Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 579 (TS)

Y. Guruprasad 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 petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners 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 petitioners for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable vide Rc.No.A1-Estt/686/2021 dated 06.12.2021, even though the respondent authorities were considered the claim of similarly situated persons for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable vide Rc.No.123/A1/2018-19, D.O. No.5357/2019, 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 petitioners 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 Rc.No.123/A1/2018-19, D.O.No.5357/2019 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 petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners have been appointed as Police Constables in the year 2018 and posted to the 1 st Battalion, Hyderabad. As per the Telangana State Police Rules category 7(b), the petitioners are eligible for conversion from TS Special Police to Armed Reserve (AR) Constables after completion of 10 years of service. Subsequently, the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Head Constables in the year 2021 but later sought voluntary reversion to the post of Constable due to personal hardships. However, their request for reversion was rejected by the 3 rd respondent vide the impugned order Rc.No.A1/Estt/686/2021, dated 06.12.2021, 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 dated 30.03.2019. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: (A) The relevant portion of the impugned Memorandum vide Rc.No.A1/ Estt/ 686/ 2021 dated 06.12.2021 of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioners herein is extracted hereunder: “The following (13) Head Constables of this unit have submitted the representations and the same were forwarded by the concerned OsC of this unit vide reference 1 st to 7 th and 11 th to 13 th cited, in which the individuals have requested to revert them to the rank of Police Constable. Sl No Rank G.No. Nam e Coy. ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) 1 HC 55 Sri Y. Guruvara Prasad HQ 2 HC 227 Sri P. Govind HQ 3 HC 549 Sri A. Linga Murt hy HQ 4 HC 2148 Sri V. Nar esh HQ 5 HC 545 Sri G. Soor Reddy HQ 6 HC 2466 Sri K. Manohar B 7 HC 145 Sri B. Srinivas A 8 HC 275 Sri G. Ravinder Reddy C 9 HC 408 Sri A. Nav een C 10 HC 127 Sri Manohar Goud HQ 11 HC 2322 Sri K. Pr em Kum ar D 12 HC 509 Sri R. Babu C 13 HC 464 Sri G. Nagaraj u E In this connection, vide references 8 th to 10 th cited, the Addl. Director General of Police, TSSP Bns, have instructed all the Commandants that, the applications of the HCs of the respective units requesting to revert them as PC are to be rejected on Administrative grounds and also to dispose of the applications of the HCs of their respective units accordingly. Further, vide reference 14 th cited, it is informed that, as per Rule 28 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996, any member of a service may in writing relinquish any right or privilege to which he may be entitled to such relinquishment once made will be final and irrecoverable provided that no conditional relinquishment of right for a temporary period shall be permitted. Further, it is also informed vide reference 14 th cited that, according to this rule, the employees are entitled for relinquishment of post at the time issue of promotion orders only. Further, it is also informed vide reference 14 th cited that, according to this rule, the employees are entitled for relinquishment of post at the time issue of promotion orders only. But whereas in the instant case they have enjoyed the post of HCs for a considerable period and have now come forward for reversion which they are not entitled to, Furthermore, there is no Rule providing for reversion to the rank at the request of employees in Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 or Special Rules for TSSP. Reversion to a lower rank can only be made by the disciplinary authority as a measure penalty following Telangana Civil Service (Classification Control Appeal Rules 1991) In obedience of the above instructions, the applications submitted by the above HCs of this unit were considered and rejected on Administrative Grounds and disposed off. Further, all OsC are instructed not to accept any reversion proposals from HCs till further orders and directed to serve the copy of memo to the above said individuals under proper dated acknowledgements and report compliance. Sd/-xxx Commandant 1st Bn. TSSP, Hyderabad. To The above Head Constables of this unit through the concerned OsC of 1" Bn. TSSP, Hyderabad. (B) The relevant portion of the order vide Rc.No.423/ AI C/ 2018-19, D.O. No.535/ 2019, Dated 30.03.2019 of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioners herein is extracted hereunder: “In accordance to the counseling to the individual as per TSSP HO Memo ref.3 rd cited the following (09) HCs of the unit have still come up with their representations for their reversion as PC’s due to the reasons mentioned against their names. the HCs are still probations in the cadre of HC having been promoted in the year 2018. S. No. Rank & G.No. Name Coy Reason for reversion On reversion as PC posted to Coy 1. HC 383 P. Chiranjeevi HO HO 2. HC 36 B.Naganna Main Int Conversion to AR Main Int 3. HXC 252 B. Srinivasulu HQ Conversion to AR HO 4. HC 1112 M. Mahesh B Conversion to AR B 5. HC 885 B. Ramesh A Family Problem A 6. HC 885 K. Mahesh Kumar A Family Problem A 7. HC 515 D. Naganna GHs Conversion to AR GHs 8. HC 969 T. Praveen C Conversion to AR C 9. HXC 252 B. Srinivasulu HQ Conversion to AR HO 4. HC 1112 M. Mahesh B Conversion to AR B 5. HC 885 B. Ramesh A Family Problem A 6. HC 885 K. Mahesh Kumar A Family Problem A 7. HC 515 D. Naganna GHs Conversion to AR GHs 8. HC 969 T. Praveen C Conversion to AR C 9. HC 746 T. Tukaram HQ Conversion to AR HQ Their representations are considered and they are reverted to the rank of PC. The reversion they are posted to the Same Coys. The OSC A, B, C and HQ coys are directed to take the above HCs in the strength of PCs from 01.04.2019. The OsC concerned will inform the date of their reposting as Sd/-... Commandant (C) The relevant portion of the common order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P.No.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 (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. 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. 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 06.12.2021, 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. 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. 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 06.12.2021 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 thereunder dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P.Nos.37146 of 2013 and 39820 of 2013 and similar such relief had been extended to the petitioner 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, who 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 Rc.No.A1/ Estt/ 686/ 2021, dated 06.12.2021 of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioner is bereft of reasons. The writ petition is allow ed. The impugned Memorandum vide Rc.No.A1/ Estt/ 686/ 2021, dated 06.12.2021 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 Rc.No.123/ A1/ 2018-19, D.O.No. 5357/ 2019 dated 30.03.2019 (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate reasoned speaking orders within a period of four weeks 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.