S. SREEDHAR REDDY & ORS.  versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 904, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
904 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 904 
S. SREEDHAR REDDY & ORS. 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 795of2017) 
JANUARY 23, 2017 
[.)'. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Service Law - Seniority - Inter-se seniority - Appellants ·and 
the private respondents appointed as Station Fire Officers (SFOs) 
by direct recruitment - SFO appointed through direct recruitment 
required to pass three tests. within the period of probation -
However, in the· instant case, Government exempted SF Os from third 
test - Fire Service Department vide memorandum/G 0. issued final 
seniority list by which appellants were placed above the private 
respondents on basis that they had passed prescribed tests (other 
than exeinpted test) within the period of probation and p,:ivate 
respondents had passed the tests thereafter - Aggrieved, private 
respondents filed 0.A. against memorandum/G. 0. before 
Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed - However, High Court 
quashed the memorandum/G 0. - On appeal, held: In the instant 
case, firstly, respondents successfully cleared probation - Secondly, 
respondents passed two tests - Thirdly, Government itself exempted 
the respondents.from appearing in the third test - Lastly, the Rules 
did not provide for creation of two classes between employees 
working in one cadre (SFO) -Nojustification·on part a/Government 
for issuing memorandum/G 0. for determination of inter-se seniority 
by making classification -
Thus, High Court rightly quashed the 
memorandum/G 0. being irrational, unreasonable and contrary to 
the Rules - Andhra Pradesh Fire Subordinate Service Rules - rr. 9, 
12 -A.P. State and Subordinate Service R71/es, 1996 - r.16{h). 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the 
private respondent herein (original applicants before the Tribunal) 
being the direct recruits had cleared two tests as provided in 
Rule 12(i) and (ii) oftheAndhra Pradesh Fire Subordinate Service 
Rules though late but with the permission of the State. It is also 
904
S. SREEDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF 
ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
not in dispute that so far as the third test, as provided in Rule 12 
(iii) was concerned, the respondents and all .others alike them in 
the same cadre were exempted from passing vide GO.Ms No.454 
of 2009 dated 6.11.2009 issued by the State Government. It is 
further not in dispute that the private respondents had also 
completed their probation successfully. [Para 28) [910-B-Cj · 
2.1 In light of the undisputed facts, it is clear that the GO./ 
memorandum in question had created two classes amongst SFOs 
for determination of their inter se seniority, namely, one class which 
cleared the two tests in time and other class which cleared the 
tests late. The two classes created by the impugned GO dated 
22.05.2012 for determination of inter se seniority of SFOs had 
resulted in disturbing the seniority list. [Para 29) [910-D-E) 
2.2 On a perusal of the relevant Rules, which have bearing 
over the controversy at hand, namely, A.P. Fire Subordinate 
Service Rules and A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rides, it is 
seen that these Rules do not empower the State to make the 
classification as was sought be done by the State for determining 
the inter se seni!irity of SFOs in this case. [Para 30) [910-F) 
2.3 Taking into account the undisputed facts mentioned 
above and the Rules governing the probation and the seniority, 
there was neither any justifiable basis for creation of such 
classification nor it satisfied
the requirement ofihe Rules which 
governed determination of their inter se seniority. In other words, 
firstly, when the respondents successfully cleared their probation, 
secondly, when the respondents cleared two tests, thirdly, when 
the Government itself exempted the respondents from appearing 
in the third test, and lastly, when the Rules did not provide for 
creation of two classes between the employees working in one 
Cadre (SFO), there was no justification on the pan of the 
Government to have issued G.O. dated 22.05.2012 for 
determination of inter se seniority by making classification. (Para 
31] [910-G-H; 911-A-B] 
3. The High Cou'rt had rightly quashed the GO dated 
22.05.2012 being irrational, unreasonable and contrary to the 
Rules. The findings of the High Court are correct and there is 
no good ground to interfere in its reasoning. [Para 33) (911-D) 
905 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
R Venkata Ramudu and Another Etc. v. State of A.P. & 
Ors. 2017 (1) SCALE 652 .- relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
2017 (1) SCALE 652 
relied on 
Para32 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 795 of 
D 
E 
F 
. 2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2013 of the High Court 
of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in WP No. 5161 of 2013 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 796, 797-798, 800-801 and 802of2017. 
B. Adinarayana Rao, S. Gururaj Rao, Sr. Advs., Venkateswara 
Rao Anumolu, Prabhakar Parnam, Ch. Leela Sarveswar, A.V. S. Raju 
(for V. N. Raghupathy), J. R. Manohar Rao, R. Santhnan Krishnan, 
Aditya Kr., C. S. N. Mohan Rao, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, 
S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, Advs. forthe appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Applications for 
impleadment are allowed. 
2. Leave granted. 
3. These appeals are filed against.the common final judgment and 
order dated 20.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 
Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 5161 and 7297 of2013 whereby the 
High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order dated 
01.02.2013 of the A.P.Adm.inistrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 
4283 of2012 and batch, in consequence thereof, quashed memorandum 
No. 83/El/2001 dated 22.05.2012 of the Director General of the State 
Disaster Response and Firer Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 
4. Facts of the case need mention,
in detail, infra to appreciate the 
G 
controversy involved in the appeals. 
H 
5. The dispute in these appeals essentially relates to inter se 
seniority of the Station Fire Officers (for short, "SFOs"). 
6. In the year 1993, the appellants and the private respondents 
were appointed as SFOs by direct recruitment, which is a multi-zonal
S. SREEDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF 
ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
post, after passing the test conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Level 
Police Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"). By 
virtue of that examination, 59 candidates were selected in the Multi Zone-
r and'Multi Zone-II. The said post is covered by the Andhra Pradesh 
Fire Subordinate Service Rules (for short, "the Rules") issued nnder 
GO. Ms. No. 568, Home (Prisons-A) Department, dated 24. i I. 1992. 
According to Rule 12 of the Rules, an SFO appointed through direct 
recruitment must pass three tests, namely, (i) Accounts Test for 
Subordinate Officers Part-I; (ii) Andhra Pradesh Fire Service Manual; 
and (iii) A certificate course of competence in wearing and ·instructions 
on Breathing Apparatus, within the period of probation which, in tum, 
described in Rule 9 of the Rules. 
7. The first and second tests were conducted from time to time 
but the Government did not conduct the third test for years together for 
one reason or the other. 
8. According to the appellants, they cleared the first and second 
tests and taking note of the fact that the third test was not conducted by 
the Government itself, the Fire Services Department vide Re. No. 83/ 
E 1/200.1 dated 31.07.2003 issued a provisional Seniority List of SFOs in 
Multi Zone-I and Multi Zone-II. In this provisional Seniority List, the 
appellants were placed below the private respondents based on select
list ranking. The Department called for the objections to the said Seniority 
List. The appellants objected to the said Seniority List by filing 
representations. 
9. The Fire Services Department vide Re. No. 83/E 1/2001 dated 
15.11.2007 issued revised Seniority List of SFOs in Multi Zcne-1 and 
Multi Zone-JI. In this Seniority List also, the appellants were put below 
the private respondents. 
10. According to the appellants, the Government of A.P. vide GO. 
Ms, No. 454 of2009 dated 06.11.2009 exempted 59 SFOs of 1993 batch 
of direct recruits belonging to Multi Zone-I and Multi Zone-II from 
undergoing the third test, i.e., certificate course of "competence in 
wearing and instructions on Breathing Apparatus test" as prescribed in 
Rule 12 of the Rules, as a special case, as the training in Wearing 
Breathing Apparatus Set is included in the syllabus of Refresher Course 
and wi II meet the requirements of certificate course and all the SF Os 
have successfully undergone and passed the similar training during the 
year 2006. 
907 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
908 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 2 S.C.R. 
11. The Fire Services Department vide Memo No. 8206/PRl.A/ 
A2/2009-8 dated 27.01.2010 issued certain clarifications regarding the 
completion of probation ofSFOs mentioning that the penal provisions of 
Rule 16(h) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 (for 
short "the Subordinate Rules") shall not be applied to the SFOs of 1993 
batch but the same shall apply on the employees, who failed to acquire 
the qualifications within the period of probation due to their lapse. As 
per this memorandum, the penal provision ofRule I 6(h) of the Subordinate 
Rules shall be applicable to the private respondents only. 
12. Though Seniority List was not finalized based on the provisional 
Seniority List, the appellants and the private respondents were promoted 
from SFOs to the post of Assistant.Pistrict Fire Officers on 14. l 0.2010. 
13. The Fire Services Department vide Re. No.83/E 1/200 I dated 
23.12.2011 issued revised provisional Seniority List ofSFOs in Multi 
Zone-I and IL In this list also, the appellants were placed below the 
private respondents and again objections were called for. 
14. On 03.04.2012, the Fire Services Department vide 
memorandum Re. No. 83/E 1/200 I, after quoting the legal opinion of the 
Government Pleader for Home (Services), A.P. High Court received, 
mentioned .that the decision was taken to decide the dates of 
commencement and completion ofinitial period of two years
for passing 
the tests as the basis for the seniority. It was also mentioned that the 
penal provisions of Rule 16(h) of the Subordinate Rules should also be 
taken into consideration and the final Seniority List would be prepared 
on that basis. 
15. The Fire Services Departmentvide Re. No. 83/El/2001 dated 
22.05.2012 issued final Seniority List of SFOs in Multi Zone-I and II 
taking the dates of commencement and completion of initial period of 
two years for passing the tests as the basis for the seniority. The penal 
provision of Rule 16(h) of the Subordinate Rules was also applied in 
preparing this final Seniority List. In the said list, the appellants were 
placed above the private respondents on the basis that they passed the 
prescribed tests (other than exempted test) within the period of probation. 
16. Aggrieved by the final Seniority List dated 22.05.2012, the 
private respondents filed O.A. No. 4283 of 2012 before the A.P. 
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal") for 
quashing the memorandum No. 83/El/2001 dated 22.05.2012.
S. SREEDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF 
909 
ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
17. The Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 01.02.2013 in 
A 
0.A. No. 4283 of 2012 and connected matters dismissed all the O.As 
filed by the private respondents. 
18. Aggrieved by the said judgment/order, the private respondents 
filed petitions being W.P.Nos. 5161 and 7297 of2013 before the High 
Court: 
19. The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 20.09.2013, 
allowed the writ petitions and set aside the judgment and order dated 
01.02.2013 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 4283 of2012 and batch 
consequently, quashed the G.0./Seniority List dated 22.05.2013. 
20. On the basis of the impugned judgment, the Director General, 
State Disaster Response and Fire Services, Hyderabad (respondent No.2 
herein) issued revised seniority list on 10.11.2013 whereby the appellants 
were placed below the rank of private respondents herein. Further 15 
days' time was given to raise objections. 
21. Before the expiry of the period of raising objections, the 
appellants have filed these appeals by way of special leave before this 
Courton 21.11.2013. 
22. This Court issued notice to the respondents and directed that 
until further orders, the appellants shall not be reverted. 
23. Heard Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel for 
the appellants and Mr. S. Gururaj Rao, learned senior counsel for the 
private respondent, Mr. G. Prabhakar, learned counsel, for the State of
A.P. and Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, learned counsel for the State of 
Telangana. 
24. Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing 
for the appellants reiterated the submissions which were urged by the 
appellants before the High Court while opposing the writ petitions filed 
by the private respondents against the appellants. 
25. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents supported the 
impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeals and, in 
consequence, prayed for upholding of the order of the High Co~rt, which 
had set aside the order of the Tribunal and quashed the memorandum 
dated 22.05.2012 and, in consequence, the seniority list. 
B .. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
910 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
26. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal 
of the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals. 
27. In our considered opinion, the High Court was justified in its 
reasoning and the conclusion in allowing the writ petition filed by the 
private respondents (original applicants before the Tribunal) and quashing 
of Memorandum No. 83/E-1/2001 dated 22.05.2012 impugned in OA 
before the Tribunal out of which the aforementioned writ petitions arose. 
28. It is not in dispute thatthe private respondents herein (original 
applicants before the Tribunal) being the direct recruits had cleared two 
tests as provided in Rule 12 (i) and (ii) of the Rules though late but with 
the permission of the State. It is also not in dispute that so far as the 
third test, as provided in Rule 12 (iii) was concerned, the respondents 
and all others alike them in the same cadre were exempted from passing 
vide G.0.Ms No. 454 of 2009 dated 6.11.2009 issued by the State 
Government. It is further not in dispute that the private respondents had 
also completed their probation successfully. 
29. In the light of these undisputed facts, the question before the 
High Court was whether Re. No.83/El/2001 dated 22.05.2012 which 
created two classes amongst SFOs for determination of their inter se 
seniority, namely, one class which cleared the two tests in time and other 
class which cleared the tests
late, was legally justifiable and, if so, whetl1er 
it was in conformity with the Rules for giving effect to it for determination 
of their inter se seniority. The two classes created by the impugned 
GO dated 22.05.2012 for determination of inter se seniority of SFOs 
had re~ulted in disturbing the seniority list. 
30. We have perused the relevant Rules, which have b~aring over 
the controversy at hand, namely, A.P. Fire Subordinate Service Rules 
and A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. In our view, these Rules 
do not empower the State to make the classification as was sought be 
done by the State for determining the illler se seniority of SFOs in this 
case. 
31. In our opinion, taking into account the three undisputed facts 
mentioned above and the Rules governing the probation and the seniority, 
there was neither any justifiable basis for creation of such classification 
nor it satisfied the requirement of the Rules which governed detennination 
of their inter se seniority. In other words, firstly, wilen the respondents 
successfully cleared their probation, secondly, when the respondents
S. SREEDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF 
ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
cleared two tests, thirdly, when the Government itself exempted the 
respondents from appearing in the third test, and lastly, when the Rules 
did not provide for creation of two classes between the employees working 
in one Cadre (SFO), then in our view, there was no justification on the 
part of the Government to have issued G.O. dated 22.05.2012 for 
determination of inter se seniority by making classification. 
32. Our view also finds support from the view recently taken by 
this bench in the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No.9856-9860 of 
2016 R. Venkata Ramudu and Another Etc. vs. State of A.P. & 
Ors. decided on 27.09.2016. 
33. We are, therefore, not impressed by the submissions urged by 
the learned counsel for the appellants which, in our view, were rightly 
repelled by the High Court while allowing the writ petitions filed by the 
private respondents herein which rightly quashed the GO dated 
22.05.2012 being irrational, unreasonable and contrary to the Rules. 
We concur with the findings of the High Court and find no good ground 
to interfere in its reasoning. 
34. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in these 
appeals, which are devoid of any merit. As a consequence, the appeals 
are dismissed. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals dismissed. 
911 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E