Telangana High Court
N. Ramesh And 5 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 14 September, 2023
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
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
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
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
(1998) 5 SCC 246
2022 (6) ALD 573 (TS) (DB)
W.P.No.27214 of 2022
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
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
