D. Vittal & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 243-246/1994
Petitioner: D. Vittal & Ors.
Respondent: State of A.P. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 243-246/1994
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 20, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Andhra Pradesh Police Manual
PSO 104 – Seniority – Promotion – Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors of State Police – All divided into zones – One Sub-Inspector from Zone V allocated to Zone VI – Shown senior – Challenge made to C-list for years 1977, 1978 and 1979 – Various G.O.M.S. issued – Zonal seniority challenged – Tribunal quashing various G.O.M.S. and directing authorities to prepare zonal seniority list – Conclusion based on fact that available vacancies not ascertained and C-list prepared – In-tegrated seniority list of Inspectors Statewide for post of DSP. Held that conclusion was contrary to stand of Government. Orders set aside and matter remitted back for reconsideration that while preparing C-list of Zone-VI, available vacancies were considered or not.
Held:
The conclusion of the Tribunal that the C-list was revised with-out finding the post and vacancies available, appears to be contrary to the stand taken by the State Government. Taking into account the fact that it will affect large number of officers belonging to the different zones of the State and the stand of the State Government in the counter affidavit that there existed available number of vacancies on consideration of which the C-list, in fact, had been drawn up in Zone VI, appears to be hazy. It would be meet and proper to remit the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the question as to whether, in fact, when C-list was drawn up in Zone VI for the promotion to the post of Inspectors from the Sub-Inspectors on different points of time, the appropriate authority did take into consideration the avail-able number of vacancies and acted accordingly or accelerated promotions have been given by conferring notional benefit to the officers of the zone without there being any available vacancies in the cadre of Inspectors, on which conclusion, the ultimate result would depend. The State as well as all other parties are entitled to produce appropriate materials before the Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to come to a conclusion one way or the other.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. These appeals are directed against a common order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal disposing of a batch of Original Applications. The appellants, who were recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police in the year 1968, after formation of the State into six zones, were in Zone VI. Six zones were constituted under a Presidential Order in exercise of power under Article 371-D of the Constitution. Under the said Presidential Order, a part of Warangal range having been included in Zone VI, certain Sub-Inspectors of that range were also included in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors in Zone VI. Shri Gopal Reddy was one such Sub-Inspector. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, the cadre of Sub-Inspector and Inspector is on the basis of zone and it is only the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, which is a State cadre. Promotion to the post of Inspector from the Sub-Inspector is made in accordance with P.S.O. 104 of A.P. Police Manual. The promotion to the post of Inspector is made first obtaining the proposal from different Superintendents of Police on the basis of the inter se seniority of the Sub-Inspectors, and then the Deputy Inspector General of Police considers such proposals and formu-lates his own list and sends it to the Inspector General who takes a final decision in the matter. Be it stated, while sending proposal, Deputy Inspector General of Police is required to send proposal depending upon the number of available vacancies as he is not entitled to send twice the number of candidates of the number of vacancies. It may be further stated that if any senior person from amongst the Sub-Inspectors are overlooked, then the concerned authority must indicate the reasons for the same. It transpires that Gopal Reddy, who was inducted into Zone VI from Zone V, initially made a grievance of his induction to Zone VI and wanted to be repatriated to Zone V, but that prayer stood negatived and the matter has reached a finality. On the basis of the C-list under Rule 104, that was prepared, Shri Reddy’s name had been included in the C-list of 1975 in Zone V. Taking that into consideration in Zone VI, his name stood included in the C-list that had been prepared for 1977, 1978 and 1979. Shri Vittal, the appellant herein, assailed the aforesaid inclusion of Reddy’s name in the C-list for the year 1977, 1978 and 1979 before the State Government, inter alia, on the ground that Vittal was senior to Shri Reddy in the rank of Sub-Inspector, and therefore could not have been included in the later C-list. The State Government appears to have been persuaded by this submission of Shri Vittal and G.O.M.S. 295 dated 18th June, 1983 was passed by the State Government. The State Government directed that Shri Gopal Reddy’s inclusion in the C-list for the years 1977, 1978 and 1979 be annulled and a fresh list be drawn up taking into consideration Shri Vittal and all other persons, who claimed to be senior to Gopal Reddy. Subsequent to the aforesaid G.O.M.S. 295 dated 18th June, 1983, another G.O.M.S. was passed which is consequential to the earlier order being G.O.M.S. 323 of 9.5.1990. Under this G.O.M.S., the Government approved fresh C-list of Sub-Inspectors for Zone VI fit to act as Inspectors for 1977, 1978 and 1979 and Director General and Inspector General of Police were requested to assign the notional dates to officiate in the category of Inspectors and submit proposals for assigning the notional dates in the category of Deputy Superintendents of Police. In this list, name of Vittal appears at 77 whereas Red-dy’s name appears at 90. There appears to have been fresh G.O.M.S. issued between 1990 and 1992 conferring similar benefits to several other Sub-Inspectors belonging to Zone VI. The Sub-Inspectors belonging to Zone V, City Zone and Zone IV, being aggrieved by such action of the Government and apprehending and finding their chances for promotion to the rank of Deputy Super-intendent of Police will be grossly jeopardised, approached the Tribunal, inter alia, praying that all the G.O.M.S. should be struck down and seniority list may be drawn up and thereafter fresh process may be initiated. The Tribunal by the impugned order disposed of all the petitions before it by directing that the authorities concerned will proceed to prepare the seniority list forthwith, thereby zonal seniority list in the category of Circle Inspectors of Police in various zones, and this should be done within 4 months from the date of receipt of the order and objections received should be disposed of by a speaking order and a final list published within three months thereafter. The Trib-unal has struck down G.O.M.S. 323 dated 9.5.1990 and two other G.O. granting relief to Sub-Inspectors of Zone VI, but did not strike down G.O.M.S. 295 dated 18th June, 1983, which in fact is the decision of the Government requiring redrawing up of the C-list for 1977, 1978 and 1979 in Zone VI.
2. Mr. L.N. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the appell-ants, strenuously raised two contentions in assailing the order of the Tribunal, one, in view of the fact that cadre of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors is limited to a particular zone, the officers of other zones do not have locus standi to assail the seniority of the officers belonging to one zone and, therefore, the Tribunal committed error in entertaining the applications, two, the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from apparent error on fact and also some conclusions are based on materials which do not exist. Though we find sufficient force in the afore-said contention inasmuch as officers (Sub-Inspector and Inspec-tor) of each zone constitute a cadre and it is the zonal seniori-ty cadre which was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. But it appears that the promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is made on the integrated seniority of Inspectors throughout the State, and if some of the officers within a zone get accelerated promotion or promotion which could not have been given in the absence of suitable number of vacan-cies, then that may affect the right of the people belonging to the other zones in getting promotion to the post of Deputy Super-intendent of Police. The conclusion of the Tribunal that the C-list was revised without finding the post and vacancies avail-able, appears to be contrary to the stand taken by the State Government. But Mr. V.R. Reddy, appearing for the officers belong-ing to the City Zone, seriously contended that there were suffi-cient materials before the Tribunal to come to the aforesaid conclusion and Tribunal has not considered the same. The further finding of the Tribunal that O.A. have been filed by some Circle Inspectors of Zone VI is wholly incorrect as is conceded before us by the Counsel appearing for the different other zones. On the error committed by the Tribunal, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order and allow this appeal. But taking into account the fact that it will affect large number of officers belonging to the different zones of the State and the stand of the State Government in the counter affidavit that there existed available number of vacancies on consideration of which the C-list, in fact, had been drawn up in Zone VI, appears to be hazy and the Counsel appearing for the State is not positive on that aspect. We think in the larger interest of all concerned, it would be meet and proper to remit the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the question as to whether, in fact, when C-list was drawn up in Zone VI for the promotion to the post of Inspectors from the Sub-Inspectors on different points of time, the appropriate authority did take into consideration the avail-able number of vacancies and acted accordingly or accelerated promotions have been given by conferring notional benefit to the officers of the zone without there being any available vacancies in the cadre of Inspectors, on which conclusion, the ultimate result would depend. The State as well as all other parties are entitled to produce appropriate materials before the Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to come to a conclusion one way or the other. The matter being an old one and the controversy in question being one which has impact in the entire Police Administration of the State, the Tribunal would do well to dispose of this matter within 3 months from the date of the order. We were told that the provisional seniority list has already been drawn up pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, the same shall not be given effect to until the Tribunal concludes the matter and whatever promo-tions have been given, as it exists, shall not be disturbed in any way. The Counsel appearing for different zones undertakes before us that appearance will be made before the Tribunal within a week from today, whereafter the Tribunal will fix a date of hearing and dispose of the matter. Some of the applicants have been impleaded in the appeal. They may also be heard before the Tribunal.
1. These appeals are directed against a common order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal disposing of a batch of Original Applications. The appellants, who were recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police in the year 1968, after formation of the State into six zones, were in Zone VI. Six zones were constituted under a Presidential Order in exercise of power under Article 371-D of the Constitution. Under the said Presidential Order, a part of Warangal range having been included in Zone VI, certain Sub-Inspectors of that range were also included in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors in Zone VI. Shri Gopal Reddy was one such Sub-Inspector. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, the cadre of Sub-Inspector and Inspector is on the basis of zone and it is only the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, which is a State cadre. Promotion to the post of Inspector from the Sub-Inspector is made in accordance with P.S.O. 104 of A.P. Police Manual. The promotion to the post of Inspector is made first obtaining the proposal from different Superintendents of Police on the basis of the inter se seniority of the Sub-Inspectors, and then the Deputy Inspector General of Police considers such proposals and formu-lates his own list and sends it to the Inspector General who takes a final decision in the matter. Be it stated, while sending proposal, Deputy Inspector General of Police is required to send proposal depending upon the number of available vacancies as he is not entitled to send twice the number of candidates of the number of vacancies. It may be further stated that if any senior person from amongst the Sub-Inspectors are overlooked, then the concerned authority must indicate the reasons for the same. It transpires that Gopal Reddy, who was inducted into Zone VI from Zone V, initially made a grievance of his induction to Zone VI and wanted to be repatriated to Zone V, but that prayer stood negatived and the matter has reached a finality. On the basis of the C-list under Rule 104, that was prepared, Shri Reddy’s name had been included in the C-list of 1975 in Zone V. Taking that into consideration in Zone VI, his name stood included in the C-list that had been prepared for 1977, 1978 and 1979. Shri Vittal, the appellant herein, assailed the aforesaid inclusion of Reddy’s name in the C-list for the year 1977, 1978 and 1979 before the State Government, inter alia, on the ground that Vittal was senior to Shri Reddy in the rank of Sub-Inspector, and therefore could not have been included in the later C-list. The State Government appears to have been persuaded by this submission of Shri Vittal and G.O.M.S. 295 dated 18th June, 1983 was passed by the State Government. The State Government directed that Shri Gopal Reddy’s inclusion in the C-list for the years 1977, 1978 and 1979 be annulled and a fresh list be drawn up taking into consideration Shri Vittal and all other persons, who claimed to be senior to Gopal Reddy. Subsequent to the aforesaid G.O.M.S. 295 dated 18th June, 1983, another G.O.M.S. was passed which is consequential to the earlier order being G.O.M.S. 323 of 9.5.1990. Under this G.O.M.S., the Government approved fresh C-list of Sub-Inspectors for Zone VI fit to act as Inspectors for 1977, 1978 and 1979 and Director General and Inspector General of Police were requested to assign the notional dates to officiate in the category of Inspectors and submit proposals for assigning the notional dates in the category of Deputy Superintendents of Police. In this list, name of Vittal appears at 77 whereas Red-dy’s name appears at 90. There appears to have been fresh G.O.M.S. issued between 1990 and 1992 conferring similar benefits to several other Sub-Inspectors belonging to Zone VI. The Sub-Inspectors belonging to Zone V, City Zone and Zone IV, being aggrieved by such action of the Government and apprehending and finding their chances for promotion to the rank of Deputy Super-intendent of Police will be grossly jeopardised, approached the Tribunal, inter alia, praying that all the G.O.M.S. should be struck down and seniority list may be drawn up and thereafter fresh process may be initiated. The Tribunal by the impugned order disposed of all the petitions before it by directing that the authorities concerned will proceed to prepare the seniority list forthwith, thereby zonal seniority list in the category of Circle Inspectors of Police in various zones, and this should be done within 4 months from the date of receipt of the order and objections received should be disposed of by a speaking order and a final list published within three months thereafter. The Trib-unal has struck down G.O.M.S. 323 dated 9.5.1990 and two other G.O. granting relief to Sub-Inspectors of Zone VI, but did not strike down G.O.M.S. 295 dated 18th June, 1983, which in fact is the decision of the Government requiring redrawing up of the C-list for 1977, 1978 and 1979 in Zone VI.
2. Mr. L.N. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the appell-ants, strenuously raised two contentions in assailing the order of the Tribunal, one, in view of the fact that cadre of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors is limited to a particular zone, the officers of other zones do not have locus standi to assail the seniority of the officers belonging to one zone and, therefore, the Tribunal committed error in entertaining the applications, two, the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from apparent error on fact and also some conclusions are based on materials which do not exist. Though we find sufficient force in the afore-said contention inasmuch as officers (Sub-Inspector and Inspec-tor) of each zone constitute a cadre and it is the zonal seniori-ty cadre which was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. But it appears that the promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is made on the integrated seniority of Inspectors throughout the State, and if some of the officers within a zone get accelerated promotion or promotion which could not have been given in the absence of suitable number of vacan-cies, then that may affect the right of the people belonging to the other zones in getting promotion to the post of Deputy Super-intendent of Police. The conclusion of the Tribunal that the C-list was revised without finding the post and vacancies avail-able, appears to be contrary to the stand taken by the State Government. But Mr. V.R. Reddy, appearing for the officers belong-ing to the City Zone, seriously contended that there were suffi-cient materials before the Tribunal to come to the aforesaid conclusion and Tribunal has not considered the same. The further finding of the Tribunal that O.A. have been filed by some Circle Inspectors of Zone VI is wholly incorrect as is conceded before us by the Counsel appearing for the different other zones. On the error committed by the Tribunal, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order and allow this appeal. But taking into account the fact that it will affect large number of officers belonging to the different zones of the State and the stand of the State Government in the counter affidavit that there existed available number of vacancies on consideration of which the C-list, in fact, had been drawn up in Zone VI, appears to be hazy and the Counsel appearing for the State is not positive on that aspect. We think in the larger interest of all concerned, it would be meet and proper to remit the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the question as to whether, in fact, when C-list was drawn up in Zone VI for the promotion to the post of Inspectors from the Sub-Inspectors on different points of time, the appropriate authority did take into consideration the avail-able number of vacancies and acted accordingly or accelerated promotions have been given by conferring notional benefit to the officers of the zone without there being any available vacancies in the cadre of Inspectors, on which conclusion, the ultimate result would depend. The State as well as all other parties are entitled to produce appropriate materials before the Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to come to a conclusion one way or the other. The matter being an old one and the controversy in question being one which has impact in the entire Police Administration of the State, the Tribunal would do well to dispose of this matter within 3 months from the date of the order. We were told that the provisional seniority list has already been drawn up pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, the same shall not be given effect to until the Tribunal concludes the matter and whatever promo-tions have been given, as it exists, shall not be disturbed in any way. The Counsel appearing for different zones undertakes before us that appearance will be made before the Tribunal within a week from today, whereafter the Tribunal will fix a date of hearing and dispose of the matter. Some of the applicants have been impleaded in the appeal. They may also be heard before the Tribunal.
