Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 576 (TS)

K. Srinivas v. State of Telangana

2025-05-02

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Nerella, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “….to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS by declaring the impugned Memorandum issued by the 4 th respondent wherein rejected the claim of the petitioner for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable vide Memo C.No.171/A2/2021, dated 11.10.2021 even though the respondent authorities were considered the claim of similarly situated persons for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable on their request vide orders C.No.171/A1/2019 (D.O.No.145/2019), dated 30.03.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and accordingly set aside the same with a consequential direction to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for reversion from the category to HC to PC in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013 and orders issued in favor of similarly situated persons vide orders C.No.171/A1/2019 (D.O. No.145/2019) dated 30.03.2019 in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is that the petitioner had been appointed as Police Constable in the year 2018 and posted to the 17 th Battalion, Rajanna Siricilla District. As per the Telangana State Police Rules Category 7 (b), the petitioner is eligible for conversion from TS Special Police to Armed Reserve (AR) Constables after completion of 10 years of service. Subsequently, the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 2021 but later sought voluntary reversion to the post of Constable due to personal hardships. However, the request of the petitioner for reversion was rejected by the 4 th respondent vide the impugned order C.No.171/A2/2021, dated 11.10.2021, without assigning proper reasons and merely citing administrative grounds though the similarly situated persons belonging to the same Battalion were allowed for reversion vide order C.No. 171/A1/2019 (D.O. No.145/2019) dated 30.03.2019. However, the request of the petitioner for reversion was rejected by the 4 th respondent vide the impugned order C.No.171/A2/2021, dated 11.10.2021, without assigning proper reasons and merely citing administrative grounds though the similarly situated persons belonging to the same Battalion were allowed for reversion vide order C.No. 171/A1/2019 (D.O. No.145/2019) dated 30.03.2019. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: (A) The relevant portion of the impugned Memo vide C.No.171/ A2/ 2021, dated 11.10.2021 of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder: “Vide reference 1 st & 3 rd cited above, the following (02) HCs of this unit have submitted their representations requesting to revert them as PCs on the grounds that they are suffering with personal problems/family problems/conversion to A.R. Sl . N o . Name Sri Ranke & G.No. Coy. 1. K. Srinivas HC 1130 C 2. B. Krishnaiah HC 1078 B In this regard instructions have been received from the ADGP, TSSP Bns Hyderabad, vide reference 2 nd cited above that the applications of HCs to revert them as PCs have to be rejected on administrative grounds. Accordingly, the representations of above (02) HCs of this unit are rejected herewith on administrative grounds. OsC B & C of this unit are instructed to service this memo to the above individual and send the dated acknowledgement copies to this unit for record purpose. all OsC of this unit are hereby instructed to don’5 forward the reversion representations of HCs as PCs to this office. All should acknowledge the receipt of this Memo. Sd/-xxx Commandant 17 th BN (IR) TSSP, Rajanna Sirciplla. To The above individuals through OC ‘HQ’ Coy. (B) The relevant portion of the similarly situated persons order vide C.No.171/ A2/ 2019, Dated 30.03.2019 of the respondent No.4 is extracted hereunder: “The following Head Constables have submitted representations to revert them as PCs on several ground including they have to go to AR vide reference 1 st cited, and they were promoted as Head Constable on 02.04.2015 vide reference 3 rd cited and their service were regularized as Head Constable and brought ‘8’ list vide reference 4 th cited. They are Sl . N o . They are Sl . N o . Ranke & C. No. Name Reasons 1 HC – 169 M. Mahesh Several grounds including conversion t o AR 2 HC – 233 N. Kam alakar Several grounds including conversion t o AR 3 HC – 485 E. Anil Kum ar Several grounds including conversion t o AR 4 HC – 344 P. Sant hosh Several grounds including conversion t o AR As such, the above Head Constables is still probationers and they can be reverted as Police Constables as per their willingness and as per the guidelines of H.O. vide reference 2 nd cited and the committee report vide reference 2 nd cited. In view of the above circumstances, the above HCs are reverted in their substantive post of Police constables with immediate effect. Commandant 17th BN(IR) TSSP, Rajanna Sircilla. (C) The relevant portion of the common order of the Division Bench of this Court daterd 24.03.2014 passed in W.P Nos.37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013 in particular para No.7 is extracted hereunder: “ 7. Learned counsel for the first respondent in the Writ Petitions/applicants relied on a decision in G.Boyanna’s case (1 supra) wherein it is held thus: (para 7) “It is relevant to note at this point that the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Junior Assistant but was appointed by transfer. In fact, he could not have been so promoted, as the post of Process Server is not in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. In this view of the matter, it is doubtful whether the act of the petitioner in seeking reversion from the post of Junior Assistant can be said to be one of relinquishment of his right to be considered for promotion. However, this is how the respondents have treated the matter and the petitioner also abided by it. Therefore, for the purpose of this case, it shall be presumed that the petitioner relinquished his right for promotion when he sought reversion to the post of Process Server.” The above decision has no application to the facts of the present case. But, on the ground of discrimination, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. Therefore, for the purpose of this case, it shall be presumed that the petitioner relinquished his right for promotion when he sought reversion to the post of Process Server.” The above decision has no application to the facts of the present case. But, on the ground of discrimination, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is not in dispute before this Court that as per proceedings dated 21.10.2005, some of the Head Constables were reverted and posted to work as Police Constables in the District Armed Reserve in their respective Units. Therefore, there should not be any discrimination from one person to another person. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. However, the cases of applicants have to be considered if they fit into 40% quota. Therefore, we make it clear that after reversion, the applicants cannot be immediately sent to the District Armed Reserve but their cases have to be considered for posting to District Armed Reserve if they come within the 40% quota meant for Police Constables of APSP .” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that petitioner’s request for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable was rejected by Respondent No.4 vide proceedings dated 11.10.2021, even though the respondent authorities had considered and accepted similar requests for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable to similarly situated individuals, vide order dated 30.03.2019 in C.No. 171/A1/2019 (D.No.145/2019), as well as to the petitioners who had approached this Court by filing W.P. Nos. 37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013. However, in the present case, the petitioner’s request for reversion from the post of Head Constable to Police Constable was rejected, with a mere intimation stating that the request could not be considered on administrative grounds, as per the instructions issued by the Head Office to Respondent No.4. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places reliance on the Common Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P. Nos.37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013, and contends that the petitioner herein is also entitled for the similar relief as extended to the petitioners in the present writ petition, in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court. 7. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the passing of orders under similar circumstances in W.P.No.36609 of 2024 and batch dated 28.02.2025. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in particular, paragraph No.8 contends that the petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in February, 2018 and completed only three years of service. For reversion to Police Constable (AR) (Men), a minimum of 10 years of service is required and the petitioner, in his representation submitted to the respondent office, requested reversion due to family and personal problems, and the petitioner had not mentioned that he was seeking reversion for Armed Reserved conversion. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. But how ever since the said reasons stated in the counter affidavit do not reflect in the Impugned Memo of the 4 th respondent, dated 11-10- 2021 and the said Impugned Proceedings only indicate administrative grounds this Court opines that the same is an afterthought developed to improve the case of the respondents, and therefore, the said pleas cannot be taken into consideration by this Court for adjudication of the present case. 9. A bare perusal of the record indicates that Respondent No.4 rejected the petitioner’ request without assigning any specific reasons, merely stating that the request of the petitioner from Head Constable to Police Constable could not be considered due to Head Office instructions issued by the Respondent No.4 on administrative grounds though the similar relief had been extended to similarly situated persons, who made a request for reversion from Head Constable to Police constable as per the Common Order of the Division Bench of this Court and the observations made thereunder dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P.Nos.37146 of 2013 and 39820 of 2013 and similar such relief admittedly had even been extended to the petitioners in W.P.No.36609 of 2024 and batch, vide orders of this Court dated 28.02.2025. 10. 10. Therefore, this Court opines that the request of the petitioner for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable has to be reconsidered by the 4 th respondent in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the observations of the Common Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P. Nos.37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013 (referred to and extracted above) within a reasonable period by the 4 th respondent herein. 11. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The fact that similar relief had been extended to the similarly situated individuals, w ho made a request for reversion from Head Constable to Police Constable by the respondent No.4 vide orders dated 30.03.2019 and, d) The observations made in the Common Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P.No.37146 of 2013 and 39820 of 2013, e) The order dated 28.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.36609 of 2024 and batch. f) The fact as borne on record that the impugned memo vide c.No.171/ A2/ 2021, dated 11.10.2021 of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioner is bereft of reasons. The writ petition is allow ed. The impugned Memorandum vide Memo C.No. 171/ A2/ 2021, dated 11.10.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the observations of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24-3-2014 passed in W.P. Nos. 37146 of 2013 and 39820 of 2013 and also the fact as borne on record that similar relief had been extended to similarly situated persons vide proceedings of the 4 th respondent C.No.171/ A2/ 2019 dated 30.03.2019 (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate reasoned speaking orders w ithin a period of four w eeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.