IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 5950 of 1999 Between: M.A. Sami S/o Jabbar R/o Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Secretary to Govt. of A.P. Home Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The Director General & Inspector General of Police A.P., Hyderabad 3. The Inspector General of Police (Admn.) A.P., Hyderabad 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Hyderabad Range Hyderabad 5. The Superintending of Police, Mahaboonagar District, Mahaboobnagar .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus under art.226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the issuance of the impugned proceedings bearing No.A1/382/98, D.O.No.1359/98 dated 7-7-98 on the file of the respondents No.4 & 5 herein as being void, void ab initio, discriminatory, arbitrary, violative of right to life as enshrined in Art.14,15,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and equally violative of the judgment rendered in O.A.No.5800 of 92 and batch dt.15-4-95 and consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioners to the post of OS/SI with all monetary and service benefits treating the period of leave as on duty while setting aside the judgment delivered by the APAT in O.A.No.4926 of 98, dated 12-3-99. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.TULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to declare the proceedings No.A1/382/98, DG-PO.No.1359/98, dated 7-7-1998 issued by respondent Nos.4 and 5 ordering reversion of the petitioner to his substantive post of Head Constable in order to accommodate the directly recruited Sub. Inspectors, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and to direct the respondents to restore the petitioner to the post of OS SI with all monetary and service benefits treating the period of leave as ON DUTY. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was working as an out of seniority Sub-Inspector of Police under the administrative control of the respondents and continued as such in Mahaboobnagar District. After being qualified in the test conducted in 1990, he was a senior OS/SI in his native district of Mahaboobnagar and he is holding the post as such. In order to accommodate the direct recruities against their quota of 70%, the petitioner and others, who are holding the same post are now sought to be reverted to their substantive posts. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was qualified in the year 1990 and awaiting his chance to undergo six-months refresher training course to be conducted by the A.P. Police Academy. But, contrary to his expectations, his juniors were sent for refresher course training holding that the persons, who qualified subsequent to the batch of the petitioner, were eligible. Aggrieved by the discriminatory action, the affected parties have filed O.A.No.5800 of 1992 and batch before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) and the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. giving certain directions, while setting aside the relevant G.Os and the said matter was carried before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7511-13 of 1996 and the same were disposed of by its order dated 15-4-1996 upholding the judgment of the Tribunal. Contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the fourth respondent issued impugned proceedings ordering reversion of the petitioner, against which, he filed O.A.4926 of 1998 before the Tribunal and when the Tribunal refused to grant interim relief, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28821 of 1998, and the same was disposed of by this court directing the Tribunal to dispose of the interlocutory application within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, pursuant to which, the Tribunal heard and disposed of the said O.A. on 12-3-1999, against which, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that inasmuch as the petitioner, who was originally working as Head Constable, holding the post of Sub-Inspector of police on Out of Seniority basis and continue to be as such after being qualified in the preliminary qualifying test for promotion to the rank of Sub- Inspector conducted in the year 1990 itself, he cannot be reverted to his substantive post and apart from that, the proceedings issued thereto amounts to violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that as the petitioner was working as Out of Seniority basis as Sub-Inspector in the absence of any regular candidate, the same cannot confer any right on him to seek promotion as a matter of right and that too, the order impugned order reverting the petitioner to his substantive post was issued only by keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court, and hence, the same does not amount to any violation. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, and after perusal of the material on record including the impugned memo, it appears that the petitioner was appointed only Out of Seniority basis as Sub-Inspector in the absence of any regular recruitment at that time and in order to accommodate the direct recruitees, the persons who were appointed as Out of seniority basis as Sub- Inspectors were reverted to their substantive posts. Now, it has to be examined as to whether such action is consonance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that clause (iii) of the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.5800 of 1992, which was upheld by the Apex Court, reads thus: “The reversion of O.S. S.Is. for want of vacancy may be in the reverse order of seniority of Head constables (in District-wise Seniority) among those who are working as O.S. S.Is. as on 9.2.1993.” According to the respondents, the impugned memo has been issued only in consonance with clause (iii) of the order of the Tribunal. Except stating that if all Sub-Inspectors belonging to other districts, who are working in Nizamabad and Mahaboobnagar Districts are sent back to their respective districts, there will be vacancies to accommodate the petitioners as Sub-Inspectors in their native districts, no scrape of material is adduced before this Court to show that the impugned memo has been issued in violation of the order of the Apex Court. Apart from that, it is apparent on the face of the record that on the basis of the seniority in the cadre of the Head constables, the junior most head constables were reverted as per the impugned orders. If that being the case, there is no other go except to hold that the action of the authorities is under the true spirit of the principles laid down by the Apex Court. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is devoid of merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMAMED, J ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16-9-2008. Ksn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SAM}