Telangana High Court

N.Mohan Reddy vs The State Of Telagnana And 3 Others on 28 May, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No.4717 OF 2020

O R D E R:

Heard Sri M. Bharat Shah, learned counsel

representing Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for petitioners as

well as learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise.

2. This Writ Petition filed to set aside the proceedings

dated 20-02-2020 issued by the District Prohibition and Excise

Officer, Sangareddy and consequently to direct Respondents to

continue Petitioners as Prohibition and Excise Head Constables

at their respective place duly holding the final inter se seniority

of Prohibition & Excise Constables of Sangareddy vide

Proceedings dated 07-04-2015 as valid and legal.

3. It the case of Petitioners that the 1st Petitioner was

initially appointed as A.P.S.P. Constable in 2nd battalion at

Kurnool, the 2nd Petitioner in 7th Battalion, Dichpally, Nizambad

District and the 3rd Petitioner in 7th Battalion at Dichpally,

Nizamabad District and they were initially appointed on

14-10-1995 respectively and later deputed to work in the

Prohibition and Excise Department on 08-07-1996, 05-08-1996.

Thereafter, as per the orders issued by the Government in

G.O.Ms.No.1103 Revenue (Excise.I) Department, dated

17-08-2007 and the instructions issued by the Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise, Nampally Hyderabad, Telangana,

Petitioners were absorbed as Prohibition and Excise Constables

vide Proceedings 28-05-2009 respectively. They submitted

willingness for absorption as Prohibition and Excise Constables

after their deputation on the strength of the orders of approval

of the Commissioner of P & E, and after obtaining the options

and willingness from the individuals that they would abide by

the seniority list. A final seniority list was issued after

considering the objections vide proceedings dated 17-10-2014

read with proceedings dated 07-04-2015 issued by the

Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Sangareddy. This list

was issued after calling for objections and subsequent to the

disposal of the objections raised. In the final seniority list of

Prohibition and Excise Constables of Sangareddy petitioners'

position is as follows:

Names Sl.Nos

4. Final seniority list was settled after calling for

objections and after disposal of objections, Petitioners were

promoted as Head Constables in the Prohibition and Excise

Department vide proceedings dated 02-11-2015, 15-11-2014,

02-11-2015 and 010-2-2017 issued by District Prohibition and

Excise Officer, Sangareddy. Petitioners reported to duty as

Prohibition and Excise Head Constables and since then, they

are working as Prohibition and Excise Head Constables at their

respective places till date. Their services were regularized in the

cadre of Excise Head Constables evident from the proceedings

dated 27-03-2018, 27-03-2019 and 12-10-2018 respectively

and seniority lists in the cadre of Excise Head Constables were

also communicated vide proceedings dated 12-10-2018. While

the matter stood thus, the 4th Respondent issued Proceedings

dated 20-02-2020, wherein the final seniority list dated

07-04-2015 is revised.

5. The Positions in the final seniority list which had

already settled and crystallized and after due process of Law,

Petitioners were also promoted as Head Constables from the

cadres of Constables in Prohibition and Excise Department and

now due to issuance of impugned proceedings dated

20-02-2020, Petitioners' position in the seniority list had

completely changed which action of Respondent No.4 is without

any jurisdiction, unauthorized and illegal and also contrary to

the circular memo dated:20-5-2004.

Names                          Sl.Nos as on 15-6-   Sl.Nos   as   on   20-2-
                               2015                 2020

(Petitioner No.1)







No.3)

6. The seniority list earlier issued is now sought to be

re-opened vide proceedings dated 20-02-2020. There was no

complaint against the final seniority list dated 070-4-2015 read

with seniority list dated 17-10-2014. The serial numbers of

Petitioners are now changed from their earlier position.

Petitioners' rights have been crystallized by way of seniority list

dated 07-04-2015, hence, altering the status of the final

seniority list does not arise by way of the order dated

27-04-2012 in OA No. 7103 of 2010 and batch, which has

become final, thereby the question of reopening the issue is

nothing but re-educating/re-litigating the same matter after

lapse of three years, in the order dated 04-04-2018 in Writ

Petition No.31978 of 2018 and other Writ Petitions. There was

no binding decision between the parties in respect of the inter se

seniority list was finalized. Therefore, Respondent authorities

cannot issue in the absence of any direction or power in the

rules and as such the same is arbitrary, unjust and illegal.

Furthermore, there is a specific assertion that has been made

by Petitioners that the Government vide circular memo dated

20-05-2004, had categorically held that no request for revision

of seniority for a period which is more than three-year-old shall

be considered, as per the proceedings dated 11-01-2012

obtained via RTI, it is clearly evident that there is no merit list

available in the office of the 7th Betallion, APSP, Dichpally,

Nizambad District, with regard to the employees stated below,

but now through proceedings dated 20-02-2020, the 2nd

Respondent had instructions for exercising of re-fixation of

seniority based on merit does not arise as on the earlier

occasion, the 2nd Respondent himself stated that there is no

merit list pertaining to the following candidates/Police

Constables.

7. Petitioners rely upon the judgement passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab 1 the

relevant portion is hereunder:-

" During the entire period of more than one decade thereby all along tilted as junior to the other aforesaid person and the rights inter see has crystalized which ought not to have been reopen after the lapse of such a long period. As every stage other for prompted before B.S.Rajwa and B.D.Gupta right from the beginning as found by the division bench itself. It is well settled that in service matter the question of seniority should not be reopen in such situation after the lapse of a reasonable period because that reserve in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This along was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the Writ Petition".

(1998) 2 SCC 523

8. Petitioners had also relied upon another judgment

reported in Narravula Kotam Raju v. Regional Deputy Director of

Fisheries, Kakinada 2 wherein it has been held that seniority

fixed after notice to all the employees concerned cannot be

reopened after a long lapse of time and if the same is directed to

be done at this stage, it would amount to revocation of the order

of promotion.

9. From the above-stated Judgement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, it is evident the Respondents have no power,

authority or Jurisdiction to approbate and reprobate in the

guise of the direction of the Court orders, which has never given

any findings to that effect. Petitioners all are given further

promotion and having been posted in the places allotted as the

proceedings of the Respondents after following the due process

of law, objections earlier resolved by the Respondents cannot be

now reopened by way of the impugned proceedings, more so,

petitioners' services were regularized in the promotional post of

Excise Head Constable and seniority list in the Promotional Post

was also drawn and petitioners liens are no longer in the post of

Excise Constables.

10. Respondent No.4 filed counter contending that the

Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Telangana had

2001 (3) ALD 649 (DB)

communicated the merit list of A.P.S.P Constables recruited

during 1995 furnished by the I.G., Battalions (Recruiting

Agencies) pertaining to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th and 8th Battalions

(Expect 9th Battalion) and instructed to re-fix the seniority in

terms of the orders issued by the this court in Writ Petitions No.

31978 and 6701 of 2018, 26855 of 2019 and other Writ

Petitions and also instructed all the nodal District Prohibition

and Excise Officers to take care and to ensure that notices are

issued to all the individuals affected by the process, calling for

objections, if any. All the objections filed shall be listed and

disposed of as per rules by issuing a proper speaking order.

From the counter, it is evident that government had issued

G.O.Ms.No.1103, Revenue (Ex.I) Department, dated 17-08-2007

and instructions of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

A.P., Hyderabad in Cr. No.17657/2007/CPE/H3, dated

22-05-2009, wherein the Constables deputed to Prohibition and

Excise Department, working in Medak District have absorbed as

Prohibition and Excise constables subject to following

conditions:-

" 1. Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 and other relevant rules which are in vogue.

2. They should be paid pay and allowances and Scale of pay on par with Prohibition and Excise Constables.

3. They shall forego the benefits attached to the Constables in Police Department.

4. Their seniority shall be fixed commencing from the last candidate in the existing seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Constables.

Hence, the petitioner contention is true".

11. It is admitted by the 4th Respondent that the

Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad in

Cr.No.36071/2011/CPE/H3, dated: 13-06-2011 has instructed

to prepare the seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Constable

in continuation to the existing seniority list and communicate to

the individuals i.e., absorbed A.P.S.P. Constable as per Andhra

Pradesh Sub-Ordinate Service, Rules 1996 and accordingly,

provisional and final seniority list of A.P.S.P. Constables/

Prohibition and Excise Constables up to 31-07-2012 was

prepared subject to outcome of O.As/WP/Government

Orders/Orders of Commissioner Prohibition and Excise,

Hyderabad and communicated vide Cr. No. A2/166/2011,

dated 07-04-2015. It is also admitted that after finalizing the

seniority list of the absorbed A.P.S.P. Constables, Petitioners

were promoted as Prohibition and Excise Head Constables

subject to following conditions: -

"1. The above promotion is purely temporary and shall not confer any right what so ever including regularization of services etc., in the cadre of Prohibition and Excise Head Constable in future.

2. The above Promotion is subject to outcome of O.A's/W.Ps pending before the Hon'ble APAT/High Court/Supreme Court.

3. The above promotion is also subject to finalization of seniority list on part with the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P.., Hyderabad".

12. From the counter, it is evident that it is an undisputed

fact that the Government circular dated 20-05-2004 had

clarified that,

"Settled Seniority -

1. Not to re-open: In dealing with the cases for fixing the Seniority, the Procedure and Rules prescribed in AP State & Subordinate Service Rules 1996 or in Special Rules governing the Post shall be followed.

2. No request for revision of Seniority for a period which is more than 3 years old shall be considered.

3. The Seniority List in each category shall be communicated as and when the employee completes the prescribed period of Probation in the respective category.

The above instructions are based on the orders passed by the Supreme court of India in (1998) 2 SCC 523 held that "It is well settled that in service matters, the question of seniority should not be re-opened in such situations after the lapse of reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable".

In the Present case, the Seniority list was Communicated on 17-11- 2014, though it is settled Seniority List, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, T.S. Hyderabad being the Head of the Department issued orders to all the Nodal District Prohibition & Excise Officers, in the state to revised the said seniority list in terms of Merit. The orders of Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, T.S. Hyderabad based on the direction of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in W.P.No.31978 of 2018 and batch."

13. It is contended by Respondent No.4 that seniority

list in the present case was communicated on 17-11-2014 and

it is settled seniority list and Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise, T.S., Hyderabad being the Head of the Department had

issued orders to all the Nodal District Prohibition & Excise

Officers, to revised seniority list in terms of Merit. The said

orders of Commissioner were passed based on the direction

issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 31978 of 2018 and

batch. Certain Prohibition & Excise Constables of Rangareddy

and Nizambad Districts filed Writ Petition No. 6701 of 2018

dated 28-02-2018 and Writ Petition No. 26855 of 2019 seeking

to prepare seniority list on merit basis. In the common order in

Writ Petition No. 31978 of 2018, dated 18-09-2018, the

direction given is that "The Commissioner shall cause notice on

all the affected parties and on due consideration of the respective

objections, shall take appropriate decision as warranted by law

and communicate the same to the parties".

14. It is categorically stated in the counter at para No.

15 that the final seniority list dated 07-04-2015 was issued

after a provisional seniority list was issued in Cr. No.

A2/166/2011, dated: 17-10-2014 and after considering the

objections filed by the aggrieved parties, the final seniority list

was issued basing on the date of Appointment and Date of

Birth. The APSP constables initially appointed as constables in

APSP of Police Department, were sent on deputation to

prohibition and excise department in 1995 and continued as

such for some years. Subsequently, it was felt that APSP

constables who have put in more than three years of service in

Excise Department, shall be repatriated to their parent

department. But, later, the Government had taken decision to

absorb 2151 APSP constables who were working on deputation

in Excise Department by GOMs.No.1103 dated 17.08.2007, in

the existing vacancies of excise constables duly following the

provisions of the Presidential Order and other relevant rules

which are in vogue. They were absorbed after obtaining

unequivocal/irrevocable option from APSP constable to the

effect that they are willing to take scale of pay of prohibition and

excise constables. In view of the undertaking and willingness

given by way of option, their services were absorbed in various

District units of the prohibition and excise during 2009, in

terms of GOMs.No.1103 dated 17.08.2007. The said exercise

was challenged unsuccessfully by the interested persons in

OA.No.3335 of 2004 and batch. The Tribunal upheld the orders

issued in GOMs.No.1103 dated 17.08.2007, absorbing 2151

APSP constables in Prohibition & Excise Department. On

challenge, this Court also upheld the orders issued in

GOMs.No.1103 dated 17.08.2007, in its order dated 26.03.2009

in Writ Petition No.8573 of 2008 and batch.

15. The post of police constable in APSP is not a local

cadre post, whereas the post of Prohibition and Excise constable

in the AP State excise service is in organized cadre, governed by

the Presidential Order. As such, the post of APSP constable is a

State-wide post and unit of appointment is not restricted to

either Battalion or any unit. It is apparent from the pleadings

and record that when the merit list of APSP Battalion

constables, who were deputed to the Excise Department is not

available as informed by the DG APSP Battalion, vide

proceedings dated 24.02.2012, there was no other option except

to prepare a State list of APSP constables basing on the date of

joining on deputation in Prohibition and Excise Department. On

completion of allotments, appointing authorities felt that the

only possible way for fixing the seniority list is to take date of

joining on deputation in the Excise Department and date of

birth of the candidates as per Rules 33 and 36 of the Andhra

Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 ['APSSS

Rules', for brevity). Accordingly, the Nodal Prohibition and

Excise Superintendent have finalized the seniority of absorbed

APSP constables as per the said Rules and considered

promotions to the next higher cadre of prohibition and excise

head constable in some Districts where there were vacancies.

16. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise who is

Respondent No.1 had initiated steps to prepare the seniority

list of Excise Constables in the Excise Department based on the

merit list as per Rule 33 to 38 of the APSSS Rules with reference

to merit list of selection of APSP Constables who are later

absorbed as Prohibition and Excise Constables and wants to

unsettle the settled seniority of Excise Constables issued by the

2nd Respondent in the seniority list dated 15.06.2015 which

was prepared based on the date of joining on deputation in the

Prohibition & Excise Department and date of birth. Basing on

the list of APSP Constables absorbed as Prohibition and Excise

Constables, combined seniority list has been prepared by the

Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise taking the date of

joining and age, if the date of joining is one and the same under

Rule 33 to 36 of APSSS Rules. Basing on the list of absorbed

APSP Constables, the Nodal Prohibition and Excise

Superintendents concerned have prepared the seniority list of

Prohibition & Excise Constables on the date of joining and date

of birth and promotion to the category of Prohibition and Excise

Head Constables were considered. Now, that is sought to be

disturbed by way of impugned proceedings.

17. The competent authority had issued seniority list

taking into account date of joining/date of birth as the criterion

to determine the seniority among absorbed APSP Constables as

all APSP Constables absorbed as Excise Constables in the

Excise Department duly rejecting the objections filed. The post

of Constable in the State Prohibition and Excise Department is

organized into a separate cadre as per the said provision. As per

Para 3 (8) of the Presidential Order, Central Government is

empowered to notify any category to be excluded from

organization of local cadre. In exercise of powers under the said

Order, Government of India issued notification on 18.10.1975 in

G.S.R.No.529/E, excluding all categories of posts in the Special

Police Battalions from the purview of the Presidential Order, and

in view of such notification, the post of Police Constable in APSP

is not a local cadre post, whereas the post of Prohibition and

Excise Constable in the A.P. State Excise service is in organized

cadre, governed by the Presidential Order as such, the post of

APSP Constable is a State-wide post and the unit of

appointment is not restricted to either Battalion or any unit. As

per Rule 8(1)(a) of the Presidential Order, 80% of the posts are

to be filled by direct recruitment from the local area of the unit

and only 20% can be recruited from outside the unit i.e.,

District. The Director General, APSP Battalions vide

C.No.363/A6/2012 dated 24.2.2012 informed that merit list of

APSP Constables who were deputed to Excise Department is not

available. Therefore, there was no other option except to prepare

a State list of APSP Constables basing on date of joining on

deputation in Prohibition and Excise Department. Accordingly,

an exercise has been taken up for implementing the Presidential

Order taking the number of locals absorbed in the District and

proportional 20% open quota to be filled from non-locals. Since

the number of such Constables are more than the number that

has given willingness, some Constables have to be compulsorily

transferred to other Districts from where they are working at

that time to maintain the minimum required proportion of

Constables from local area i.e., 80%. Accordingly, three options

have been called for from such Constables for allotment to the

districts other than where they are working at that point of time.

On receipt of options, they have been allotted to the district

opted by them or local area or nearby District with reference to

availability of vacancies keeping in view the Presidential Order.

On completion of allotments, the appointing authorities felt that

the only possible way for fixing the seniority list is to take date

of joining and date of birth of the candidates under Rule 33 and

36 of APSSS Rules. Accordingly, Nodal Prohibition and Excise

Superintendents have finalized the seniority of absorbed APSP

Constables under Rules 33 and 36 of APSSS Rules and

considered promotions to the next higher cadre of Prohibition

and Excise Head Constables in some Districts where there are

vacancies. Thereby the 1st Respondent had grossly erred in

issuing the impugned proceedings.

18. From the facts and the pleadings, this Court comes

to a clear conclusion that earlier, the seniority list was prepared

as per the provisions of Rules 33 to 38 of the APSSS Rules

which include determination of seniority based on the date of

joining and age which method of determining seniority is in

accordance with the provisions of the rules and is therefore

valid and cannot be disturbed. In the present case, it appears

that the seniority list dated vide Proceedings dated 07-04-2015

with Proceedings dated 17.10.2014 was prepared as per the

provisions of Rules 33 to 38, which include determination of

seniority based on the date of joining and age. Further,

petitioners herein who are the affected parties were not arrayed

as party respondents to the lis before this Court in the earlier

round of litigation. As such, orders passed by this Court in

Writ Petitions No. 6701 and 31978 of 2018 are not binding on

petitioners.

19. Since it appears that there was no selection held for

the purpose of promotion or appointment to the posts in

question, seniority was determined based on the date of joining

of absorbed APSP constables. This Court finds that in the

absence of any selection list, it is not open to prepare a new

seniority list based on the merit obtained in APSP Battalions as

per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules. Therefore, the settled final

seniority list prepared and confirmed earlier cannot be

interfered with at this stage by the 1st Respondent

Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The power to prepare

and publish seniority lists is vested with the appointing

authority or any other authority empowered to do so by the

Government or any other competent authority. This Court holds

that the 1st Respondent does not have the power or authority to

direct the Nodal Officers to prepare a final seniority list based on

the merit as per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules, without any

appeal being filed and without setting aside the said final

seniority lists prepared in various Districts.

20. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ

Petition is allowed, setting aside the proceedings dated

20-02-2020 issued by the District Prohibition and Excise

Officer, Sangareddy. It is directed that Respondents shall

continue Petitioners as Prohibition and Excise Head Constables

at their respective places by holding the final inter se seniority of

Prohibition & Excise Constables of Sangareddy vide Proceedings

dated 07-04-2015 with Proceedings dated 17.10.2014 would be

valid and legal. No costs.

21. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any

shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

28th May 2025

ksld