Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Prl Secy, Home Dept, Guntur Dist 4 Others vs S.Nagabhushanam, Kurnool Dist Another on 24 February, 2020
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos. 27734 of 2017, 5859 of 2017, 13110 of
2017, 13380 of 2017, 13522 of 2017, 31951 of 2017, 31964 of
2017 & 32022 of 2014
COMMON ORDER:: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V. Sesha Sai)
1. Since the issue involved in this batch of Writ Petitions is one and the same, the contentions advanced by the respective learned counsel are also the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Writ Petitions by way of this Common Order.
2. By way of the orders impugned in the present Writ Petitions, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to, as 'The Tribunal') allowed the Original Applications Nos.3286 of 2014, 3310 of 2014, 3386 of 2014, 4079 of 2014, 4080 of 2014, 2460 of 2017, 2461 of 2017 and 8109 of 2010 respectively filed by the respondents/applicants and directed the authorities to promote the applicants to the posts of Sub- Inspector of Police by counting their seniority in the cadre of Head Constable from the date on which they were promoted on out of turn basis as Head Constables.
3. For the purpose of brevity, this Court deems it appropriate to take up Writ Petition No.27734 of 2017 and refer the parties as referred to, in the Original Application No.3286 of 2014.
4. The applicant in Original Application No.3286 of 2014 was initially appointed as a Police Constable on 25.10.1989 in Kurnool district. Considering his outstanding performance in anti-extremist operations, by way of proceedings in Rc.No.A1/2805/92, dated 08.07.1992, the applicant was promoted, along with three others, as Head Constable and the applicant is working as Head Constable till date. Earlier, O.A.No.8114 of 2010 was filed and the said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal, by way of order, dated 24.02.2012, directing the authorities to count the seniority of the applicant from the date on which he was promoted on out of turn basis. Assailing the said order, the State Government filed Writ Petition No.39606 of 2012 before this Court, and on 12.03.2013, a Division Bench of the composite High Court, dismissed the said Writ Petition, at the stage of admission.
5. It is not in dispute that, vide proceedings in Rc.No.A1/11101/2011, dated 31.07.2013 of the District Police Office, the services of the applicant were regularized in the cadre of Head Constable with effect from 25.10.1993, i.e., after completion of four years of minimum qualifying service in the rank of Police Constable. It is also the categorical case of the applicant that his probation was declared in the cadre of Head Constable. Later, on 14.10.2013, he was sent for pre-promotional training of Head Constables who were fit to act as Sub-Inspectors of Police, and he completed the said training on 01.03.2014 and his name was also included in the seniority list by counting the service rendered in the post of Head Constable. While the things being so, the Director General of Police, vide Memorandum in L.Dis.No.240/E3/2014, dated 24.03.2014, informed the office of the Deputy Inspector General, Warangal Range that the services rendered on out of seniority basis would not be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority. Assailing the validity of the said Memorandum, Original Application No.3386 of 2014 was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by way of an order, dated 08.11.2016, allowed the Original Application, while setting aside the Memorandum, dated 24.03.2014, and directed the authorities to count the seniority of the applicant in the cadre of Head Constable, from the date he was promoted to that post on out of seniority basis with all consequential benefits including promotion to the next cadre as per his eligibility and seniority.
6. In the above background, questioning the validity and legal sustainability of the said order passed by the Tribunal, Writ Petition No.27734 of 2017 came to be filed before this Court.
7. Heard Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the petitioners and Sri P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, representing D.Bala Kishanrao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
8. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the order passed by the Tribunal, allowing the O.A.Nos. Nos.3286 of 2014, 3310 of 2014, 3386 of 2014, 4079 of 2014, 4080 of 2014, 2460 of 2017, 2461 of 2017 and 8109 of 2010, which are impugned in the present Writ petitions, are highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that since the promotions effected in favour of the applicants herein were on out of turn basis, the services put in, by the applicants till they got regular promotions as per seniority, cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority for effecting promotions to the next higher cadre i.e., Sub-Inspector of Police. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned Government Pleader places reliance on a Division Bench Judgment, dated 08.04.2009 in Writ Petition No.19291 of 2008.
9. On the contrary, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that there is no error, nor there exists any infirmity, in the impugned orders, and in the absence of the same, the orders passed by the Tribunal are not amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader to sustain the action of the authorities are neither sustainable nor tenable. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned senior counsel places reliance on the following Judgments.
1) Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Mohd.Ashfaq Ahmed Khan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others1
2) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others2
3) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others Vs State of Maharashtra and others3 and
4) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammad Aftab Mir Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and others4.
It is also the submission of the learned senior counsel that the promotions effected in favour of the applicants herein can neither be termed as irregular nor illegal, and the said promotions were effected strictly in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, as such, the service put in by the applicants on out of turn basis should also be necessarily taken into consideration for the purpose of effecting promotion to the next higher category i.e., Sub-Inspector of Police.
10. In the above background, now the issues which this Court is called upon to answer in the present Writ Petitions are: 1
1999(3) ALD 436 (DB) 2 (2003)5 Supreme Court Cases 511 3 AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1607 4 (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 82
1. Whether the respondents/applicants are entitled to have their seniority counted from the date of their promotions on out of turn basis?
2. Whether the orders of the Tribunal warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
11. It is absolutely not in controversy that the applicant was initially appointed as Police Constable on 25.10.1989 in Kurnool district. Though he was due for promotion with effect from 2012 as per the seniority, having regard to the performance demonstrated by him during operations against extremists, he was given promotion on out of turn basis as Head Constable in the year 1992. When the authorities did not regularize his services in the cadre of Head Constable from the date of his out of turn promotion i.e., 08.07.1992, the applicant approached the Tribunal by way of filing Original Application No.8114 of 2010. The said Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal by way of order dated 24.02.2012, with a direction to the authorities to reckon the seniority of the applicant from 08.07.1992 i.e. from the date on which he was promoted on out of turn basis. It is also not in dispute that Writ Petition No.39606 of 2012 filed by the State against the said order of the Tribunal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.03.2013, confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 31.07.2013, the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool regularized the services of the applicant with effect from 31.07.1993 i.e. the date on which the applicant got through the departmental tests. It is never in dispute that ever since the date of his promotion as Head Constable on 08.07.1992, the applicant has been working in the said cadre. When a Memo was issued on 24.03.2014 by the Director General of Police, declining to reckon the seniority from the date of out of turn promotion, the applicant approached the Tribunal by way of filing Original Application No.3286 of 2014. By way of the order under challenge in Writ Petition No.27734 of 2017, the said Original Application was allowed.
12. Sum and substance of the case of the respondents in the Original Application, who are the petitioners herein, as advocated by the learned Government Pleader, is that since the applicants herein were given promotion on out of turn basis and not in accordance with the seniority, the applicants are not entitled to have their seniority reckoned from the date of the said out of turn promotions and they are entitled for the seniority only from the date on which they got promotion on regular basis as per their seniority.
13. Case of the applicants, on the other hand, is that the said contention is neither sustainable nor tenable, and since the promotions were given, though on out of turn basis, in accordance with the Rules in vogue, the seniority of the applicants is required to be reckoned from the date on which the applicants were given promotions on out of turn basis. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that if the contention of the authorities is to be accepted, the very object behind extending such promotions on out of turn basis would be defeated. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that since the applicants were given promotions on out of turn basis as per Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules, such promotions cannot be termed as either irregular or illegal.
14. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to Rule 2 (b) (i)
(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules, which reads as under:
"Promotions to all non-gazetted Posts in this service shall be made in accordance with the seniority-cum-fitness provided they pass the tests, undergo training and fulfil all other conditions prescribed in the rules and in the instructions of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual.
Note:- The aforesaid provision shall not be applied to a case where-
(a) the Promotion of a member has been withheld as a penalty; or
(b) in such of the cases, where a member is given a special promotion in recognition of a conspicuous merit and ability."
Obviously, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 2 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules, the promotions of the applicants were given on out of turn basis. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the promotions of the applicants are irregular or illegal.
15. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, cited by the learned senior counsel, Sri P.Venugopal, appearing for the applicants.
(a) In Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraph nos. 6 to 10 and 15, held as under:
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side. Before the Tribunal it was conceded that the Government have power to relax rules under Rule 47 of the General Rules, but, however, it was contended that the basic rules of recruitment i.e. A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules (for short `Service Rules') could not be relaxed in exercise of the power under the said Rule. Having regard to the facts of the case on hand, relevant Rules and law laid down by this Court the Tribunal concluded that there was no relaxation of basic qualifications but there was only relaxation of the conditions of service in the case of the respondent in regularizing the services with retrospective effect as Sub-Inspector. In paragraph 21 of the judgment the Tribunal stated that it is well- settled law that the Government in exercise of powers conferred on them under Rule 47 of the General Rules can relax the rules of appointment and such relaxation could be with retrospective effect. Reference was also made to the case of this Court in M. Venkateshwarlu and others vs. Government of A.P. and others [(1996) 5 SCC 167] holding that Rule 47 ex facie does not contemplate any notice being given in case of relaxation of eligibility of a single individual for promotion to the post of Deputy Tehsildar; it was not necessary to issue a notice to all affected parties in such a case. However, the Tribunal held that as the appointment of the respondent and others as OSSIs was not in accordance with the Rules and their appointments were not made after considering the case of other eligible persons as per Service Rules, their services could not be taken into consideration while determining the seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors. Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the unofficial respondents in the O.As. could claim to be regularly appointed as Sub- Inspectors only from the dates on which the Government have issued orders relaxing the service rules; any notional dates of relaxation given to them affecting the seniority of regularly appointed Sub-Inspectors prior to the date of relaxation of Rules could not be held valid. In other words, the Tribunal held that the Government have power to relax the Rules with retrospective effect for the purpose of appointment and promotion but the seniority could not be assigned to them prior to the date of regularization of services affecting the seniority of others, who are regularly appointed prior to date of their regularization. In our view, the Tribunal was not right in saying that any notional date of relaxation was given to the respondent affecting the seniority of the appellant.
In fact, service of the respondent was regularized from the actual date on which he was temporarily promoted as OSSI which was permissible in terms of para 47(B) of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(1990) 2 SCC 715]. Moreover, the promotion given to the respondent was in promotee quota which did not affect the appellant who was recruited later as a direct recruit. It may be mentioned that there was no direct recruitment in the year 1983-84 to the post of Sub-Inspector when services of the respondent and others were regularized. The appellant was recruited in the year 1985 i.e. subsequent to the date on which the respondent started working actually as OSSI though temporarily. In this view, the question of affecting the seniority of the appellant without notice did not arise.
7. We may state here itself that the Tribunal did not record a finding whether the services of the unofficial respondents were regularized as against the vacancies meant for promotees or not.
8. The High Court in para 7 of the judgment has recorded a clear finding that the services of the respondent and others were regularized in respect of the vacancies available in the quota meant for the promotees after observing, thus: -
"7. There is another aspect on which no arguments were addressed across the Bar and learned Tribunal has also not recorded any finding. In these cases, the petitioners herein made a specific assertion that the regularization of their services with effect from their initial date of temporary appointment was done within the 30% quota allocated to the promotees. There is no specific denial of this fact in the counter affidavit filed by the non-official respondents herein before the Tribunal though an attempt was made to show that when the petitioners herein were promoted there were no vacancies available within the quota of the promotees and that those appointments were made in the vacancies meant for direct recruits as there was some delay in finalization of the appointments by direct recruits. But there is no specific assertion that as on their date of appointment, vacancies in the promotees quota were not available for the purpose of regularizing the services of the petitioners herein. In fact, on behalf of the Government respondent No. 1 the Assistant Secretary, Home filed an additional counter affidavit in the Tribunal specifically supporting the contention of the petitioners herein that the regularization of their services was made in respect of vacancies available out of the quota of the promotees. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding on this aspect. This question was not addressed in this Court by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents herein. For the purpose of these writ petitions and in the absence of any clinching material, the statement made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government has to be accepted and it must be presumed that the regularization directed to be effected under the impugned G.Os. was in respect of the vacancies available in the quota meant for the promotees."
Some arguments were advanced before us to contend that the regularization of services of the respondent and others was not against the quota meant for promotees. In view of what is stated in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment, extracted above, and, particularly, when no argument was advanced before the High Court in this regard, it is not possible to accept the contention put forth on behalf of the appellant disputing the position that the regularization of services of the respondent was against the quota meant for promotees.
9. Rule 47 of the General Rules and corresponding new Rule 31 of 1996 Rules read: -
"47. Relaxation of Rules by the Governor. No rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or contained under Article 313 of that Constitution shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Governor to deal with the case of any class or category of persons for being appointed to any civil post, or of any person who is serving or has served in a civil capacity under the Government of Andhra Pradesh in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable:
Provided that, where any such rule is applicable to the case of any person or a class of persons, the cases shall not be dealt with in any manner less favourable to the person or class of persons than that provided by that rule."
"31. Relaxation of Rules by the Governor.
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the Governor shall have the power to relax any rules contained in these rules or Special Rules, in favour of any person or class of persons, in relaxation to their application to any member of a service or to any person to be appointed to the service, class or category or a person or a class of persons, who have served in any civil capacity in the Government of Andhra Pradesh in such manner as may appear to be just and equitable to him, where such relaxation is considered necessary in the public interest or where the application of such rule or rules is likely to cause undue hardship to the person or class of persons concerned."
Based on the language and content of Rule 47 of General Rules and in the light of the decisions of this Court the Tribunal as well as the High Court have firmly concluded that the State Government have power to grant relaxation of Rules with retrospective effect.
10. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association`s case (supra), after considering various aspects and earlier decisions, summed up the conclusions in paragraph 47 of the judgment. For our purpose paras (A) and (B) of the said paragraph are relevant, which are extracted hereunder: -
"47. To sum up, we hold that:
(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.
The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted."
The respondent and others were appointed as Sub- Inspectors out of seniority looking to the outstanding merit and record prior to the direct recruits like the appellant. Their services were admittedly regularized by relaxing the Service Rules in exercise of power available under Rule 47 of the General Rules. The appellant did not challenge the validity of Rule 47 and no malafides were established against the authorities in exercise of powers of relaxation under the said Rule. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the rule relating to the method of recruitment was not relaxed but only the conditions which had to be fulfilled for the purpose of promotion to the category of Sub- Inspector were relaxed; this finding is not disturbed by the High Court; there was no relaxation as to the basic qualification; the State Government regularized the services of the respondent and others with retrospective effect from the date they were temporarily appointed as Sub-Inspectors (OSSIs). It is also not disputed that they continued in service uninterruptedly for about 12-13 years till their services were regularized with retrospective effect. This being the factual position it could not be said that the corollary to paragraph 47(A) of the aforementioned Constitution Bench judgment applies to the facts of the present case. Once their services were regularized it cannot be contended that their initial appointment was only on ad hoc basis and not according to the Rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement. On the other hand paragraph 47(B) supports the case of the respondent.
15. In the case on hand the appointment of the respondent made under Rule 10(a)(i)(I) was regularized by relaxing the relevant service rules and the Standing Order No. 107 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Part I by exercising the powers under Rule 47 of General Rules. The Government, as observed by the High Court, for good reasons have chosen to regularize the services of the respondent with effect from the date of temporary promotion as Sub-Inspector in recognition and providing incentive for merit and in public interest. The High Court also noticed that the respondents were given out of seniority promotions on the basis of their individual extraordinary services and merit. The High Court found fault with the observations made by the Tribunal that the appointment of the respondent was not in accordance with the rules and that his appointment was not made after considering the case of all other eligible persons as per the Rules and as such their services could not be counted for seniority in the cadre of Sub- Inspectors from the date of their temporary appointment. The High Court observed that the question of considering the case of every eligible person along with them would scarcely arise as in such cases, it is only a particular individual based on his notable performance and merit would be picked up for out of seniority promotion as has been done in this case. The High Court also noted that the General Rules provided for ad hoc appointment under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the General Rules and in this case there is a provision for appointment by promotion and that is how the respondent had been promoted. In regard to giving of notice to the persons likely to be affected before exercise of power to relaxation under Rule 47, the High Court in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment observed: -
"22. The only other contention which needs mention is that at any rate the impugned orders of the Government would not affect the interests (seniority) of the un-official respondents inasmuch as no notice has been given to them before the Government passed the impugned orders. It may be mentioned here, the impugned orders do not relate to fixing the inter se seniority within the cadre of Sub- Inspectors. The petitioners herein were promoted in their individual cases based on their exceptional merit and performance. If regularization of their services by relaxing the rules under Rule 47 of the A.P. General Rules happens to affect the seniority of others, this itself does not support the contention that the impugned orders could not have been passed without prior notice to the un-official respondents and others. Further, Rule 47 of the General Rules does not contemplate issuance of notice before the power is exercised it. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Venkateswarlu (supra) has held that Rule 47 ex facie does not contemplate any notice. It was also observed that it was not a case to consider inter se claims of any particular individual and that it was a case of relaxing the eligibility requirement of a single individual as against many. In these circumstances, it was held that no notice was required."
(b) In The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others Vs State of Maharashtra and others, (3 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraph no.44, held as under:
44. To sum up, we hold that:
(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirma-
tion.
The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisa- tion of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.
(C) When appointments are made from more than one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly. (D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule, it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the needs of the situation. In case, however, the quota rule is not followed continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to do so the inference is irresistible that the quota rule had broken down. (E) Where the quota rule has broken down and the appoint- ments are made from one source in excess of the quota, but are made after following the procedure prescribed by the rules for the appointment, the appointees should not be pushed down below the appointees from the other source inducted in the service at a later date.
(F) Where the rules permit the authorities to relax the provisions relating to the quota, ordinarily a presumption should be raised that there was such relaxation when there is a deviation from the quota rule.
(G) The quota for recruitment from the different sources may be prescribed by executive instructions, if the rules are silent on the subject.
(H) If the quota rule is prescribed by an executive instruction, and is not followed continuously for a number of years, the inference is that the executive instruction has ceased to remain operative.
(I) The posts held by the permanent Deputy Engineers as well as the officiating Deputy Engineers under the State of Maharashtra belonged to the single cadre of Deputy Engi- neers.
(J) The decision dealing with important questions con- cerning a particular service given after careful considera- tion should be respected rather than scrutinised for finding out any possible error. It is not in the interest of Service to unsettle a settled position.
With respect to Writ Petition No. 1327 of 1982, we further hold:
(K) That a dispute raised by an application under article 32 of the Constitution must be held to be barred by principles of res judicata including the rule of constructive res judicata if the same has been earlier decided by a competent court by a judgment which became final.
(c) In Mohd.Ashfaq Ahmed Khan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others (1supra), this Court, at paragraph No. 19, held as under:
In these cases before us, the appointments of the petitioners under Rule 10(a)(i)(I) were regularised by relaxing the relevant rules under 2(b)(i) and 1 l(c) of A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules and Standing Order No. 107 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual part I by exercising the powers under Rule 47 of the A,P. General Rules. The learned Tribunal had recorded its finding that the power under Rule 47 of the A.P. General Rules can be exercised retrospectively. It may be repeated here that the Supreme Court in the case of V. Sreenivasa Reddy and others (supra) has specifically held that the Government had discretion to regularise the services of a temporary employee either with effect from the date of temporary appointment or any subsequent date; and as seen above in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association (supra), the Supreme Court also held that "if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted for the purpose of seniority. In this case, the Government for good reasons have chosen to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from their date of temporary promotion as Sub-Inspectors under Rule 10(a)(i)(I) of the General Rules, Recognition of and providing incentive for merit must be held to be in public interest. The learned Tribunal at page 45 of the judgment has observed that the appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with the Rules and also, as their appointments were not made after considering the cases of all other eligible persons as per Rules, their services with effect from the date of their temporary appointment cannot be counted for seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors. It may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioners were given out of seniority promotions on the basis of their individual extraordinary services and merit. The question of considering other eligible persons along with them would scarcely arise as in such cases it is only a particular individual based on his notable performance' and merit would be picked up for out of seniority promotion as has been done in this case.
16. In order to support his submissions and contentions, the learned Government Pleader places reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court dated 08.04.2009 in Writ Petition No.19291 of 2008. In the said judgment, the Division Bench held that temporary promotion does not confer any right, much less legally enforceable right, to confer seniority.
17. In the instant case, admittedly, promotions were effected in favour of the applicants on out of turn basis either because of their performance during the anti-extremists operations or their performance in sports. It is also required to be noted that the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No.3, Home (Police.C) Department, dated 02.01.1976, directing the appointing authorities to consider the cases of sports men for the purpose of promotion to the next category of posts, and in terms of the same, promotions were given to the respective applicants in O.A. No.3310 of 2014 and respondents in Writ Petition No.5859 of 2017. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be concluded that promotions given in favour of the respondents herein/ applicants are irregular or illegal. Having regularized the services in the category of Head Constable, however, in pursuance of the orders of the Tribunal, it is not open for the authorities to contend that the services put in by the applicants cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of effecting promotions to next higher category. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments cited by the learned senior counsel Sri P.Venugopal, the orders passed by the Tribunal directing to reckon the seniority from the date on which out of turn promotions were given in favour of the applicants, cannot be faulted.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petitions. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petitions shall stand closed.
__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J _________________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 24.02.2020 Mp/DRK IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI **** WRIT PETITION Nos. 27734 of 2017, 5859 of 2017, 13110 of 2017, 13380 of 2017, 13522 of 2017, 31951 of 2017, 31964 of 2017 & 32022 of 2014 WRIT PETITION No. 27734 of 2017 Between:
The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District and five others ---Petitioners And P.V.Ramireddy ----Respondent DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 24.02.2020 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDANRAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the order? Yes/No ______________________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J.
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDANRAO + WRIT PETITION Nos. 27734 of 2017, 5859 of 2017, 13110 of 2017, 13380 of 2017, 13522 of 2017, 31951 of 2017, 31964 of 2017 & 32022 of 2014 % 24.02.2020 WRIT PETITION No. 27734 of 2017 # Between:
The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District and five others ---Petitioners And P.V.Ramireddy ----Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, GP for Services-I ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri P.Venu Gopal Sri D.Bala Kishanrao < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
This court made the following :