Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1482 (AP)

S. Jaya Chandra v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-18

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “.......to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not properly determining the seniority of the petitioners by excluding the marks obtained at the time of training while calculating the aggregate marks for the purpose of determination for seniority among of Trainee Sub Inspectors of Police, despite the petitioners have completed the training and passed the examination as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the rules and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to recast the seniority of petitioners in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police duly taking into consideration the aggregate marks obtained by them at the end of training at APPA (Andhra Pradesh Police Academy) duly adding the marks in the subjects which were cleared in the supplementary examination to the total aggregate marks and pass such other orders....” 2. Heard Mr. B. Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-I for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that they were selected as SCTSI (Civil) pursuant to the Notification 2008 and working as Sub Inspectors of Police in Zone-IV. Due to various reasons the petitioner could not clear the indoor examination in some subjects in the first attempt, but later they passed the examination in the supplemental examination as provided under the Rules. The petitioners have successfully completed the induction training and they were appointed as probationary Sub Inspectors of Police on 24.12.2010 and put on probation for two years within a continuous period of three years and they have completed the probation within time limit and their services were regularized as Sub Inspectors of Police. The seniority in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police is required to be fixed in terms of Rule 10 of A.P. Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules as issued under G.O.Ms. No. 374, dated 14.12.1999 which mandates the total aggregate marks obtained at the end of training by the each probationer is the basis for such determination of seniority. However, the marks secured in the Supplementary Examination are totally excluded for the purpose of computation of total aggregate marks. No. 374, dated 14.12.1999 which mandates the total aggregate marks obtained at the end of training by the each probationer is the basis for such determination of seniority. However, the marks secured in the Supplementary Examination are totally excluded for the purpose of computation of total aggregate marks. Without importing the true spirit of the rules, the seniority of the petitioners have erroneously fixed by showing as if they have got zero marks. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have submitted representations requesting the 3rd respondent to fix the seniority by taking into consideration the marks obtained in the subjects, which were cleared by the petitioners in the supplementary examinations. Considering the objections, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool has issued Memorandum dated 27.11.2019, purporting to be final seniority list as on 01.09.2019 and in view of assurance given by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool, the placement of the petitioners have been modified in accordance with Rules. But the said seniority list would indicate that without including the marks obtained by the petitioners, the respondents prepared seniority list ignoring the rule position, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same. 4. Per contra, the respondents filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the petitioners, after their selection as Stipendary Cadet S.I. (Civil) had undergone 12 months induction training during the period 14.11.2009 and 22.12.2010. During their induction training, indoor and outdoor examinations have been conducted to all the trainees including the petitioners from 23.08.2010 to 13.09.2010, in which the petitioners have failed certain subjects. In fact, the training for Stipendary Cadet Trainee S.Is is only 9 months in the Training Institute. After completion of basic training, they will be appointed on regular pay scale and in accordance with Rule 10(vi)(ii)(i) of A.P. Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules, (in short ‘the Police Rules”) their seniority will be fixed based on the aggregated marks secured by them in the final examinations conducted at Training Institute. After completion of basic training, they will be appointed on regular pay scale and in accordance with Rule 10(vi)(ii)(i) of A.P. Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules, (in short ‘the Police Rules”) their seniority will be fixed based on the aggregated marks secured by them in the final examinations conducted at Training Institute. Accordingly, the petitioners after completion of their basic training, they were appointed on regular pay scale w.e.f. 24.12.2010 and in pursuance to Rule 10 (vi)(ii)(i) of the Police Rules, their seniority in the inter-se seniority of directly recruited Sub Inspectors of Class-A and Class-B of Zone- IV (Kurnool and Ananthapuramu Range) was fixed in the order of merit based on the aggregate marks secured by them in all the passed subjects in final examinations held at Training Institute. The respondents prepared provisional list as on 01.01.2015, 01.01.2016, 01.01.2017 and 01.01.2018 and the same were also communicated to the petitioners through A.P. Messaging System (Online), but during the period 24.12.2010 to 2019, they never raised any objection over fixing up of their seniority. However, the petitioners have submitted a representation for the first time raising objection over placement of their seniority. In fact, as per Hon’ble Apex Court have issued orders that the seniority once fixed cannot be re-fixed after long lapse of time and reiterated said orders in several verdicts. The Government of A.P vide Circular Memo dated 20.05.2004 have issued orders that no request for revision of seniority for a period which is more than three years old shall be considered. It is further contended that if the seniority of the petitioners are fixed taking into consideration of the marks obtained in the supplementary examination, some of their batch mates who passed all the subjects at a time may step down in the seniority list i.e below the names of the petitioners causing huge injustice to the merit candidates. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the record. 6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that as per Rule 10(vi)(ii)(i) of the Police Rules the subjects in which the candidates are failed in final exam need not be taken into account for fixation of seniority. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the record. 6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that as per Rule 10(vi)(ii)(i) of the Police Rules the subjects in which the candidates are failed in final exam need not be taken into account for fixation of seniority. However, the petitioners have not failed the final exams, but have cleared the subjects in supplementary exams before the completion of the training period i.e within 12 months and the subject cleared in supplementary exam cannot be considered to be failed subjects. It is further argued that once the recruitment rules permit the candidates to appear in the supplementary examination and the passing of the supplementary examination is taken as basis for declaring the candidates successful completion of the training period, then excluding the marks obtained in the supplementary exam while calculating the aggregate and considering seniority list is clearly arbitrary and contrary to the rules. It is further argued that the delay caused is not fatal as the two years is a reasonable period which the seniority list can be challenged as per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 471 wherein it was held as follows: “30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal, this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and latches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.” 7. In the instant case, there is delay in challenging the seniority list is only two years and there would be prejudice caused to any of the other employees, because of the said delay caused. In similar circumstances of this case, the Government of Telangana issued order vide G.O.Rt. No. 977, Home (Services-II) Department, dated 18.05.2023 wherein Clause 6 reproduced hereunder: “6. In similar circumstances of this case, the Government of Telangana issued order vide G.O.Rt. No. 977, Home (Services-II) Department, dated 18.05.2023 wherein Clause 6 reproduced hereunder: “6. Therefore, Government hereby assign notional seniority to the candidates of 2009-10 batch who passed their examinations within the training period (either in the 1st semester or during the supplementary exams before 2nd semester) by fixing their inter-se-seniority along with their batch mates by taking into account the aggregate marks secured in the passed subjects at the end of the training.” 8. It is undisputed fact that the petitioners have completed the certain subjects in supplementary examinations, which is within the training period as fixed by the respondents. However, the petitioners have completed the examinations within time, therefore, the seniority as fixed by the respondents by showing the marks as zero for the respondents is questioned in this writ petition. It is the contention of the respondents that as per Rule 10(vi)(ii)(i) of the Police Rules, which reproduced hereunder: “(ii) The inter-se-seniority of directly recruited Sub-Inspectors of Police Class-A and Class-B shall be fixed on completion of training period in the training institution instead of at the time of selection in accordance with the list which shall be arranged in the order of merit which shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate of marks obtained by each probationer. (i) In respect of his marks secured in the first and second terminal examination and the marks in outdoor events like drill, revolver and musketry events and the marks secured in the passed subjects of the final examination (The marks in the subjects in which they failed in the final examination need not be taken into account for fixation of seniority).” 9. Therefore, based on aggregated marks secured by them in the final examinations conducted at Training Institute has fixed their seniority in the order of merit by the respondents. It is specifically contended by the respondents that they have prepared provision seniority list from 2015 to 2018, which were also communicated to the petitioners dated 03.12.2014, 20.02.2017, 13.11.2018, which is not disputed by the petitioners and at first time objected in the year 2019 over placement of their seniority. Therefore, request of the petitioners in the year 2019 was considered and rejected as per existing rules and on merits. 10. Therefore, request of the petitioners in the year 2019 was considered and rejected as per existing rules and on merits. 10. A perusal of the material available on record would show that the petitioners have completed the examination within training period as fixed by the respondents both regular and supplementary. Further, in similar circumstances of this case, the Government of Telangana issued order vide G.O.Rt. No. 977, dated 18.05.2023, would show that fixing their inter-seniority along with the batch mates by taking into account the aggregate marks secured in subjects, which they passed at the end of the training. Therefore, the same principle would apply in the instant case. Further, as per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Shiba Shankar Mohapatra’s case (cited supra) the delay caused is not fatal as the two years is a reasonable period which the seniority list can be challenged. In the instant case, the delay is questioned within two years in the light of the Memorandum issued by the Deputy Director General of Police, Kurnool Range, dated 27.11.2019. 11. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, this Court upon perusal of the entire material available on record and considering the submissions of both the counsel, this Court inclined to allow the writ petition, while directing the respondents to recast the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Policy duly taking into consideration the aggregate marks obtained by them at the end of training institute duly adding the marks in the subjects which were cleared in the supplementary examination to the total aggregate marks and declaring the action the actions of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary. 12. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.