Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Moulali, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 17 April, 2025
APHC010406092019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION Nos. 19453, 19482, 19505 & 19507/2019
Writ Petition No.19453 of 2019:
Between:
1. K.VYKUNTA RAO, S/O. ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, A.R.H.C.
2428, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
2. YELAMANCHILI SURYA RAO, S/O. LATE RAMULU, AGED 56 YEARS,
A.R.H.C. 252, DISTRICT ARMED, RESERVE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. T.RAMBABU, S/O. SUDARSHAN RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, A.R.H.C.
1256, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE SRIKAKULANN.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME (SER-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH,
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
VISAKHAPATNAM RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Writ Petition No.19482 of 2019:
Between:
1. A.NAGESHWARA RAO, S/O. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
A.R.H.C. 326, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, ANANTAPURAM.
2. T.CHENNARAYUDU, S/O. BALA CHENNAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS,.
A.R.H.C. 821, DISTRICT'ARMED RESERVE, KADAPA.
3. K.SIVA KUMAR REDDY, S/O. LATE ROSI REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS,
A.R.H.C.NO. 168, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, KURNOOL.
2
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME (SERVICES -II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH,
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ELURU RANGE,
ELURU.
4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL
RANGE, KURNOOL.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPURAM,
ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT..
7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Writ Petition No.19505 of 2019:
Between:
1. SHAIK MOULALI, S/O. SHAIK MAHABUB, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
A.R.H.C. 1934, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, GUNTUR.
2. K.L.NARAYANA, S/O. VENKATAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, A.R.H.C,.
2176, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, NELLORE.
3. S.YESOB, S/O. RAMAIAH,. AGED 55 YEARS, A.R. H.C. NO. 2120,
DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME (SERVICES -II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH,
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GUNTUR RANGE,
GUNTUR.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE, NELLORE
DISTRICT.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Writ Petition No.19507 of 2019:
Between:
1. CH.RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 59
3
YEARS, A.R.H.C. 2935, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. G.SRI RAMA SHEKAR, S/O. RAMANA MURTHY, AGED 57 YEARS,
A.R.H.C. 1972, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
3. CH.GOVINDA RAJULU, S/O. SANKAR RAO, AGED 54 YEARS,
A.R.H.C. 211, ON DEPUTATION TO INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT,
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT,
4. D.MOULALI, S/O. KHASIM, AGED 59 YEARS, A.R.H.C. 668,
DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, VIJAYAWADA CITY.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME (SERVICES -II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH,
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ELURU RANGE,
ELURU.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA CITY,
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
AT KAKINADA.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
AT ELURU.
7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT
MACHILIPATNAM.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. A TIRUPATHI GOUD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP)
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the application of G.O.Ms.No.1, Home, dated 07.01.2016 to the Petitioners, despite they entered A.R.Service from APSP much prior to the cut of date of the G.O i.e., 4 01.01.2008 and consequently issuance of G.O.Ms.No.107, Home (Ser.II) Department, dated 03.09.2019 by giving notional seniority to the direct recruities of A.R, finalization of seniority ignoring the rights of the Petitioners regarding their seniority from the date of their initial appointment in APSP and seeking a declaration that they are entitled for promotions as A.R Sub-
Inspectors.
2. Since the issue involved in these petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel representing Sri A.Tirupathi Goud, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Gujjarlapudi Raju, learned Government Pleader for Services-I.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, Petitioners herein are working as Head Constables in Armed Reserve (A.R) Police. They work under A.P.P.S.Service Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.1263, dated 26.08.1959.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners has vehemently argued that, a right which is accrued in favour of the Petitioners cannot be wiped out by way of amendment after 18 years of their entry into A.R. It is further submitted that the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 05.10.1999 incorporating a provision for appointment of A.P.S.P.Constables as Armed Reserve Police.
(ii) Learned counsel for the Petitioners would further submit that, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.299, learned Director General of Police had clarified vide Memo dated 04.05.2001 regarding the procedure to be followed for 5 transfer of A.P.S.P.Constable as A.R.Constable and their seniority, wherein, it is clearly held as follows:
"9. SENIORITY OF THE PCs OF APSP TRANSFERRED TO DAR/CAR/SAR.
The seniority of the PCs of APSP selected and transferred to DAR/CAR/SAR will be fixed with reference to the date of their first appointment in APSP Units as their transferee to DAR/CAR/SAR are ordered on administrative grounds and under specific provisions contained in the special rules covering the conditions of appointment by transfer in the Police force.
They are also eligible to appear for promotion tests conducted for AR PCS for promotion to the posts of HCs in district AR/CAR/SAR after completing the period of probation as PCs in DAR/CAR/SAR. The period of service rendered by the PCs in APSP shall also be countered for the purpose of promotion tests to the text higher post."
(iii) Learned counsel for the Petitioners finally would submit that the orders passed in earlier litigation between APSP (PC) and A.R(D) does not come in the way of this Court for giving the clarity regarding applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1 to the case of the Petitioners.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that the plea of the Petitioners regarding the seniority from the date of their initial appointment was unturned by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2352 of 2007 stating that Rule 15(e) is applicable and it was upheld by the Hon'ble Composite High Court of A.P., Hyderabad vide Common Order in W.P.Nos.21610 of 2007 and Batch, dated 08.10.2013, wherein the Court directed the Government to consider the feasibility of evolving a formula to extend the benefit of weightage of service rendered by the A.P.S.P(PC) i.e., the Constables appointed to A.R by transfer from Special Battalion subject to 6 certain limit, duly taking into account the interests of Constables appointed through direct recruitment and other modes over the period.
(ii) Learned Government Pleader would further submit that, in pursuance of such orders, Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 07.01.2016 and it is applicable to the Petitioners. Learned Government Pleader would finally submit that, in the light of the order of this Court in W.P.No.14013 of 2019, dated 11.02.2020, wherein, the Court categorically held that, regarding the seniority Rule 15(e) is only applicable. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petitions.
6. Refuting the submissions of learned Government Pleader, learned counsel for the Petitioners, in reply, would submit that, they are not challenging the validity of G.O.Ms.No.1 in these petitions. The query raised in these petitions is as to the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1 to the case of the Petitioners, despite the G.O., is vivid regarding the effective date i.e., 01.01.2008. Whereas the Petitioners entered in A.R.Service during the period from 2001 to 2005 and also promoted as Head Constables in A.R.
7. Now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether G.O.Ms.No.1, Home, dated 07.01.2016, is applicable to the case of the Petitioners regarding seniority?
8. Admittedly, Petitioners herein were initially appointed as Constables in A.P.S.P.Battalion during the period from 1983 to 1987. They have joined as Constables in A.R during 2001 to 2005 on conversion. The Petitioners belong to Anantapur, Kadapa, Kurnool, Prakasam, Krishna, West Godavari, East 7 Godavari, Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam Districts. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioners were promoted as Head Constables in A.R during 2008 to 2012 and have been working as such. The service conditions of the Petitioners are governed by A.P.P.Subordinate Service Rules (Special Rules) notified in G.O.Ms.No.1263, dated 26.08.1959.
9. The entry of the Petitioners into A.R is by virtue of an amendment brought to the Service Rules by G.O.Ms.No.299 Home (Police Department), dated 05.10.1999. It is so relevant to examine the object and reasons behind to bring such an amendment to the Service Rules. G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 05.10.1999 and also the Memo issued by the Director General of Police relating to clarification as to the point of the seniority after their entry into A.R.Service.
10. For ready reference, G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 05.10.1999 is extracted hereunder:
"GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT Police Department - Andhra Pradesh Special Police - Certain Amendments for the method of Recruitment in DAR/SAR/CPL- amendments for the method of Recruitment of Police Constables in DAR/CAR/SAR-Orders issued.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Police Department
GO Ms. No.299 Dated: 05.10.1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read the following:-
1) GO Ms. No. 270 Home (Police) Department dtd. 02.04.1999.
2) From the DG & IGP Rc.No. 314/R&T (Admn.2)/97, dtd.
19.02.1999.
*** 8 Order:
The Director & Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in the ref. 2nd read above, the reported that at present 85% force of Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions being deployed in Telangana Districts and Hyderabad City where there is serious extremist and L&O problem. Hyderabad City being communally hyper-sensitive, requires deployment of large components of Armed Forces to ineet security and L&O requirements. Acute shortage of Armed Forces has been necessitating continuous deployment of Andhra Pradesh Special Police in these areas for long spells without relief to the men deployed. The un-duly long deployment is leading to serious adverse affect on the Andhra Pradesh police men and they are not able to attend to their domestic obligations. In order to relieve the Andhra Pradesh Special Police men from continuous tension and longer out- door duties, the Director General & Inspector General of Police has proposed to fill-up the posts of Police Cumtables in District Anned Reserve/City Armed Reserve/Special Armed Reserve/Central Police lines by transfer from Andhra Pradesh Special Police Constables who have completed 10 years of service and "STRICTLY ON SENORITY BASIS, BY DISPENSING WITH THE DIRECT RECURITMENT TO THE POST OF POLICE CONSTABLES IN DAR/CAR/SAR CPL".
2) The Government after careful examination of the matter, accept that proposal of the Director General and Inspector General of Police and direct that direct Recruitment to the posts of Police Constables in District Armed Reserve/City Armed Reserve/Special Armed Reserve/Central Police lines dispensed with the immediate effect and that the posts of Police Constable in District Armed Reserve/City Armed Reserve/Special Armed Reserve/Central Potice tines filled, up by transfer of Police Constables of Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions who have completed 10 years of service.
3) The following notification will be published in the extra ordinary issue of the Andhra Pradesh gazette.
NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the provision to article 309 of the constitution of India and of all other powers hereunto enabling, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following amendments to the special rules for the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate service issued in GO Ms.No. 1263 and G.A (Rules) department dated the 26th day of Aug. 1959 as amended from time to time.
AMENDMENT The said rules is in Annexure-l under "Class-1" under Category 6 (b) Constables District Armed Reserve, City Armed Reserve, Head Quarters and Special Armed Reserve, Central Police lines) in Column (1) and the corresponding / in Column 2.3 thereof, the following shall be substituted namely:-
9-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Class & Category Method of appointment Limitation Appointing Authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 2 3 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Class-I By Transfer from Nil In muffasil, the Supdt.
Category 6(b) Andhra Pradesh of Police concerned in
Constables (District Special Police Battalions Visakhapatnam and
armed Reserve, Vijayawada Cities, the
City armed Commissioner of Police
Reserve, Head concerned and in
quarters and Hyderabad City, the
Special armed Dy.Commissioner of Police
Reserve, City Armed Reserves,
Central Head Quarters, Hyd City
Police lines) allotment from
State Level Recruitment
Board.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- In the said rules, in Annexure-II under Class-ll in Col.l for entries against Category 6 (b) (Constables (District Armed Reserve, City Armed Reserve, Head Quarters and Special Armed Reserve, Central Police lines) for the corresponding entries in Col. I, II & III thereof, the following shall be substituted Namely:-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class & Category Age limit for appointment Qualification Appointing Authority otherwise than promotion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class-I Nil Police Constables of Andhra
Category 6(b) Pradesh Special Police who have
Constables (District completed (10) years of service
armed Reserve, are eligible for appointment as
City armed Police Constables in Constables
Reserve, Head (District Armed Reserve, City
quarters and Armed Reserve, Head Quarters
Special armed and Special Armed Reserve,
Reserve, Central Police Lines) by
Central recommendation of the Inspector
Police lines) General of Police, Andhra Pradesh
Special Police Battalions and
subject to full-filling the local
candidature of the respective district
(or) unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
11. The particulars of the Petitioners, which are crucial, are mentioned herein in a tabular form:
Case No. Name of the Age Native District Entry into the category Petitioner APSP ARPC ARHC W.P.No.19453 K.Vykunta Rao 56 Visakhapatnam 1983 2005 24.10.10 of 2019 Y.Surya Rao 56 Visakhapatnam 1983 2001 01.07.08 T.Rambabu 58 Srikakulam 1983 2002 19.05.09 W.P.No.19482 A.Nageswara 55 Anantapuramu 1987 2002 2010 of 2019 Rao T.Chennarayudu 56 Kadapa 1983 2004 2010 K.Siva Kumar 55 Kurnool 1983 2003 2010 Reddy W.P.No.19505 Shaik Moulali 57 Prakasam 1983 2004 01.11.11 of 2019 K.L.Narayana 55 Prakasam 1985 2001 23.03.12 S.Yesob 55 Prakasam 1983 2005 04.04.11 W.P.No.19507 Ch.Ramakrishna 59 East Godavari 1983 2001 18.07.08 of 2019 G.Srirama 57 West Godavari 1983 2001 10.06.09 Sekhar Ch.Govindarajulu 54 Krishna 1983 2004 08.10.08 D.Moulali 59 Vijayawada 1983 2004 21.07.10
12. Before taking a decision over this issue, it is essential to look into the earlier litigations on the subject seniority and the same is mentioned below:
In the year 2007, direct recruities of A.R filed O.A.No.2352 of 2007 before the APAT, Hyderabad questioning the higher seniority to the Police Constables appointed by transfer in A.R from APSP Battalions. Similarly, some of the O.As were also filed before the APAT. The learned Tribunal disposed of O.A.No.2352 of 2007 vide Order dated 23.08.2007 directing to 11 determine the seniority of the unofficial respondents therein from the date of their confirmation in the service of DAR in terms of Rule 15(e) of the Service Rules. Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, the Government filed W.P.No.24847 of 2007 before the Composite High Court of A.P and some of the aggrieved persons also filed Writ Petitions against the similar orders. The High Court vide Common Order dated 08.10.2012, upheld the orders passed by the Tribunal in the respective O.As and also directing the Government to consider the feasibility of evolving a formula to extend the benefit of weightage of service rendered by the Constables appointed to AR by transfer from Sepcial Battalions, subject to certain limit, duly taking into account the interests of the Constables appointed through direct recruitment and other modes over the period. In obedience to the said orders, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 07.01.2016. Aggrieved by the said G.O., some of the APSP Constables including some of the Petitioners also approached the Tribunal and filed O.A.No.317 of 2006 and the same was dismissed on 04.04.2023. While so, the convertee constables filed O.A.No.954 of 2018 before the Tribunal to send them for pre-promotional training, wherein, the Tribunal directed the Respondents therein not to proceed with the pre-
promotional training without finalizing the seniority. Again the Petitioners herein filed W.P.No.8857 of 2019 before this Court for non-implementation of the orders passed in O.A.No.954 of 2018, wherein, this Court directed the Respondents to complete the process within a period of three months.
Subsequently, some of the Petitioners herein filed W.P.No.14013 of 2019 not 12 to conduct pre-promotional training for ARHCs until finalization of the seniority list. This Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.1 is not applicable to them.
13. In the light of the Orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and also the Hon'ble Division Bench judgments apart from the Orders passed by A.P.A.T, one thing is clear so far. The Orders would show that, in case of transfer of A.P.S.P.Police Constable as A.R Police Constable, seniority shall be reckoned from the date of entry as A.R subject to calculation of their past service in A.P.S.P as per G.O.Ms.No.1. It is pertinent to mention that, at every stage, Courts protected the right of the persons and directed the authorities not to revert the persons till the fixation of formula.
14. It is needful to mention that Section 15(e) is not in existence. It is beneficial to extract Rules 15(c) and 15(e), which read as under:
"Rule 15(c): The transfer of a person from one class or category of the service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority and the seniority of person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the date of his first appointment to class or category from which he was transferred. Where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying this sub-rule, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority.
Rule 15(e): The seniority of qualified Special Policemen appointed by transfer as Constables in this service shall be determined by the date of their first appointment in this service for purposes of confirmation in vacancies in this service."
15. In the earlier litigation, Courts categorically held that Rule 15(e) is applicable but not Rule 15(c) as decided by A.P.A.T in O.A.No.2352 of 2007, 13 dated 23.08.2007 which was upheld by the Composite High Court of A.P in W.P.No.21610 of 2007 and Batch dated 08.10.2013, which was reiterated in W.P.No.14013 of 2019, dated 11.02.2020 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Hence, the prayer regarding applicability Rule 15(c) to the Petitioners falls to ground.
16. Be that as it may, this Court would like to examine the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1 to the present Petitioners. It is profitable to extract G.O.Ms.No.1, which reads as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT HOME (LEGAL.II) DEPARTMENT Police Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules Fixation of seniority of Police Constables in AR/SARCPL Police Constables who are appointed by transfer (by Conversion) from APSP in terms of orders dated 8.10.2013 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in W.P.No.26765/2011 and batch cases by applying weightage formula for the purpose of further promotion in Armed Reserve Adhoc Rules Orders Issued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME (LEGAL.II) DEPARTMENT
G.O.MS.No. 1 Dated: 07-01-2016
Read the following:-
1. G.O. Ms. No. 1263 General Administration (Rules) Dept., dated 26-
08-1959.
2. G.O.Ms.No. 270 Home Department, dated 2-4-1990.
3. G.O.Ms.No. 299. (Home Police.D) Department, dated 5-10-1999.
4. G.O.Ms.No. 329 Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 28-12-2010.
5. APAT order dated 9-9-2011 in O.A.No. 10216/2008 and other cases.
6. G.O. Ms. No. 54, Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 18-02-2013.
7. High Court order dated 08-10-2013 in W.P. Nos. 26765/2011 and batch cases.
148. From the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Lr.Rc.No.59/E3/2014, dated 22-2-2014 & 09-12-2015.
9. Opinion of the Government Pleader, High Court of AP, Hyderabad, dated 13-10-2015.
***** ORDER:
In the letters 8th read above, the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, has stated that the Government in the G.O. 1st read above, issued Police Sub-Ordinate Service Rules from the rank of Police Constable to Sub-Inspector for different organizations in Police Department and the Provisions were made for fixation of seniority to the individuals who were appointed by transfer as follows:-
Rule 15 (c): "The transfer of a person from one class or category of the service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority and the seniority of person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the date of his first appointment to class or category from which he was transferred. Where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying this sub-rule, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority".
Rule 15 (e).: "The seniority of qualified Special Policemen appointed by transfer as Constables in this service shall be determined by the date of their first appointment in this service for purposes of confirmation in vacancies in this service".
2. In the reference 2nd read above, an amendment was issued to G.O.Ms. No. 1263 General Administration (Rules) Department, dated 26-8-
1959 by making a provision for appointment by transfer of eligible Police Constables to District Armed Reserve and Cite Armed Reserve from Special Police Battalions and in the G.Os 3rd and 4th read above, the terms and conditions for such appointment, by transfer were specified.
3. Seniority of PCs(AR) / PCs (SAR CPL) who were appointed by transfer from PCs (APSP) was fixed from the date of initial appointments PC (APSP) by following the Rule 15(c) in all Districts. However, in the year 2008, direct recruit ARPCs and convertee ARPCs of Srikakulam and Vizianagaram Districts assailed the system of following Rule 15(c) initially in the APAT and subsequently in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and obtained "Status-Quo@ orders.
4. He has also stated that Sri Lundu Krishna Rao direct recruit AR PC & others of Srikakulam District filed O.A.No. 10216/2008 against the seniority list prepared by SP, Srikakulam District as per flute 15 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules. The APAT in its orders dt.9-9- 2011 have directed the respondents to count the seniority of the unofficial respondents in terms of Rule 15 (e) of the AP Police Subordinate Service Rules. Against the above APAT orders, the Convertee PCs (AR) of Srikakulam District i.e., Sri P.Kokanadham, PC 183 of Srikakulam District and others filed the WP No.26765/2011 in the High Court to set aside the above APAT Orders dated 9-9-2011 in O.A.No.10216/2008.
155. The High Court on 14-10-2011 in WP No. 26765/2011 have issued orders to maintain Status quo
6. Further, Sri Jummu Krishna, direct recruit AR PC & Others of Vizianagaram District filed an O.A.No. 2857/2008 in the APAT against the seniority list prepared by the Superintendent of Police, Viziariagaram District as per Rule 15 (c) of the AP Police Subordinate Service Rotes vide Memo No. 625/A1/2008, dated 8-3-2008. The APAT in its Orders dated 3- 2-2012 directing the respondents to take further action regarding seniority of the unofficial respondents after the disposal of the WP No. 24847/2007 (which was filed by the Medak District) in the erstwhile State of AP pending before the High Court on the basis of the Judgment of the High Court
7. The Hon'ble High Court disposed the W.P.Nos. 21610/2007, 24847/2007, 26765/2011, 31595/2012, the 33217/2012 and 18254/2013 by upholding the above APAT orders and directed the Government to consider the feasibility of evolving a formula to extend the benefit of weightage of service rendered by the ARPCS who were appointed by transfer from APSP subject to certain limit, duly taking the interest of the Constables appointed by direct recruitment or other modes over the period and till such time the formula is evolved, the reversion which are warranted on account of implementation of the orders passed by the Tribunal shall stand stayed.
8. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has requested to approve the following formula for fixation of seniority with effect from 1-1-2008 since the litigation started from 1-1-2008 in respect of APPCS and SARCPL PCs who were appointed by transfer from the APSP by taking into consideration of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad:
"Shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service rendered as PC In APSP, subject to a maximum of seven years. For the purpose of calculation of weightage under this clause, fractions, if any are to be Ignored."
Date of fixation of seniority: If length of service as PC APSP is above 13 years and less than 14 years, then weightage is 6 years. If the date of appointment as PCAR is 18-01-2014 then date of fixation of seniority is 18-01-2008.
9. Government after careful examination of the entire matter hereby approved the following formula as proposed by the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for fixation of seniority in respect of APPCs and SARCPL PCs appointed by transfer from the APSP.
10. The adhoc Rule hereby made shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 01-01-2008.
11. Accordingly, the following notification is published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette:
16NOTIFICATION Notwithstanding anything contained in the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 1263. General Administration (Rules) Department. dated: 26-8-1959 as amended from time to time makes the following Adhoc Rule:-the Governor of Andhra Pradesh Ad-HOC RULE "The seniority of Police Constables in Armed Reserve, appointed by transfer from Special Police Battalions shall be fixed giving weightage of one year of service for every completed two years of service rendered as Police Constables in Special Battalions, subject to a maximum of seven years."
Note: For the purpose of calculation of weightage under this clause fractions, if any are to be ignored.
12. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, shall take further necessary action in the matter.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) Dr. MANMOHAN SINGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FAC)"
17. A fair look at the G.O referred to supra would show that, there is no ambiguity about the effective date mentioned. Doubtlessly G.O.Ms.No.1 was issued on 07.01.2016 w.e.f 01.01.2008. At this juncture it is contextual to look into the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Courts of Telangana and this Court in W.P.Nos.4636 of 2018 and its batch dated 25.01.2022 and 15291 of 2022 & Batch, dated 03.10.2023 respectively.
W.P.No.4636 of 2018 & Batch of High Court of Telangana (Division Bench) between D Swamy Joshua & Others vs. State of Telangana & Others, dated 25.01.2022:
18. Petitioners in this case were initially appointed as PCs in A.P.S.P under service rules vide G.O.Ms.No.1263. After completing ten years of service, they opted for transfer and have become members of A.R. Service rules were 17 amended for PC (Civil) vide G.O.Ms.No.374, dated 14.12.1999. As there was a provision for transfer to Civil Police from AR(PC), Petitioners were transferred to Civil Police. State has amended said rule by G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.02.2018 and for the first time introduced a weightage formula to the effect that, in case of conversion from PCs (AR, SARCPL) to Police (Civil) the individual shall be given weightage of one year for every completed two years of service rendered in his parent wing subject to a maximum of seven years.
19. Petitioners who are aggrieved by the said amendment, preferred the batch of cases. Rule is silent about retrospective effect. The Court, after scrutinizing the issue thoroughly by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, categorically held that, all these Constables who have come prior to 06.02.2018 are entitled for grant of seniority and all those who have come on transfer after 06.02.2018 shall be governed by the amended recruitment rules. The cases referred and the analogy that was drawn, points raised regarding applicability of the amendment, were discussed at length and after extracting relevant discussion and findings in W.P.No.21610 of 2007, dated 08.10.2013, the Division Bench of High Court of Telangana in W.P.Nos.4636 of 2018 & Batch, dated 25.01.2022, held at Para No.49 as follows:
"49. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the Recruitment Rules provided for transfer only to the extent of l0% posts, the petitioners at the relevant point of time opted for transfer to Civil Police and they would have certainly received promotions by now in the parent organisation. The Amendment in the Recruitment Rules, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.08.20I8 has been introduced and for the first time, a 18 weightage formula has been introduced by the State Government under the Recruitment Rules governing the field, meaning thereby, wiping the past seniority and therefore, once a right which has accrued in favour of the petitioners cannot be wiped out by the impugned Amendment and the Amendment is certainly not at all applicable with retrospective effect. The question of depriving the petitioners by making the Amendment applicable with retrospective effect does not arise.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that all those constables who have come prior to 06.02.2018 are certainly entitled for grant of seniority and all those constables who have come on transfer after 06.02.2018 shall be governed by the Amended Recruitment Rules.
20. Coming to the facts of the present case, the language employed in G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 06.02.2018, is very same in G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 07.01.2016. The only difference is G.O.Ms.No.1 is meant for the persons who converted as AR (PC) from APSP Battalion, whereas, G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.02.2018 issued by Telangana State is for conversion of AR (PC) as Civil Police. In G.O.Ms.No.19, retrospective operation of G.O is absent, whereas, G.O.Ms.No.1 shows that it is w.e.f 01.01.2008. Such being the case, the same analogy is applicable to the present set of facts, since the Petitioners herein have become AR (PCs) much prior to the date of retrospective effect.
W.P.No.15291 of 2022 & Batch of High Court of A.P.(Division Bench) between A.Sow Reddy vs. State of A.P, dated 03.10.2023:
21. It is a case where Petitioners were initially appointed as P.C in A.R and thereafter converted as Police Constables (Civil). Their initial appointment is under Service rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.1263, General Administration (Rules) Department, dated 26.08.1959. Subsequently, a provision was made for appointment of Police Constables AR, City AR and Special AR by transfer of PC (Civil) specifying cadre strength and eligibility being one should 19 complete the age of 40 years vide G.O.Ms.No.194, Home (Police-B) Department, dated 22.07.1999. While so, the D.G.P., while referring to the judgment of the Composite High Court of A.P., in W.P.No.26865 of 2011 and Batch, made certain recommendations for amendment of Rules. In pursuance of such order, Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.95 Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 31.05.2017 to the effect that the seniority in respect of P.Cs of (Civil) appointed by transfer from AR / SAR CPL shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service rendered as PC (AR / SAP CPL) (Men) subject to a maximum of seven years. For the purpose of calculations, fractions if any are to be ignored.
22. Challenging the said amendment and its applicability, Writ Petitions were preferred. The Writ Petitions were allowed holding that the Petitioners expressed their willingness for being appointed as PCs (Civil) in terms of unamended rules, as such, applying the amended rule, is a clear infraction of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India.
23. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.15291 of 2022 & Batch, dated 03.10.2023 held as follows:
"17. Admittedly, all the writ petitioners were initially appointed as Armed Reserve Police Constables during the years spreading over 1989 to 1998. It is absolutely not in controversy that as per the unamended Rule 10 (ii) (ii), the seniority would have to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment in the former category i.e., Armed Reserve Police Constable. The amended Rule 10 (ii) (ii) came into effect by virtue of the notification issued by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 31.05.2017. The unamended and amended position of Rule 10 (ii) (ii) is as follows:20
"Unamended Rule:
The seniority of police constables of Armed reserve or Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions transferred to this service shall be determined with reference to their date of first appointment in the former category.
Amended Rule:
Rule 10 (ii) (ii):
The seniority in respect of PCs of (Civil) (Men) appointed by transfer (Conversion) from PCs (AR/SAR CPL) (Men) shall be fixed as follows:
"shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service rendered as PC (AR/SAR CPL) (Men), subject to a maximum of seven years.
Note: For the purpose of calculation of weightage under this clause, fractions, if any are to be ignored."
24. In the case of Sub-Inspector Rooplal and another vs. LT.Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph Nos.15 and 16, held as follows:
"15. We will now take up the question whether the appellants are entitled to count their service rendered by them as Sub-Inspector in the BSF for the purpose of their seniority after absorption as Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police or not. We have already noticed the fact that it is pursuant to the needs of Delhi Police that these officials were deputed to Delhi Police from the BSF following the procedure laid down in Rule 5(h) of the Rules and subsequently absorbed as contemplated under the said Rules. It is also not in dispute that at some point of time in the BSF, the appellants' services were regularised in the post of Sub- Inspectors and they were transferred as regularly appointed Sub- Inspectors to Delhi Police force. Therefore, on being absorbed in an equivalent cadre in the transferred post, we find no reason why these transferred officials should not be permitted to count their service in the parent department. At any rate, this question is not res Integra and is squarely covered by the ratio of judgments of this Court in more than one case. Since the earlier Bench of the tribunal relied upon Madhavan's case to give relief to the deputationists, we will first consider the law laid down by this Court in Madhavan`s case (supra).1
2000) 1 SCC 644 21 This Court in that ease while considering a similar question, came to the following conclusion:
"We may examine the question from a different point of view. There is `not-much difference between deputation and transfer. Indeed, when a deputationist is permanently absorbed in the CBI, he is under the rules appointed oh transfer. In other words, deputation may be regarded as a transfer from one government department to another. It will be against all rules of service jurisprudence, if a government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same or an equivalent post in another government department, the period of his service in the post before his transfer is not taken into consideration in computing his seniority in the transferred post. The transfer cannot wipe out his length of service in the post from which he has been transferred. It has been observed by this Court that it is a just and wholesome principle commonly applied where persons from different sources are drafted to serve in a new service that their pre- existing total length of service in the parent department should be respected and presented by taking the same into account in determining their ranking in the new service cadre. See R.S. Mokashi and Ors, v. l.M. Menon and Ors., [1982] 1 SCC 379 and Wing Commander J, Kumar V. Union of India and Ors., [1982] 3 SCR 453."
16. Similar is the view taken by this Court in the cases of K.S. Mokashi and Ors. and Wing Commander J, Kumar (supra) which judgments have been followed by This Court in Madhavan's case. Hence, we do not think it is necessary for us to deal in detail as to the view taken by this Court in those judgments. Applying the principles laid down in the above referred cases, we hold the appellants are entitled to count the substantive service rendered by them in the post of Sub-Inspector in the BSF while counting their service in the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police force."
25. In the case of State of Gujarat and another vs.Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others2, a Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 6, 22, 24, 26, 48, 51 and 52, held as follows:
"6. At this juncture, we may mention that prior to the enactment of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, there were in force in the State of Gujarat the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, the Bombay Local Boards Act, 1923, the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 2 1983) 2 SCC 33 22 and the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1958 and the Bombay Local Boards Act, 1923 are repealed by Secs. 325 and 326 of the Gujarat Village Panchayats Act, 1961. A local area declared to be a village under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and a Panchayat constituted under that Act, are deemed to be gram and panchayat under the Gujarat Gram Panchayats Act. 1961. The Secretaries and all officers and servants under the employment of the old village Panchayats are to be Secretaries, officers and servants of the new gram panchayats. A District Local Board constituted under the Bombay Local Boards Act for a local area is to stand dissolved. All property which stood vested in the district local board P immediately before the appointed day is to be deemed transferred to the district panchayat constituted for the local area, called the successor panchayat. All officers and servants in the employment of the District Local Board are similarly to be deemed transferred to the service of the successor panchayat. Where local areas are declared to be grams or nagars under Sec. 9 of the Gujarat Gram Panchayats Act, 1961 and such areas correspond to the limits of a municipal district or municipal borough under the Bombay District Municipal Act or Bombay Municipal Borough Act, it is provided by Sec. 307 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act that the municipality previously functioning in such local area shall cease to exist and that the councilors of such municipality shall constitute an interim gram panchayat or interim nagar panchayat as the case may be for the gram or nagar. It is also provided that all officers and servants in the employment of the municipality immediately before the date of declaration of the local areas as gram or nagar, shall be officers and Servants of the interim panchayat.
22. Subject to the rules made under Sec. 203, appointment to posts in the panchayat service, Sec. 205 provides, shall be made by direct recruitment by promotion or by transfer of a member of the State service to the panchayat service. Sec. 206 obliges the State Government by general or special order to allocate to the panchayat service:
"(i) such number of officers and servants out of the staff allotted or transferred to a panchayat under sections (157, 158 and 325) as it may deem fit, (ia) all officers and servants of the municipalities dissolved under Sec. 307,
(ii) all officers and servants in the service of district local boards and district school boards immediately before their dissolution under this Act and transferred to the panchayats under secs. 155 and 326".23
It is further provided that officers and servants so allocated shall be taken over by such panchayats in such cadre and on such tenure, remuneration and other conditions of service, as the State Government may determine. Sec. 204 provides that, subject to the rules which the State Government may make, the expenditure towards the pay, allowances and other benefits allowed to an officer or servant of the panchayat service serving for the time being under any panchayat shall be met by that panchayat from its own fund. Sec. 207 enables the State Government to direct the posting of officers of the Indian P administrative service and of Class II services of the State under panchayat institutions. Sec. 208 enables a panchayat to obtain the services of any officer of Government on loan. Sec. 210 provides for the constitution of a Panchayat Services Selection Board and Sec.211 provides for the constitution of District Panchayat Service Selection Committees and District Primary Education Staff Selection Committees.
24. After the coming into force of the 1961 Act, several sets of rules were promulgated and orders were made which concerned the Gujarat Panchayat service. One such order was that made on January 2, 1967 under Sec. 203 (2) directing that the Panchayat service shall consist of district cadre, taluqa cadre and local cadre and further specifying the posts which belonged to each of the cadres. Amongst the rules made were the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Absorption, Seniority, Pay. and Allowances) Rules, 1965, which provided for the equation of posts, fixation of seniority, scales of pay and allowances of "allocated employees". "Allocated employees' were defined in the rules to mean persons allocated to the panchayat service under the provisions of Sec. 206 (i). The rules provide that every allocated employee holding a corresponding post, immediately before the appointed day, shall be appointed to the equivalent post. Equivalent post is defined to mean a post in the panchayat service, which the State Government may, by order, determine to be generally corresponding to a post held by an allocated employee immediately before the appointed day (called corresponding post) having regard to the pay scales, the minimum educational and other qualifications prescribed for the equivalent post and the corresponding post and the nature and magnitude of responsibilities attached to such posts. Therefore, unless equivalence of posts is first determined, by order, by the Government the Gujarat Panchayat Service Absorption Seniority Pay and Allowances Rules, 1965 cannot be effectively applied. Even so, the State Government did not make any order regarding equation of posts of the staff in the local cadre and the fixation of their scale of pay, although such orders were made in respect of posts of other cadres. The State Government did not also extend to the staff borne on the local cadre of the panchayat service the benefit of revision of scales of pay, etc. which were made on the 24 basis of the recommendations of the two Pay Commissions, though such benefit was extended to the District and Taluqa cadres; nor did the Government make any order providing for promotional avenues to employees of the local cadre. Aggrieved by the deaf ear turned to their representations, certain ex- municipal employees now included in the local cadre of the Panchayat Service, for themselves and on behalf of other ex- municipal employees now in the local cadre of the Panchayat Service, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Gujarat seeking various reliefs. The Writ Petition was resisted by the State of Gujarat and the Development Commissioner on the principal ground that the members of the Panchayat Service were not Government servants and therefore, they were not entitled to claim the reliefs asked by them. The High Court of Gujarat allowed the Writ Petition holding that the members of the panchayat service belonging to the local cadre were Government servants and directed the State Government.
"(1) To make suitable orders under the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Absorption, Seniority, Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1965 as regards the equivalence of posts, fixation of pay scales for such posts, fixation of the petitioners and the person to whom they represented an appropriate stage in such pay scales and other incidental matters covered by the said rules and to give effect to such orders from the date of allocation of the petitioners and the persons whom they represent to the Panchayat Service, that is to say, from February 11, 1969.
(2) To initially fix the pay scales and allowances and other conditions of service, including the grant of house rent allowance, compensatory local allowance, leave benefits, medical benefits, retirement benefits, etc. Of the petitioners and the persons whom they represent in the equivalent posts in the Panchayat Service in accordance p with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Service (Absorption, Seniority, Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1965 and simultaneously give to them the benefit of such of the accepted recommendations of the First Pay Commission (Sarala Commission) in the said matters as were extended to the other officers and servants of the Panchayat Service; alternatively, having initially fixed the pay scales, allowances and other conditions of service in the equivalent post in accordance with the said rules, to revise subsequently such pay scales and other conditions of service as per the accepted recommendations of the First Pay Commission (Sarala Commission) in the said matters with effect from February 11, 1969.
(3) To further revise the pay scales and allowances and other conditions of service, including the grant of house rent allowance, compensatory local allowance, leave benefits, medical 25 benefits, retirement benefits, etc. of the Second Pay Commission (Desai Commission) in the said matters and to give effect to such revision on and with effect from January 1, 1975.
(4) To extend to the petitioners and the persons whom they represent the benefit of interim relief in the same manner in which such benefit was extended to the other officers and servants of the Panchayat Service.
(5) To pay to the petitioners and the persons whom they represent the amount payable to them as a consequence of the rationalisation or revision of pay scale and allowances and other conditions of service in pursuance of the directions contained in clauses (I) to (4) hereinabove.
(6) To consider the question of making suitable provisions in the Gujarat panchayats Service (Promotion to Cadres in State Service) Rules, 1974 or by framing appropriate Rules for promotion of the ex-municipal staff of the Panchayat Service to consider the question of providing to such staff, by framing appropriate rules, pro motional avenues to the other two cadres in the Panchayat Service, namely, the taluka cadre and the district cadre".
26. The appeal was argued first as if the Amending Act had not been passed and the main question argued in the appeal was whether the members of the Panchayat service were Government servants. The Writ Petitions were argued next and the question argued in the Writ Petitions was about the constitutional validity of the Amending Act.
48. From the summary of the provisions of the Amending Act that has been set out above it requires no perception to recognise the principal target of the amending legislation as the category of ex-municipal employees', who are, so to say, pushed out of the Panchayat Service and are to be denied the status of Government servants and the consequential benefits. The ex- municipal employees are virtually the "poor relations", the castle, the Panchayat Service, is not for them nor the attendant advantages, privileges and perquisites, which are all for the "pedigree descendants" only. For them, only the out-houses. As a result of the amendments they cease to be Government servants with retrospective effect. Their earlier allocation to the Panchayat Service is cancelled with retrospective effect. They become servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats with retrospective effect. They are treated differently from those working in taluqa and district panchayats as well as from the talatis and Kotwals working in Gram and Nagar Panchayats. Their conditions of service are to be prescribed by panchayats, by resolution, whereas the conditions of service of others are to be prescribed by the 26 Government. Their promotional prospects are completely wiped out and all advantages which they would derive as a result of the judgments of the courts are taken away.
51. Now, in 1978 before the Amending Act was passed, thanks to the provisions of the Principal Act of 1961, the ex- municipal employees who had been allocated to the Panchayat Service as Secretaries, officers and servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats, had achieved the status of government servants. Their status as Government servants could not be extinguished, so long as the posts were not abolished and their services were not terminated in accordance with the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution. Nor was it permissible to single them out for differential treatment. That would offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. An attempt was made to justify the purported differentiation on the basis of history and ancestry, as it were. It was said that Talatis and Kotwals who became Secretaries, officers and servants, of Gram and Nagar Panchayats were Government servants, even to start with, while municipal employees who became such secretaries, officers and servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats were not. Each carried the mark or the 'brand' of his origin and a classification on the basis of the source from which they came into the service, it was claimed, was permissible. We are clear that it is not. Once they had joined the common stream of service to perform the same duties, it is clearly not permissible to make any classification on the basis of their origin. Such a clarification would be unreasonable and entirely irrelevant to the object sought to be achieved. It is to navigate around these two obstacles of Art. 311 and Art. 14 that the Amending Act is sought to be made retrospective, to bring about an artificial situation as if the erstwhile municipal employees never became members of a service under the State. Can a law be made to be destroy today's accrued constitutional P rights by artificially reverting to a situation which existed seventeen years ago? No.
52. The legislation is pure and simple, self- deceptive, if we may use such an expression with reference to a legislature-made law. The legislature is undoubtedly competent to legislate with retrospective effect to take away or impair any vested right acquired under existing laws but since the laws are made under a written Constitution, and have to conform to the do's and don'ts of the Constitution neither prospective nor retrospective laws can be made so as to contravene Fundamental Rights. The law must satisfy the requirements of the Constitution today taking onto account the accrued or acquired rights of the parties today. The law cannot say, twenty years ago the parties had no rights, therefore, the requirements of the Constitution will be satisfied if the law is dated back by twenty years. We are concerned with today's rights and not yesterday's. A legislature cannot legislate 27 today with reference to a situation that obtained twenty years ago and ignore the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued in the course of the twenty years. That would be most arbitrary, unreasonable and a negation of history. It was pointed out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in BS. Yadav and others etc. v. State of Haryana and others etc.(1) Chandrachud CJ., speaking for the Court, "Since the Governor exercises the legislative power under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, it is open to him to give retrospective operation to the rules made under that provision. But the date from which the rules are made to operate, must be shown to bear either from the face of the rules or by extrinsic evidence, reasonable nexus with the provisions contained in the rules, especially when the retrospective effect extends over a long period as in this case". Today's equals cannot be made unequal by saying that they were unequal twenty years ago and we will restore that position by making a law today and making it retrospective. Constitutional rights, constitutional obligations and constitutional consequences cannot be tempered with that way law which if made today would be plainly invalid as offending constitutional provisions in the context of the existing situation 3 cannot become valid by being made retrospective. Past virtue (constitutional) cannot be made to wipe out present vice (constitutional) by making retrospective laws. We are, therefore, firmly of the view that the Gujarat Panchayats third Amendment) Act, 1978 is unconstitutional, as it offends Arts. 311 and 14 and is arbitrary and unreasonable. We have considered the question whether any provision of the Gujarat Panchayats (Third Amendment) Act, 1978 might be salvaged. We are afraid that the provisions are so interwined with one another that it is well-nigh impossible to consider any life saving surgery. The whole of the Third Amendment Act must go. In the result the Writ Petition Nos 4266-70 are allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 15,000. The directions given by the High Court, which we have confirmed, should be complied with before June 30, 1983. In the meanwhile, the employees of the Panchayats covered by the appeal and the Writ Petitions will receive a sum of Rs. 200 per month over and above the emoluments they were receiving before February 1, 1978. This order will be effective from February 1, 1983 The interim order made on February 20, 1978 will be effective upto January 31, 1983. The amounts paid are to be adjusted later."
26. A Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana, when the same issue fell for consideration in W.P.Nos.4636 of 2018 and batch, at paragraph Nos.17, 35, 43, 45, 46 to 49, held as follows:
28"17. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, a right which has accrued in favour of the petitioners cannot be wiped out by amending the statute especially when the applicability of the statute is not with retrospective effect. In the present case, the amending notification uses the phraseology "shall be substituted" which clearly indicates that the amendment is prospective and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the question of making the Rules applicable with retrospective effect does not arise. The amendment in the Rules shall be applicable to all those persons who are now joining the Telangana Civil Police after the amendment only.
35. In the light of the aforesaid Judgment, the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect.
43. The dispute involved in the present case is altogether different and the amendment to the recruitment rules has to be prospective in the absence of any such specific provision and the right accrued in favour of the employees who have come on transfer prior to amendment cannot be wiped out.
45. In the present case, the State Government has not been able to point out the public interest involved in the matter, on the contrary the benefit of seniority was granted to the persons who come on transfer from branch to another branch and are now being deprived of their accrued right of their past seniority and their accrued right for consideration of promotion and therefore, the Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable on facts.
46. Learned counsel for the respondents 18 to 43 has placed reliance upon the Judgment delivered in the case of K.Jagannadha Rao (supra). In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench has held that the benefit of past service rule is a matter of policy for the Government, however, past service must be of an equivalent post. In the present case, the past service is an equivalent post and the right accrued already in favour of the employees cannot be wiped out by making the Rules applicable to the retrospective effect.
47. Learned counsel for the respondents 18 to 43 has also placed reliance upon the Judgment delivered in the case of K.Rajaiah (supra). This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid Judgment.
It was a case relating to direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer for the 65 purpose of Sub Inspector of Police. There was no such issue of retrospective applicability of the Recruitment Rules involved in the aforesaid case and therefore, the Judgment relied upon does not help the respondent respondents 18 to 43.
48. Lastly, he has also placed reliance upon the Judgment delivered in the case of Palure Bhaskar Rao (supra). In the aforesaid case also, the issue of retrospective applicable of the Rules was not in question and therefore, the Judgment is distinguishable on facts.
49. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the Recruitment Rules provided for transfer only to the extent of 10% posts, the petitioners at the relevant point of time opted for transfer to Civil Police and they would have certainly received promotions by now in the parent 29 organisation. The Amendment in the Recruitment Rules, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.08.2018 has been introduced and for the first time, a weightage formula has been introduced by the State Government under the Recruitment Rules governing the field, meaning thereby, wiping the past seniority and therefore, once a right which has accrued in favour of the petitioners, cannot be wiped out by the impugned Amendment and the Amendment is certainly not at all applicable with retrospective effect. The question of depriving the petitioners by making the Amendment applicable with retrospective effect does not arise. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that all those constables who have come prior to 06.02.2018 are certainly entitled for grant of seniority and all those constables who have come on transfer after 06.02.2018 shall be governed by the Amended Recruitment Rules."
27. Coming to the facts of the present case, the amendment which was referred in the judgment vide G.O.Ms.No.95 Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 31.05.2017 is pari material with G.O.Ms.No.1. The Hon'ble Division Bench referred various judgments including the judgment of High Court of Telangana referred to supra, and came to the conclusion that, by the date of willingness there was no amendment and so the amendment has no effect on the services of the Petitioners therein.
28. To summarise:
(i) Petitioners initially entered into APSP Battalion from 1983 to 1987.
(ii) They were appointed in PC (AR) during 2001 to 2005 by transfer in the light of the circumstances mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.299 coupled with clarification Memo issued by the Director General of Police in 2001 to the effect that their seniority in AR would continue from the date of their initial appointment in APSP.30
(iii) The Hon'ble Division Bench of Composite High Court of A.P., in W.P.No.21610 of 2007, dated 08.10.2013 though upheld the order of APAT regarding application of Rule 15(e) to the persons like the Petitioners, at the operative portion of the Order, directed the Authorities not to revert the persons based on Rule 15(e), but directed to frame a formula balancing the interests of the persons appointed through transfer as well as direct recruitees in AR. Hence, the application of Rule 15(c) or Rule 15(e) looses all its importance. In fact, Rule 15(e) is not in existence.
(iv) G.O.Ms.No.1 itself is clear that it is with effect from 01.01.2008.
The reason is direct recruitees initiated the litigation regarding seniority from 2007.
(v) When the Petitioners entered AR even earlier to the effective date i.e., 01.01.2008, the application of G.O.Ms.No.1 to them is not sustainable under law.
(vi) The same analogy has been taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21610 of 2007, dated 08.10.2013, and the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Telangana in W.P.Nos.4636 of 2018 & Batch, dated 25.01.2022 and G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.02.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 31.05.2017 have been issued, which are pari materia to G.O.Ms.No.1.
(vii) Petitioners are entitled for promotions if they are eligible otherwise without reference to G.O.Ms.No.1. In case of their retirement, they are entitled for monetary benefit for fixation of pay for pension.
31(viii) Consequently, while doing this exercise, Respondent Authorities need not revert the promotions if any given to others, but they need be adjusted in further vacancies.
(ix) Though there is a clear finding upholding the opinion of the Tribunal that Rule 15(e) has to be applied for the persons who are converted as AR from APSP Battalion, the Hon'ble Division Bench did not choose to direct the Respondent Authorities to apply Rule 15(e) and prepare the seniority list. The direction would show that the persons shall not be reverted till the finalization of the seniority list and to fix a formula.
29. The Government in its wisdom issued G.O.Ms.No.1 on 07.01.2016 by fixing the date of its effect as 01.01.2008 i.e., with retrospective operation of the said G.O. Such being the case, the argument of the learned Government Pleader that, in pursuance of the Common Order of the Composite High Court of A.P., Hyderabad vide in W.P.Nos.21610 of 2007 and Batch, dated 08.10.2013, Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 07.01.2016 and it is applicable to the Petitioners, cannot be accepted.
30. After paying utmost attention and scrutiny of the material on record, this Court is of the humble view that G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 07.01.2016, G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 31.05.2017, G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 06.02.2018 have brought the very same amendment regarding the formula to be followed for fixation of seniority of persons who are transferred from one wing to another like APSP (PC) to AR (PC) and AR (PC) to PC (Civil) by giving weightage of one year for every two years of their service in the parent wing. Undisputedly, 32 these amendments are introduced in pursuance of the Common Order of the Composite High Court of A.P., vide W.P.Nos.21610 of 2007, dated 08.10.2013.
31. In the light of the aforementioned premises, Petitioners herein cannot be deprived of their seniority since the amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.1 is not applicable to their case even going by the very language used in the order i..e, with effect from 01.01.2008.
32. In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed. By virtue of interim order of this Court, any proceedings effected vide G.O.Ms.No.107, Home (Ser.II) Department, dated 03.09.2019, is subject to the result of the present writ petitions. That being so, in case, Petitioners already retired from service, they are entitled to promotion and the consequential benefits for fixation of pension as in the promotional post. The persons, who are already promoted, are ordered to be adjusted subject to the vacancy. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:17.04.2025 Dinesh 33 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos. 19453, 19482, 19505 & 19507/2019 Dt.17.04.2025 Dinesh