G. Durga Prasad vs The State Of Telangana,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5474 Tel

   The Hon'ble Smt. Justice P. Madhavi Devi
 W.P. Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of
                     2018



COMMON ORDER:

     These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners

seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of

Respondents in not fixing different cut off marks for

Cyberabad and Ranga Reddy Districts for appointment

to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police

Constables, pursuant to the notification issued by the

respondents dated 31.12.2015 as illegal arbitrary,

discriminatory and unconstitutional and to further

declare that the respondents are bound to fix different

cut off marks for Cyberabad and Ranga Reddy

Districts and to pass such other order or orders as this

Hon'ble Court     may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.
                                                                    PMD, J
                        W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

                                 2


2.    Brief Facts

leading to the filing of the present Writ

Petitions are that the second respondent issued a

notification in Rc.No. 151/Rect./Admn.1/2015, dated

31.12.2015 inviting applications for the post of

Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable

(Civil) (Men & Women) in Police Department,

Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (AR)

(Men & Women) in Police Department, Stipendiary

Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (SARCPL) (Men)

in Police Department, Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT)

Police Constable (TSSP) (Men) in Police Department,

Constable (Men) in Special Protection Force (SPF)

Department & Firemen in Telangana State Disaster

Response & Fire Services Department vide post code

Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 respectively. The

applications were available in the website from

11.01.2016 to 04.02.2016 and the minimum education

qualification for the said post was Intermediate or its PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

equivalent examination recognized by the State

Government as on 01.07.2015. In the case of

candidates belonging to scheduled caste and

scheduled tribes, as on 01.07.2015, he/she must have

passed "SSC or its equivalent examination recognized

by the Telangana State Government and should have

studied Intermediate or appearing Intermediate

examination, in both the first and second years".

Certain medical standards were also prescribed. As

per the instruction No. 15, the selection

procedure/scheme was given and all the eligible

candidates who applied for various posts shall be

required to appear for the preliminary written test in

one paper and those candidates qualified in the above

preliminary test would have to undergo physical

measurements test. The persons who are qualified in

the physical measurements test/physical efficiency

test, will appear for final written examination.

PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

3. All the petitioners in the above writ petitions have

appeared for the preliminary written test held on

24.04.2016 and pursuant to their qualifying the

preliminary written test, petitioners have received an

intimation from the Board asking them to appear for

physical measurement test/physical efficiency test. In

the Physical Measurement Test, the height and chest

of the candidate would be taken and Physical

Efficiency Test consists of 5 events i.e. 1) 100 metres

run, 2) Long Jump, 3) Shot Put (7.26 Kgs.), 4) High

Jump and 5) 800 metres run. For the post code No.

21 to 26 different Physical Efficiency Tests were

conducted.

4. All the petitioners appeared for Physical

Measurement Test & Physical Efficiency Test on

different dates and all of them were found successful

in the PMT/PET. Thereafter, the petitioners were PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

issued Hall Tickets for appearing in final written

examination which was held on 23.10.2016.

5. It is submitted that instruction No. 15(f) for Post

Code No.21 & 26 provided that the final selection will

be strictly on relative merit of the candidate in each

category as obtained by them based on their score in

the final written examination out of maximum of 200

marks and as per the provisions of " The Andhra

Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local

Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) order

1975" and its amendments. It was further provided

that as per the G.O.Ms.No. 8, General Administration

Department, dated 08.01.2002 while filling up the

vacancies, the first 20% posts should be filled from a

combined merit list of locals and non locals and

thereafter, the remaining 80% posts shall be filled up

by locals only.

PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

6. It is submitted that for the Post Code No. 22, the

selection was to be made strictly on relative merit of

the candidates in each category as obtained by them

based on their score out of 175 marks i.e. (Physical

Efficiency Test 75 marks), final written examination

100 marks + weightage marks).

7. It is submitted that for Post Code No. 23, 24 &

25, the final selection will be made strictly on relative

merit of the candidates in each category as obtained by

them based on their score out of 175 marks i.e.

(Physical Efficiency Test (75 marks) and written

examination 100 marks and reservation for local

candidates is provided.

8. It is submitted that all the petitioners who have

appeared for the final examination held on 23.10.2016,

had fared well in the examination and were waiting for

the results. When the results were published on PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

17.02.2017 in the website, the petitioners hall ticket

numbers did not find place.

9. It is submitted that initially, in the notification

dated 31.12.2015, 166 posts of Police Constable (Civil)

were notified and for Police Constable (AR) 533 posts

were notified. Subsequently, vide supplementary

notification dated 15.02.2017 for Police Constable

(Civil), another 255 posts and for Police Constable

(AR), another 599 posts in CP, Cyberabad were

notified. Therefore, the total number of posts

including civil & A.R. put together notified for

Cyberabad are 1553 where as for Ranga Reddy District

29 posts of Police Constable (Civil) & 47 posts of Police

Constables (AR) were notified.

10. It is submitted that during 2012 recruitment for

the same posts, in the combined state of Andhra

Pradesh, notification had notified different posts in

different districts and units and while finalizing the PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

selection, cut off marks were fixed differently for the

posts in Cyberabad and for the posts in Ranga Reddy

District and therefore equal justification was done to

the candidates who appeared from Cyberabad and

from Ranga Reddy District respectively.

11. However, in the final selection made pursuant to

the notification dated 31.12.2015, it is alleged that the

cut off marks/ranks were not taken into consideration

for Ranga Reddy & Cyberabad separately and in fact,

the second respondent has taken only 1 cut off mark

for both Cyberabad & Ranga Reddy District which

according to them is illegal and arbitrary and has

caused grave injustice to them.

12. It is submitted that the different cut off marks

were fixed for community wise posts but only one cut

off marks was fixed for both Cyberabad

Commissionerate and Ranga Reddy Districts and

therefore the petitioners who belonged to Cyberabad PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

District have not been found to have been selected in

the final list and are put to great loss and injury.

Challenging the said action of the respondents, the

present writ petitions are filed.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while

relying upon the averments made in the writ affidavit,

submitted that the Telangana State Police Subordinate

Service rules govern the appointment of posts of Police

Constables which occurs in category 7 of the said

services.

14. It is submitted that the post for Police Constable

is a district post and the unit head of each district is

the appointing authority. It is submitted that the

respondents, while issuing the notification have

separately given number of vacancies in respect of

Cyberabad and Ranga Reddy Districts. It is submitted

that having so given, the cut off marks also ought to

have been given separately for Cyberabad and Ranga PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

Reddy as was done in the earlier state of Andhra

Pradesh where cut off marks were given separately for

Vishakapatnam City and Vishakapatnam Rural and

Warangal Urban and Warangal Rural etc.,.

15. It is further submitted that the contention of the

respondents that the entire Cyberabad area falls in

Ranga Reddy District is not correct. As Police

Constable (Civil) Post Code No. 21 and Police

Constable Police Armed Reserve Post Code No. 22 are

district cadre according to the presidential order. It is

submitted that the petitioners are seeking appointment

strictly in accordance with the notification and it is the

duty of the respondents also to make appointments in

accordance with the procedure prescribed in the

notification.

16. It is submitted that when the rules are provided

for different units of appointment i.e. Cyberabad and

Ranga Reddy separately, the appointment made in PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

violation there of are ultra virus the presidential order.

He placed reliance upon the following judgments in

support of his contention:-

17. 1991 O AIR(SC) 2113-Govt. of AP and others Vs

A. Suryanarayana

2002 O AIR(SC)77-V. Jagannadha Rao & others

Vs. State of AP

2007(4) ALD 209-Government of AP Vs. P. Vema

Reddy

2007(4) ALD 105-G. Raja Babu Vs. Government

of AP

2003 ALD(6) 522-M. Kesavulu Vs. State of AP

18. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for

the petitioners that petitioner Nos.

2,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13,14,16, 17,18,19,20,21 & 22

were appointed as Police Constables in pursuance of

notification issued in the year 2018 and therefore, no PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

relief need to be given to them and that the grant of

relief is limited only to petitioner Nos. 1,3,8,9,15,23,24

& 25.

19. The learned Government Pleader representing

Home, however refuted the above contentions of the

petitioners and relied upon the averments made in the

counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated

that by virtue of GO Ms. No. 354 dated 15.11.2002

Cyberabad has created out of Ranga Reddy District

only for the purpose of law and order but it is part of

Ranga Reddy District for the purposes of

appointments.

20. It is submitted that the notification has to be read

in its entirety and not in piece meal. He referred to the

Stipendiary Cadet Trainee rules stated in GO Ms. No.

315 dated 13.10.1999 to demonstrate that the said

posts are district wise posts and the common cut off PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

marks are given for Ranga Reddy and Cyberabad

Districts as Cyberabad is part of Ranga Reddy District.

21. It is submitted that the Board has acted strictly

in accordance with the notification. As regards the

submission of the petitioners that in the earlier

notification procedure, different cut off marks were

given to the Vishakapatnam Rural and Vishakapatnam

Urban etc.,. The learned counsel submitted that an

irregular procedure followed earlier need not be

followed by the present Government as well and

further submits that no right of the petitioners is taken

away and their right has to be considered in

accordance with the concerned and relevant rules. As

regards the different appointing authorities for the

districts of Cyberabad and Ranga Reddy are

concerned, it is submitted that the Cyberabad

Commissioner is higher in rank and therefore PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

appointing authority for Ranga Reddy District is

Commissioner of Cyberabad .

22. It is submitted that the petitioner have not shown

as to how prejudice have been caused to them by

providing common cut off marks to Cyberabad and

Ranga Reddy Districts. He further submitted that the

averments in the counter affidavit and the additional

counter affidavit have not been rebutted by the

petitioner by filing any reply to the counter affidavit.

23. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the

petitioners, submitted that all the earlier as well the

notification of 2015 referred to the presidential order

which does not give any procedure for selection. It is

submitted that para No. 8 of the presidential order

only gives the percentage of reservation to local

candidates, while the relevant posts are mentioned in

service rules. He submitted that according to A.P.

Police Subordinate Service Rules, the unit of PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

appointment is a district and each unit has to be

considered as separate and appointments are to be

made separately and therefore cut off marks also have

to be given separately.

24. He submits that the executive instructions

cannot override the provisions of rules, particularly

with regard to the appointing authority. As regards

the procedure followed in the earlier notification and

deviation from the same in the notification of 2015, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

reasonable expectation from the Government would be

to understand the law in a particular way, to continue

to understand in the same way, unless it is understood

in another way by the courts. Therefore, he submitted

that it was the reasonable expectation of the

petitioners that the Government will follow the same

procedure until directed otherwise by the Courts. As

regards the prejudice caused to the petitioners, he PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

submitted that if both districts have been considered

as separate units and separate cut off marks were

provided, the petitioners would have become eligible to

be considered in Cyberabad District and in accordance

with the said cut off marks. He placed reliance upon

the judgement of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court reported

in Prabir Halder v. Union of India to submit that in

service matters past practices can be considered.

25. Having regard to the rival contentions and the

material on record, this Court finds that while issuing

the notification dated 31-12-2015, the respondents

have shown the vacancies in respect of the SCT Police

Constable (Civil) in Police Department and SCT Police

Constables (AR) in Police Department for the districts

of Cyberabad and Ranga Reddy separately. Likewise,

even the category wise vacancies have been shown for

Cyberabad and Ranga Reddy District separately for all

the code numbers 21 to 27. However, in the table PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

given under last date of receipt of applications, the

address for sending applications of both Cyberabad

and Ranga Reddy is shown as Cyberabad Police

Commissionerate Office, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy

District. Rule 15 of the notification clearly mentions

reservation to local candidates in accordance with the

presidential order. The notification dated 31.12.2015

has been modified vide notification dated 15.02.2017

by which the number of vacancies have been

increased. In the said notification also, vacancies are

shown separately for Cyberabad and Ranga Reddy for

the Post Code Nos. 21 to 23 only. Therefore, all the

candidates who have applied pursuant to the

notification dated 31.12.2015 would become eligible

for appointment to the increased vacancies as well.

Before publishing the results, the cut off ranks/marks

for the post of SCT PC (Civil) (Men & Women) 2015

have been published and the common cut off marks PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

were provided for Warangal Urban and Warangal Rural

as well as Ranga Reddy and Cyberabad. At the time of

submission of the applications, when the candidates

have to give the preference of posting in each unit or

their choice, both Cyberabad and Ranga Reddy are

given separately. As per the Annexure I of A.P. Police

Subordinate Service Rules, category 7 refers to

Constables (Civil) and Constables (A.R.) and special

armed reserve central Police laws etc.,. Column 4 of

the said annexure is the appointing authority and in

the mofussil, the appointing authority for

Constables(Civil) is the Superintendent of Police

concerned and in Cyberabad City Police, the Deputy

Commissioner of Police Cyberabad, and in respect of

other urban units of the state, the head of such unit or

Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police as

the case may be is the appointing authority. GO Ms.

No. 374, Home (Police Constables) dated 14.12.1999 PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

provides for the A.P. Police (Civil) Subordinate Service

Rules. Under the said rules, category 4 refers to Police

Constable (Civil) and here also the appointing

authority is mentioned as above. Rule 12 thereof,

refers to unit of appointment and in respect of unit 7

i.e. area under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of

Police Cyberabad, it is the Rule 14 thereof that

provides all the procedures and tests of recruitment to

various posts in the various category. Categories in the

service shall be as indicated in the A.P. Stipendiary

Cadet Trainee rules of 1999 issued in GO Ms. No. 315

dated 13.10.1999 and as from time to time in Go Ms.

No. 98 Home (Legal) dated 01-05-2005 as seen from

the above rules, it is noticed that each district is a unit

for appointment of Police Constables and the

Superintendent of Police would be the appointing

authority in respect of the candidates in Ranga Reddy

District and the Commissioner of Police would be the PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

appropriate authority for appointment in Cyberabad

District. However the learned Government Pleader had

stated that since the Commissioner of Police is higher

in rank than the Superintendent of Police of Ranga

Reddy District, it is the Cyberabad Commissioner who

would issue the appointment authority. From the

above rule, posts under notification issued by the

respondents it is noticed that though they have

advertised the number of posts sufficiently for

Cyberabad and Ranga Reddy they have considered

both to be same district and after allotting qualified

candidates to the Ranga Reddy first and thereafter

other have been allotted to Cyberabad District. This

court finds no anomaly in the appointments made by

the respondents. The petitioners have been considered

for appointment to the posts in Ranga Reddy District

thereafter in Cyberabad District. Therefore non-

application of different cut of marks to both the PMD, J W.P.Nos.7685, 23304, 7641 of 2017 & 41130 of 2018

districts would not give

enough prejudice in all the candidates who have

applied for and participated in the appointment

process pursuant to the notification dated 31.12.2015.

26. In the result,-

(i) The writ petition No. 7685 of 2017 is

dismissed.

(ii) In writ petition Nos. 23304, 7641 of 2017 &

41130 of 2018 also, similar prayer has been

made and for the reasons stated above these

writ petitions are also dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, in all

the above writ petitions, shall also stand dismissed.

                                  _____________________________
                                  JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI



Date:        .   .2022
myk