THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.27214 OF 2022
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to reckon their seniority, regularization and declaration of probation in the cadre of Police Constable (Civil) on par with their batch-mates who were recruited under Notification 2008 (2) and were appointed on 19.01.2012 and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that respondent No.4 has issued Notification 2008 (2) and the petitioners participated in the same and were selected. However, they were not given appointment order on the ground that they were involved in a criminal case in Crime No.164/2010 for impersonation and the case was registered in Thipparthy Police Station, Nalgonda District. When they were not issued appointment, the petitioners approached Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) by filing O.A.Nos.2493, 2964, 3478, 3479, 3603 and 2943 of 2012 and the prayer in the O.As. was to send the petitioners for training as Stipendiary Police Constables along W.P.No.27214 of 2022 2 with other batch of selected candidates. The petitioners were therefore given appointment orders and were sent to 9 months training vide proceedings dt.16.11.2013. The respondent authorities, while drawing zonal integrated seniority list of Police Constables (Civil) of Zone-V, have shown the names of the petitioners below 2013 batch with the comment that "the following PCs (Civil) of Nalgonda District not included in provisional seniority list (Mall practice)". Alleging that the delay in issuing orders of appointment was not due to any valid reasons and that the petitioners were deprived of proper allocations in terms of G.O.Ms.No.317, the present Writ Petition was filed. The petitioners are therefore seeking seniority and other benefits with effect from the date from which their batch-mates of the Notification 2008 (2) have been given seniority, i.e., 19.01.2012.
3. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit justifying the counting of seniority of the petitioners from the date of appointment in the year 2012. It is submitted that the petitioners were given postings in the year 2013 and that since the criminal case against the petitioners is still pending, notional seniority cannot be granted to the petitioners.
W.P.No.27214 of 2022 3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit, while the learned Special Government Pleader for Home supported the averments made in the counter affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Narain Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and others 1, wherein it was held that when appointments are delayed, the candidates could not be allowed to suffer for no fault of theirs in fixation of seniority. He also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. B. Aswathama and others 2 in support of his contention.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioners and others were recruited vide Notification 2008 (2) and they were selected for appointment. It is noticed that before issuance of appointment orders, on the ground that they were involved in a criminal case, they were not sent for training and it is only by virtue of the interim orders of the APAT that the 1 (1998) 5 SCC 246 2 2022 (6) ALD 573 (TS) (DB) W.P.No.27214 of 2022 4 petitioners were given appointment orders and were also sent for training. Thereafter, the petitioners have been placed in the seniority list of Police Constables, but below the 2013 batch-mates. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Narain Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and others (1 supra), when appointments are delayed not due to any fault of the petitioners, their seniority will have to be protected and the candidates cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault of theirs. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. B. Aswathama and others (2 supra) has considered the said decision to hold that the candidates selected against earlier vacancies but could not be appointed along with others of the same batch due to technical difficulties but are appointed subsequently, they have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies. In view of these decisions, in this case also, it has to be held that the case of impersonation has not been proved against the petitioners and the petitioners have been appointed and subsequently sent for training and the delay in issuing of appointment orders is not due to any fault of the petitioners.
W.P.No.27214 of 2022 5
7. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to grant seniority to the petitioners on par with their batch-mates of 2012 and grant all consequential benefits such as, seniority, pay fixation and other consequential benefits, however, subject to the outcome of the criminal case pending against the petitioners in Crime No.164/2010 on the file of Thipparthy Police Station, Nalgonda District.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 13.09.2023 Svv