antecedent facts and service circumstances, it is clear that persons belonging to various categories such as Lance Naik, Naik and Constable in the CPOs were drawn to the APSP in 1993 and amalgamated into the common category of Constable in APSP. In the considered view of this Court maintenance of that hierarchical distinction while drawing up seniority positions in the common category of Constable in APSP appears fair and reasonable and also in accordance with the norms of maintenance of inter se seniority, speciﬁed in Clause (d) of paragraph No.3 of G.O.Ms. 237. The seniority list of Constables drawn up by APSP in 1996 reﬂects the correct understanding of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 237. Seniority lists of Constables, drawn up in 1996, were not challenged before the Tribunal (either in O.A.No. 894 of 2001 or O.A.No. 8335 of 2005, either expressly or by any compelling implication of the pleadings in two Original Applications referred to supra). In the absence of invalidation of the seniority lists of Constables and in the absence of any order of the Tribunal striking down promotions made to the category of Head Constables from the category of Constables, no speciﬁc relief to Sri Anandaiah or the applicants in O.A.No. 8335 of 2005 could have been issued. The reason recorded by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 894 of 2001 to the eﬀect that since personnel drawn from diﬀerent categories in the CPOs were amalgamated into a common category of Constables in the APSP, at a point of time when the categories of Lance Naik and Naik in the State services were abolished, no preferential promotion could be accorded to the Lance Naik and Naiks, is a reason that falls within the realm of essential policy. The orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 237 reﬂect a clear policy choice, that the hierarchical distinctions in the parent CPO’s must be maintained while amalgamating into the common category of Constable in the APSP. Without any reason recorded or a finding that such policy choice was perverse, warranting judicial interdiction, it is impermissible for the judicial branch to reformulate policy. On this account as well, the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 894 of 2001 cannot be sustained. It is brought to our notice by Sri K. Anantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri Anandaiah (respondent No.4 in W.P.No. 12353 of 2005) that another Writ Petition No. 21085 of 2009 ﬁled by Sri C. Shiva Reddy and ten others was disposed of at the stage of admission by a learned Division Bench of this Court dated 14-07-2010. W.P.No. 21085 of 2009 was also ﬁled after obtaining the leave (by persons who are not parties to O.A.No. 8335 of 2005 and aggrieved by the order of Tribunal dated 10-07-2009, similar to W.P.No. 19076 of 2009). While disposing of the writ petition (W.P.No. 21085 of 2009) at the stage of admission, this Court directed the oﬃcial respondents not to revise the seniority of the writ petitioners therein pursuant to orders of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos. 894 of 2001 and 8335 of 2005 without aﬀording them an opportunity to submit objections if any to proposals for revision of their seniority. This Court did not consider the merits of the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos. 894 of 2001 or O.A.No. 8335 of 205. On the analysis above, the orders of the Tribunal dated 16-04-2004 and 10-07-2009 in O.A.Nos. 894 of 2001 and 8335 of 2001, respectively cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ___________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 22-11-2011 Pvks/*