N. Uday Reddy vs State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 83 Tel

Telangana High Court

N. Uday Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 2 May, 2025

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                 WRIT PETITION No.10184 of 2023
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS by declaring the final seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.74 Home (Ser.I) Department dated 29.12.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the rules and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be placed at Sl.No.96 instead of Sl.No.176 and further consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion and pass..."

2. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel

representing Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for

respondent No.3. In spite of service of notice to respondent Nos.4 and

5, there was no representation on their behalf.

3.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that

the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a

notification in the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh, vide Notification

No.18/2011 dated 28.01.2011, inviting applications for Group-I

PK, J

Services, which included the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police

- Civil (category-II) in the Andhra Pradesh Police Service. As such, in

pursuance of the same, the petitioner submitted his application.

Subsequently, after a prolonged litigation, the selections were

finalized during October, 2017, and the petitioner herein was selected

as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil). However, despite the

petitioner's selection, his appointment order was unduly delayed and

was issued only during January, 2018, and the entire recruitment

was delayed only due to the fault of the authorities. It was further

submitted that a provisional seniority list of Deputy Superintendents

of Police, dated 25.11.2022, was issued by the respondents, wherein,

the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.176, i.e., well below the promotees

who have actually been appointed temporarily, and thus, the same is

illegal and arbitrary. It was also submitted that the unofficial

respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are placed at Sl.Nos.96, 97 and 98

respectively, have been made parties in their representative capacity,

as they are the first three persons over and above whom the petitioner

is entitled to be placed in the seniority list.

3.2. It was further submitted that at the time of bifurcation of

the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the posts allotted to the State

of Telangana were 209, and later, the cadre strength was shown as

PK, J

242, out of which, 1/3rd posts have to be filled in by Direct

Recruitment. The Rule specifically prescribes the Roster for Direct

Recruitment, viz., 1st, 4th and 7th out of 10 vacancies. Further, while

filing up the vacancies, Rule 6 of the Telangana State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, has to be followed, and all the

vacancies arising in that particular year have to be calculated and the

eligibility of a person for promotion has to be assessed as on the

commencement of panel year, i.e., 1st September of the year, and a

person fully qualified and eligible to be promoted by 31st August of the

panel year, is to be considered for promotion during the panel year.

Here, no year-wise panels have been prepared taking into

consideration all the arising vacancies in that particular year and all

the promotees have been bunched together without assigning them

the panel years. Further, in 2017, a review of the cadre was

undertaken and the cadre strength has been increased to 312, in

which, 94 vacancies are to be filled in by Direct Recruitment, and 218

vacancies have to be filled in by promotees. While preparing the

seniority list, the cadre strength itself has not been determined and

the vacancies arising year-wise, have also not been calculated. As

such, it was contended that the entire action of the respondents is in

clear violation of the Statutory Rules.

PK, J

3.3. It was further submitted that the seniority list has not

been prepared from the year 2014 as was directed by this Court. In

fact, the entire quota has been wrongly worked out and the promotees

have been given promotions in excess of their quota. Further, the

promotions given on ad hoc basis cannot be counted for seniority.

Therefore, it is no longer res integra that where the initial ad hoc

promotion was not in accordance with the rules, seniority would have

to be determined from the date of regularization and not from the date

of initiation entry. However, unfortunately, the promotees who were

promoted on ad hoc basis have been brought over and put in a bunch

over the petitioner, affecting his seniority.

3.4. It was further submitted that as per the information

furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005, vide

Rc.No.724/RTI/2022 dated 12.12.2022, no regular promotions had

been taken up and all the affected promotions were on ad hoc basis

only, without conferring any rights to the promotees. Therefore, in

view of the specific disclosure, the question of conferment of seniority

to those promotees from 2017, over and above the petitioner is wholly

illegal and arbitrary. Further, the petitioner has submitted his

objections to the seniority list dated 25.11.2022, on 03.12.2022,

wherein, he had pointed out that his rights over promotion as

PK, J

crystallized in the year 2013 itself or at least in 2017, when the

selections were finalized, and also pointed out that the time spent in

the Courts could not have been held against the petitioner, especially,

when the delay is due to the fault of the respondents. It was further

submitted that Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service

Rules, 1996, has been violated, and preparation of panel has not been

done, as mandated by the Rules, and the recruitment rules issued in

G.O.Ms.No.157 dated 01.06.1998, have also not been followed, and

that the entire exercise of seniority has been undertaken without first

determining the cadre strength. It was further pointed out in his

objections that the promotees, who have been appointed in excess of

their quota, cannot be granted seniority. Hence, he is entitled to be

placed at Sl.No.96, instead of Sl.No.176, as shown in the provisional

seniority list.

3.5. However, without considering any of the aforesaid

objections of the petitioner, the respondents have issued the

impugned final seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022,

placing the petitioner at Sl.No.176. It was further submitted that it is

well-settled law that a seniority list could not have been finalized

without considering the objections. Hence, the action of the

respondents in brushing aside the objections of the petitioner,

PK, J

without actually considering that the promotees were given promotion

on ad hoc basis only but not regularly, and that they were neither put

on probation nor were they confirmed in that cadre, is illegal,

arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. It was

further submitted that the main objection of the petitioner that year-

wise panels have not been prepared and year-wise vacancies have

also not been calculated, have also not been considered at all, and all

his objections were unjustly rejected, and said action will upset the

balance between the direct recruits and the promotees. As such, the

said rejection is clearly illegal and arbitrary.

3.6. It was further submitted that the appointment of

promotees was on ad hoc basis and no vacancies were available for

promotees at that point of time, as the posts were created only

subsequently. Therefore, the promotees cannot be assigned the

dates, which had no vacancies meant for their quota. Further,

neither a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was conducted

nor panels were prepared by the Screening Committee before the

promotions were affected. The entire newly sanctioned vacancies

have been filled in by the promotees, and then, the action of the

respondents in regularizing the services of such promotees with

retrospective dates is clearly illegal and arbitrary.

PK, J

3.7. It was further submitted that the seniority list was

prepared without actually determining the cadre strength and the

year-wise vacancies, and even without preparing the panels for each

year, the seniority list was finalized. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court,

in Amit Singh v. Ravindra Nath Panday and others 1, held that in

any year of recruitment, appointments are to be made both by direct

recruitment and by promotion, and that regular promotions shall not

be made unless the selections are made from both the sources.

Likewise, in Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab and others 2,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held it mandatory to apply the rota and quota

rule while determining the seniority where the same is provided for

under the Rules. rota and quota must necessarily be reflected in the

seniority list and any seniority list prepared in violation of the rota

and quota rule is bound to be negated. However, in the present case,

the respondent authorities failed to notice that the recruitment

process was completed by the year 2014, and the issuance of

appointment order to the petitioner was unduly delayed due to the

administrative lapses on their part alone. Therefore, the petitioner is

legally entitled for seniority over and above the temporarily promoted

candidates.

1 (2022) 20 SCC 559 2 (2006) 6 SCC 673

PK, J

3.8. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in

a catena of judgments, has also emphasized the need for preparation

of year-wise panels, by including all the persons who are qualified

that year. It was also held that the Departmental Promotion

Committee cannot bunch together the vacancies for all the years, as

this would result in enlarging the field of choice for the purpose of

selection. It was further submitted that in the present case, all the

promotees have placed en bloc without reference to the panel year.

Thus, the said action of the respondents is clearly illegal, arbitrary,

and contrary to law. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioner prayed this Court to allow the present writ petition by

setting aside the impugned final seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.74,

Home (Services-I) Department, dated 29.12.2022.

3.9. In support of his submissions/contentions, learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5966 of 2021 dated 08.12.2021 and in

Arvinder Singh Bains (supra).

4.1. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home

(Services), appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, submitted

regarding the recruitment to Group-I Services, that insofar as all the

PK, J

other departments are concerned, the appointment orders to the

selected candidates were issued in the year 2017 itself, after

completion of verification of original documents, whereas, in the

Home Department, the appointment orders were issued on

20.01.2018 to the petitioner herein and another candidate. Further,

the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission published Notification

No.18/2011 dated 28.11.2011, notifying 263 vacancies in Group-I

services, among which, 5 posts were Deputy Superintendent of Police

(Civil), and had finalized the selections and communicated the list of

selected candidates to the Government vide Letter No.617/RS-1/GR-

1/2016 dated 15.11.2017, and requested the Government to verify

the antecedents and original certificates, and to issue the

appointment orders only after being fully satisfied with the particulars

of the candidates. Hence, there was a gap of only two months from

the date of communication to the date of issuance of the appointment

orders, which can be construed as the period required for verification

of antecedents and certificates, by communicating to the respective

zones/schools/colleges and universities. Therefore, there was no

abnormal delay.

4.2. It was further submitted that the seniority list of

Inspectors of Police of seven ranges issued in the united Andhra

PK, J

Pradesh vide G.O.Rt.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 ended in dispute.

Consequently, the seniority list issued in the category of Deputy

Superintendents of Police (Civil), Additional Superintendent of Police

(NC) and Superintendent of Police (NC) based on the seniority list of

the Inspectors could not be operated for the purpose of allocation of

State-cadre officers between states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana

till the year 2020. Therefore, to meet the administrative agencies, ad

hoc promotions were affected from time to time in the categories of

Superintendent of Police (NC), Additional Superintendent of Police

(NC) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), subject to the

issuance of a rectified integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Police

(Civil), and in the higher categories by the Government of Andhra

Pradesh, and also subject to final allocation of the personnel between

the two States based on the said seniority lists.

4.3. Further, as per the interim orders dated 19.09.2017 in

W.P.No.9654 of 2016 and batch, the Government of Andhra Pradesh,

being the cadre controlling authority till 01.06.2014, issued the

following combined seniority lists in the categories as noted against

each, up to 01.06.2014:

PK, J

• G.O.Ms.No.153, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 05.10.2018 -

State-wide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Police (Civil) of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

• G.O.Ms.No.187, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 29.11.2018 -

Final Combined Seniority List of Deputy Superintendentsof Police (Civil)(Direct Recruits and Promotees).

• G.O.Ms.No.197, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 12.12.2018 -

Seniority List of Additional Superintendents of Police (NC) of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states for the panel years from 1988-89 to 2013-14.

• G.O.Ms.No.200, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 14.12.2018 -

Seniority List of Superintendent of Police (NC) of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states for the panel years from 1995-96 to 2013-14.

4.4. Further, as per the interim orders of this Court dated

18.08.2020 in W.P.No.4139 of 2020, the Government has made final

allocation of State cadre employees in the category of Superintendent

of Police (NC), Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) and Deputy

Superintendent of Police (Civil), based on the above seniority list

issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the

seniority list of Telangana officers in the cadre of Deputy

Superintendent of Police (Civil) issued vide G.O.Ms.No.187 dated

29.11.2018, was communicated to the individuals vide

Memo.Rc.No.408/G3/2020-1 dated 08.12.2020, which was up to the

period of 2010-11 panel years only. Therefore, the petitioner's name

PK, J

did not figure in the list as claimed by him, as he was appointed in

the year 2018 only.

4.5. Further, this Court, vide order dated 21.12.2020 in

W.P.No.14878 of 2020, permitted the respondents to undertake only

regular promotions to the posts of Additional Superintendents of

Police (NC) and Superintendent of Police (NC), conferred IPS and Ex -

cadres. Therefore, to enable to affect regular promotions to the above

categories, the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.247, Home (Ser.I)

Department, dated 10.02.2021, has constituted a Screening

Committee to streamline the ad hoc promotions issued in the

categories of Superintendents of Police (NC) and Additional

Superintendents of Police (NC) in the Telangana state from 2014

onwards. Thereafter, the Committee constituted by the Government,

after examining the posts allotted to Telangana State during

bifurcation and the posts sanctioned subsequently in both the above

categories from time to time in Telangana State and the service record

of each individual, has made its recommendations for inclusion of

eligible officers in the year wise panels from 2013-14 (part) to 2019-

20. Subsequently, the recommendations of the Screening Committee

were accepted by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.34

dated 23.03.2021, and all the ad hoc promotions in the categories of

PK, J

Superintendent of Police (NC) and Additional Superintendent of Police

(NC) were regularized from the panel years 2014-15 (part) to 2019-20,

from the respective lower categories as per the G.O.s issued by the

Government of Andhra Pradesh and assigned dates in the vacancies

existing in Telangana state from 02.06.2014 till 31.08.2020 vide

G.O.Ms.Nos.37 and 38, both dated 26.03.2021. Thereafter, regular

promotions to the above categories were also completed in the panel

years 2020-21.

4.6. It was further submitted that the seniority list issued by

the Government of Andhra Pradesh in three categories, i.e.,

Superintendent of Police (NC), Additional Superintendent of Police

(NC) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) were up to

01.06.2014 only. Hence, the Government of Telangana, in the above

G.O.s, has regularized the ad hoc promotions already given from 2014

onwards in Telangana State as per seniority and eligibility of the

candidates and also affected regular promotions to the categories of

Superintendent of Police (NC) and Additional Superintendent of Police

(NC) in the panel years 2020-21, as ordered by this Court in its order

dated 21.12.2020 in W.P.No.14878 of 2020, and as of now, the

process of affecting promotions to the above categories, i.e.,

Superintendent of Police (NC) and Additional Superintendent of Police

PK, J

(NC) has been completed for the panel year 2022-23. However, in

view of the interim orders of this Court dated 25.04.2023, in the

present writ petition, the promotions to the post of Deputy

Superintendent of Police (Civil) could not be taken up.

4.7. Further, a similar action has been taken up to streamline

the ad hoc promotions given in the category of Deputy Superintendent

of Police (Civil) from 02.06.2014 to 31.08.2021, based on the above

final rectified integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil) vide

G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 05.10.2018. Further, in compliance of the

orders of this Court dated 21.12.2020, to affect regular promotions to

the category of Additional Superintendent of Police (NC), the seniority

list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil), in continuation of

G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 29.11.2018, is essential as the same was

already exhausted. Hence, respondent No.2, as the appointing

authority in respect of second-level gazetted post of Deputy

Superintendent of Police (Civil), has constituted a Screening

Committee as per Rule 7 of the Telangana State and Subordinate

Service Rules, 1996, vide proceedings Rc.No.192/G3/2022 dated

03.11.2022, and the Committee was instructed to scrutinize certain

aspects while making the recommendations.

PK, J

4.8. Accordingly, based on the final rectified seniority list of

Inspectors of Police (Civil) issued in G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 05.10.2018,

read with the Office Memo dated 13.04.2022, the Screening

Committee has recommended/prepared the year-wise panels of

Inspectors of Police (Civil) vide proceedings dated 13.04.2022,

showing the candidates fit for promotion to the post of Deputy

Superintendent of Police (Civil) from the panel year 2013-14 (part) to

2020-21 in the posts allocated to Telangana State and the posts

sanctioned subsequently, after verifying the service records of each

Inspector of Police. Thereafter, based on the recommendations of the

Screening Committee, a provisional seniority list of Deputy

Superintendents of Police (Civil) was issued vide Memo.Rc.No.192/

G3/2022 dated 25.11.2022, calling for objections, and in the said list,

the petitioner's name was appropriately placed at Sl.No.176 as per the

date of his appointment to the police service. Subsequently, on

receipt of objections, proposals have been sent to the Government for

finalization of the seniority list, and the Government, after examining

the proposals and remarks thereon, issued the final combined

seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) (direct

recruits and promotees) with affect from 02.06.2014 to 31.08.2021

vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, duly disposing of all the

PK, J

objections, including the objections raised by the petitioner herein,

and the same was communicated to all the individuals vide

proceedings dated 30.12.2022.

4.9. Therefore, an elaborate exercise was undertaken by the

Screening Committee by following the Service Rules, DPC Rules and

the Government instructions on Roster Points, duly restricting the

regularization of promotions of Deputy Superintendents of Police

(Civil) only in the vacancies that arose in promotee quota prior to the

issuance of the seniority list in G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022.

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was illegally and

arbitrarily placed at Sl.No.176 in the seniority list, i.e., below 80

promotees appointed on temporary basis, has no basis and is

incorrect. Further, the statutory rules conferred a right to the

promotees to the extent of 70% of the sanctioned posts under

promotee quota and all those placed above the petitioner were

promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) and

regularized in their quota only.

4.10. It was further submitted that as per the Service Rules

governing the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, issued vide

G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 01.06.1998, in a cycle of 10 vacancies, 1st, 4th

PK, J

and 7th are to be filled in by direct recruitment and the remaining, by

promotion, i.e., 30% by direct recruitment and 70% by promotions.

Further, the above Service Rules specified rota and quota system in

the matter of filling of vacancies in the category of Deputy

Superintendent of Police (Civil). It was also submitted that as per

Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996,

to affect promotions, the panel of candidates for appointment shall be

prepared by taking into account 1st September as the qualifying date

and on that basis, estimate the vacancies that arise from 1st

September to 31st August of the succeeding year. However, due to

non-undertaking of direct recruitment on regular basis, all the

earmarked vacancies in direct recruits quota are carried forward

without being filling up and are notified to the Public Service

Commission for filling up the same by conducting recruitment, as and

when taken up by the Government. Further, in the event, the

vacancies are filled in by promotion on administrative exigencies,

such promotions are treated to be purely on ad hoc basis without any

right either for regularization of service or for counting seniority for

further promotion, and such promoted candidates are liable for

reversion to lower category without any notice. Hence, both the direct

recruits and the promotees shall be shown as a bunch in the seniority

PK, J

list by applying Rule 33(a) of the Telangana State and Subordinate

Service Rules, 1996, which specifies that seniority of person shall be

determined from the date of his first appointment to the Service.

Therefore, there is no irregularity or infirmity in showing the

promotees en bloc in the seniority list as they have occupied the posts

under their quota only, and also, the published seniority list is the

outcome of year-wise panels only.

4.11. Further, the Screening Committee has gone through the

year-wise cadre strength of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil)

(direct recruitment and promotion quotas) and the number of

individuals working and vacancies arose in the respective quotas, and

only then, regularized the services of only the promoted Deputy

Superintendents of Police against the vacancies arose in their quota

only, by keeping the direct recruitment quota unfilled. The final

seniority list does not reflect year-wise panels, except the dates

assigned to the individual officers. Further, the absence of a regular

recruitment against the direct recruitment quota is resulting in the

carrying forward of vacancies that need to be filled in by the Public

Service Commission, as and when notified, and the rota and quota

system specified in the Service Rules is not being reflected in the final

seniority list published, wherein, the direct recruits are bunched

PK, J

together with a common date of appointment to service and the

promotees with their respective dates of promotion/regularization in

the vacancies arose in their quota.

4.12. It was further submitted that the cadre strength of

Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) allotted to the State of

Telangana on bifurcation, i.e., as on 02.06.2014, was 242, and

subsequently, 70 posts were sanctioned in the year 2017, due to

formation of new Rachakonda Commissionerate and re-organization

of 10 Police units into 29 Police units. As per the cadre strength, the

direct recruitment quota was 73 posts for the panel year 2013-14

(part) to 2016-17, and the same was increased to 94 posts from panel

year 2016-17 onwards. Similarly the quota of promotees was 169 up

to the panel year 2015-16 and was increased to 218 from the panel

year 2016-17 onwards. Hence, the regularization of promotees was

confined to 169 posts up to 2015-16, and from 2016-17, to 218 posts

only. Further, prior to the recruitment of the petitioner herein as

Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) in the year 2018, the last

direct recruitment was taken up in the united Andhra Pradesh and all

those who were appointed as Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil)

in the year 2012 have already been included in G.O.Ms.No.187 dated

29.11.2018 en bloc. Hence, the petitioner and the other individual,

PK, J

appointed in the year 2018 have been placed at their appropriate

places in the impugned seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.74 dated

29.12.2022.

4.13. It was further submitted that as per Rule 33 (c) of the

Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, whenever

notional promotion is granted, such date of notional promotion shall

be taken into consideration by computing the qualifying length of

service in the feeder category for promotion to the next higher

category and that notional service shall be counted for the purpose of

declaration of probation also in the feeder category. Further, due to a

delay in the bifurcation process and allotment of personnel to

Telangana State, ad hoc promotions were inevitable in view of the

administrative constraints which arose due to law and order

situations, general elections to State Legislature, Parliament, Local

Bodies, etc. Further, the ad hoc promotions were not affected

randomly but were affected initially from the approved seniority list of

Inspectors of Police of three ranges of Telangana State as per the

permission accorded by the Government vide Memos dated

31.10.2017 and 26.06.2018, and subsequently, from the State-wide

seniority list of Inspectors of Police issued vide G.O.Ms.No.153 dated

05.10.2018. Thereafter, as per the orders of this Court in

PK, J

W.P.Nos.14878 of 2020 and 14039 of 2020 and batch, dated

21.12.2020 and 31.12.2020 respectively, the Government, being the

competent authority has streamlined all the ad hoc promotions in the

posts sanctioned from time to time by assigning the dates of

promotion as Deputy Superintendents of Police to all the individuals

as per the seniority list only to the extent of promotee quota as per the

seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 05.10.2018, duly

notifying 91 vacancies meant for direct recruitment to the Telangana

State Public Service Commission, Hyderabad, vide Notification

No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022. The remaining individuals who were

promoted in excess of the promotee quota on administrative

exigencies are being continued on ad hoc basis only without any

probationary rights and subject to reversion lower category without

any notice.

4.14. It was further submitted that as per Rule 7 of the Service

Rules, the period of probation of the promotee Inspectors is one year

within a continuous period of two years, and as per Rule 18 of the

Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, at the end of

the prescribed period of probation, the orders declaring the probation

are to be issued by the Appointing Authority, and if no such order is

issued within one year from the date of expiry of the probation period,

PK, J

the probation is deemed to have completed satisfactorily with

retrospective effect from the date of expiry of prescribed period of

probation. Therefore, by virtue of permitting notional dates for

seniority and other service related purposes and deemed provision

existing for declaration of probation in the Service Rules as stated

above, the probation of all the individuals included in the G.O.s is

deemed to have been declared after completion of one year from the

respective assigned dates of promotions as Deputy Superintendents of

Police (Civil).

4.15. It was further submitted that the petitioner sought for

information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and a reply was

given to him vide office letter dated 12.12.2022, as per the existing

status at that point of time. Subsequently, the orders finalizing the

seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) were issued

by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, and the

objections raised by the petitioner to the provisional seniority list

dated 25.11.2022 were disposed of at the time of issuance of

G.O.Ms.No.74. Further, the petitioner was appointed to the police

service as a Deputy Superintendent of police (Civil) under direct

recruitment, vide G.O.Ms.No.84 dated 19.01.2018, but he is claiming

seniority over and above respondent No.3, who is placed at Sl.No.96,

PK, J

who was assigned the date of promotion as Deputy Superintendent of

Police (Civil), w.e.f., 01.02.2017, is itself irregular as he was not even

selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police as on the date of

promotion assigned to respondent No.3.

4.16. It was further submitted that the Government, in Circular

Memo.No.16/Ser.A/93-39 dated 21.14.1999, has issued instructions

specifying that the quota/rota rule is applicable only for the purpose

of recruitment and not for the purpose of determining inter-se-

seniority. It was further submitted that out of the sanctioned

strength of 312, the promotee quota of 218 has been reflected in the

seniority list published in G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, and

initially, 42 posts were notified to the Telangana State Public Service

Commission for direct recruitment vide office letter dated 18.05.2018,

with the consent of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.54, Finance

Department, dated 17.05.2018, but the same was put on hold,

pending issuance of the new Presidential Order-2018. Subsequently,

a revised indent was sent for 91 posts, out of the 94 posts under the

direct recruitment quota, and the Public Service Commission, in turn,

issued notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022 and also conducted

the preliminary examination. On their recruitment, they shall be

appointed in posts meant for them. Therefore, the contention of the

PK, J

petitioner that the promotees occupied the direct recruitment

vacancies is incorrect and devoid of facts.

4.17. It was further submitted that the provisional seniority list

of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) was issued after following

all the Rules governing the post, and only after disposing of all the

objections raised by the candidates, including that of the petitioner,

the impugned final seniority list was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated

29.12.2022. Further, the probation of the petitioner, being a direct

recruit, was declared as it is mandatory, whereas, all other

individuals including the ones in the seniority list were promotees,

and were promoted on ad hoc basis at various points of time due to

pending seniority disputes, and subsequently, their promotions have

been regularized by assigning notional dates in the seniority list as

per their eligibility and seniority in the panel-year wise vacancies and

are deemed to have completed the probation period of one year from

their respective dates of regularization.

4.18. It was further submitted that the petitioner was

appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police vide G.O.Ms.No.8 dated

19.01.2018, and according to Clause 14-b of the Government Circular

Memo dated 21.04.1999, the seniority of a direct recruit is to be

PK, J

determined only from the date of his joining but not from the date on

which the vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment arose. As such,

the petitioner was rightly placed at Sl.No176 in impugned final

seniority list. Further, no direct recruitment vacancy has been

utilized for regularization of the services of the Deputy

Superintendents of Police working against direct recruitment quota.

Thus, the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned final

seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022. Therefore, there

are no merits in the present case, and it was prayed to dismiss the

present writ petition.

4.19. In support of his submissions, learned Government

Pleader for Services (Home) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Suraj Parkash Gupta and others v. State of J&K and

others 3.

5.1 In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

in spite of there being a specific quota between the direct recruits and

the promotees, direct recruitment had not been taken up and only the

promotees are being appointed in excess of their quota, and the need

for creation and filling up of these ad hoc posts has arisen only

3 (2000) 7 SCC 561

PK, J

because the promotee quota was itself taken up and filled up without

making any effort to take up the direct recruitment. Further, these

supernumerary posts were all filled up by promotees and are now

sought to be regularized in utter violation of Rule 5 of the Telangana

State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The said posts are

selection posts and for filling up of which year-wise panels have

to be prepared. Further, the roster which prescribes that the 1st, 4th

and 7th vacancies will have to be filled up through direct recruitment

has to be followed year wise. However, the said rules are ignored and

in complete disregard to these rules, only the promotees have been

appointed and on ad hoc basis.

5.2. It was further submitted that the promotions have been

given to the unofficial respondent without their completing the

mandatory five years of service, which is contrary to the Rules.

Further, no Screening Committee was formed to send the promotion

proposals to the Telangana State Public Service Commission through

the Government, which is the procedure to be followed before affecting

any promotions as per Section 5 and 6, because the said post is a

selection post and the above procedure is a mandatory one. It was

further submitted that G.O.Ms.No.137, which prescribes the quota,

has not been followed, though it is stated that the direct recruitment

PK, J

vacancies have been carried forward and in those vacancies, the

promotees are being appointed on ad hoc basis. Further, by citing the

lack of personnel, supernumerary posts have been created without

reference to any cadre strength or to the service rules issued in

G.O.Ms.No.137, and these ad hoc promotions are being scrupulously

regularized. Further, the counter affidavit filed by the respondent

reveals that in the year 2017, the cadre strength has been increased

by 70, but only the direct recruitment vacancies have not been filled

up while the vacancies of the promotees have duly been filled up.

5.3. It was further submitted that the present promotions

have been filled in without following the procedure as contemplated

under Rule 5 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules,

1996, hence, the said promotions have to be treated as only ad hoc.

Even if year-wise panels are followed, the petitioner would have to be

placed at Sl.No.150. However, the entire exercise of effecting

promotions, without even preparing a proper seniority list is wholly

illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside, and the Circular

Memo.No.16 dated 21.04.1999, cannot override the service rules in

G.O.Ms.No.137. Therefore, granting seniority to the promotees over

and above the petitioner is highly illegal. It was further submitted

that Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules,

PK, J

mandates that year-wise panels have to be prepared. However,

without doing so, the respondents granted seniority to promotees by

placing them over and above the petitioner. As such, the said action

of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

5.4. It was further submitted that as per the counter filed by

respondent Nos.1 and 2, the details by which the vacancies have been

created and the specific orders creating those vacancies, have not

been annexed. The said orders have also not been spelt out except

stating that 70 posts have been created in the year 2017. In this

regard, it has now come to light that 16 ACP/DSP posts, i.e., 13 Civil

+ 3 others, have been created vide G.O.Ms.No.159 dated 22.09.2016,

while bifurcating and changing the nomenclature of the Rachakonda

Police Commissionerate. It was further submitted that the

Government vide G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 24.04.2017, had created 62

posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police, which include 57 Civil. As

such, since both these G.O.s have been issued after the panel for the

year 2016-17 has been finalized, they must be carried forward to

2017-18 panel.

PK, J

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned

counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the

following points arise for adjudication of this Court.

(1) Whether the respondents followed Rule 3 Note 1 of the Telangana State Police Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 01.06.1998 (special rules), while preparing the seniority list?

(2) Whether the promotees are entitled to acquire seniority from the date of their ad hoc promotions?

(3) Whether non-joinder of necessary party is fatal to the case or not?

(4) Whether the posts created on 24.04.2017 and 22.09.2016 by virtue of G.O.Ms.Nos.62 and 159, respectively can be considered for granting promotions in the panel year 2016-2017?

7. As regards Point No.1, a perusal of the record discloses that

consequent upon bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra

Pradesh, and in view of non-preparation of the seniority lists, ad hoc

promotions had been granted in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent

of Police (Civil), without conducting any Departmental Promotion

Committee (DPC) meetings, and without consulting the Public Service

Commission, as mandated by the relevant rules. Further, the

services of those promotees were regularized in the year 2022 only,

after the constitution a Screening Committee.

PK, J

8. The primary contention of the petitioner herein is that the

respondents have prepared the year-wise panels in the cadre of

Deputy Superintendent of Police in blatant violation of Rule 3 Note 1

of the Special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 01.06.1998. The

relevant Rule reads as under:

"3. Method of Appointment:

Note-1: In every cycle of ten vacancies, the appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall be as follows, namely:

                      1st vacancy          ... by Direct Recruitment
                      2nd vacancy          ... by Promotion
                      3rd vacancy          ... by Promotion
                      4th vacancy          ... by Direct Recruitment
                      5th vacancy          ... by Promotion
                      6th vacancy          ... by Promotion
                      7th vacancy          ... by Direct Recruitment
                      8th vacancy          ... by Promotion
                      9th vacancy          ... by Promotion
                      10th vacancy         ... by Promotion"

9. From a reading of the above Rule, it is evident that a rota-quota

system is prescribed, wherein, 30% of posts are earmarked for direct

recruits and 70% for the promotees, and the rotation of vacancies for

every block of ten vacancies is clearly specified as 1st, 4th, and 7th

vacancies being allocated for direct recruitment.

10. Further, while filling up the vacancies, the procedure outlined

under Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules,

1996, must be scrupulously followed. As per the said Rule, all the

PK, J

vacancies arising in a particular year must be calculated and the

eligibility of the candidates for promotion must be assessed as on the

commencement of the panel year, i.e., 1st September of the year.

However, in the instant case, no material has been placed on record

to substantiate that proper year-wise panels have been prepared and

the vacancies arising each year had been properly calculated while

affecting promotions.

11. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Arvinder Singh Bains (supra), wherein, it was

held that the seniority must be determined by strictly adhering to the

established rota and quota systems so as to ensure a fair and

equitable seniority list. The relevant portion of the aforesaid

judgment is extracted hereunder.

"52. That by getting appointment orders ahead of direct recruits the promotees had already enjoyed more perks than the direct recruits by way of pay, etc. This became possible because the selection process of promotees was shorter as compared with that of direct recruits. The injustice to direct recruits cannot be compounded by relegating them in the matter of seniority also by placing the promotees en block above the direct recruits especially when both of them (promotees and direct recruits) were selected against the same requisition sent by the Government to the Punjab Public Service Commission.

59. We have also referred to the decisions rendered by this Court. This Court said rota and quota must necessarily be reflected in the seniority list and any seniority list prepared in violation of rota and quota is bound to be negated. The action of the respondents in determining the seniority is clearly in total disregard of rota- quota rule prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. The action is,

PK, J

therefore, clearly contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Thus, we hold:

1. that the action of the State is contrary to the 1976 Rules;

2. the seniority under the 1976 Rules must be based on a collective interpretation of Rule 18 and Rule 21 of the 1976 Rules;

3. the action of the authorities is negation of Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules in determining the seniority by the impugned order.

Since the action is contrary to law laid down by this Court, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal and grant the relief as prayed for by the appellant.

60. We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare the seniority list of the appellants who belong to the PCS (EB) in accordance with Rule 18 and read with Rule 21 of the 1976 Rules by fixing seniority according to the roster prescribed under Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. Fresh seniority list should be drawn within three months."

12. From the above, it is clear that where a rotation system is

provided in the Rules, along with a quota, seniority should be

determined strictly as per the said rotation and the determination of

seniority as per the rota is equitable for both the direct recruits as

well as the promotees. However, in the instant case, the respondents

failed to apply the rota-quota principles while finalizing the seniority

list, and the same vitiates the seniority list prepared by the

respondents.

13. It is a well-settled law that the Special Rules necessarily prevail

over the General Rules. As such, the reliance placed by the

respondents on Rule 33 (a) of the Telangana State and Subordinate

PK, J

Service Rules, 1996, and the Circular Memo dated 21.04.1999, is

unfounded. The instructions by way of a Circular Memo cannot

override the statutory Special Rules framed under Article 309 of the

Constitution of India. Hence, in view of the Special Rules and the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arvinder Singh Bains (supra),

no weight can be attached to the said Circular Memo dated

21.04.1999.

14. As regards Point No.2, admittedly, the promotees, including

respondent No.3 herein, were granted promotions only on ad hoc

basis, due to non-finalization of the seniority lists. Subsequently, a

Screening Committee was constituted in the year 2022, and the

services of all the ad hoc promotees were regularized, without

preparing the year-wise panels. In this context, it is relevant to refer

to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mhabemo Ovung and

others v. M. Moanungba and others 4, wherein, it was held as

follows:

"9. As stated before us, the post of Junior Engineer was governed by the 1997 Rules in terms of which 90% recruitment is to be done by direct recruitment and 10% by way of promotion. As stated before us, prior to 2003 selection by the Nagaland Public Service Commission no direct recruitment was made. Any seniority list of Junior Engineer which may have been circulated earlier will not have any bearing in the case in hand. After the direct recruitment of the Junior Engineers a tentative seniority list

4 2024 SCC OnLine 2281

PK, J

was circulated on 31.05.2004. Its finalization remained pending for years. During the interregnum 47 posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, working in the Nagaland Public Works Department were upgraded to Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) vide Letter dated 11.10.2007. After considering claims and objections of all the incumbents working in the cadre of Junior Engineers, the seniority list was finalized on 26.03.2018.

10. The appellants in [email protected].(C) No. 17102 of 2021 were shown at Serial Nos. 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 & 80 in the aforesaid seniority list; they being the direct recruits. Respondent Nos. 1 to 16 who were earlier working as Sectional Officer, Grade- I, the post which was subsequently upgraded as Junior Engineer vide letter dated 11.10.2007 were shown at Serial Nos. 156, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 157, 158, 159, 174 & 179.

11. Aggrieved against the aforesaid seniority list, two writ petitions were filed before the High Court. W.P.(C) No. 74(K) of 2019 was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 16 herein whereas W.P.(C) No. 264(K) of 2018 was filed by 29 other incumbents who were earlier working as Sectional Officer, Grade-I, the post which was upgraded to Junior Engineer vide order dated 11.10.2007.

12. Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed both the writ petitions as the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, whose post was upgraded only on 11.10.2007 as Junior Engineers could not be treated to be senior to the Junior Engineers who were directly recruited on 01.05.2003. The impugned seniority list as circulated on 26.03.2018 was upheld.

13. A perusal of the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court shows that it had totally misdirected itself while examining the 1997 Rules; the date of appointment of the private contesting respondents as Sectional Officer, Grade-I and the date of their regularization as such. The aforesaid facts were not of any relevance for the decision of the question of seniority amongst the members of the cadre of Junior Engineers. All what was required to be considered was the date on which they became members of the cadre of Junior Engineers coming from two different sources. As to whether the upgradation of the post was right or wrong is not an issue canvassed before this Court. The Division Bench of the High Court has further gone wrong in considering the upgradation of post of Sectional Officer and certain other posts to that Junior Engineers prior to 01.05.2003 when direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineers was made for the first time. That historical background did not have any relevance for the reason that prior to 2003 never before in the cadre of Junior Engineers there was recruitment from two different sources. The dispute arose only thereafter.

PK, J

14. The dates on which the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were promoted as such either on officiating basis or their promotions were regularlised though as per the Order dated 31.03.2007 effective from the date when the DPC was held i.e. 16.03.2007 will not have any bearing on the case in hand. Even if the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, are treated to be working from the date they were officiating as such, nothing hinges on that as far as the seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers is concerned. It is for the reason that the post of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, on which they were working was upgraded to that of Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) vide letter dated 11.10.2007."

15. Similarly, in Malook Singh and others v. State of Punjab

and others 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the ad hoc promotions

dehors the rules cannot be counted for seniority. This principle

dictates that individuals employed in a temporary or ad hoc capacity

are not entitled to seniority based on their ad hoc tenure if they are

later regularized. The relevant portion of the said decision is

extracted hereunder:

"22. The law on the issue of whether the period of ad hoc service can be counted for the purpose of determining seniority has been settled by this Court in multiple cases. In Direct Recruits [Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 339] , a Constitution Bench of this Court has observed : (SCC pp. 725 & 744-45, paras 13 &

47)

"13. When the cases were taken up for hearing before us, it was faintly suggested that the principle laid down in Patwardhan case [S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 3 SCC 399 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 391] was unsound and fit to be overruled, but no attempt was made to substantiate the plea. We were taken through the judgment by the learned counsel for the parties more than once and we are in complete agreement with the ratio decidendi, that the period of continuous officiation

5 (2022) 17 SCC 765

PK, J

by a government servant, after his appointment by following the rules applicable for substantive appointments, has to be taken into account for determining his seniority; and seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation, for, as was pointed out, confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies. The principle for deciding inter se seniority has to conform to the principles of equality spelt out by Articles 14 and 16. If an appointment is made by way of stopgap arrangement, without considering the claims of all the eligible available persons and without following the rules of appointment, the experience on such appointment cannot be equated with the experience of a regular appointee, because of the qualitative difference in the appointment. To equate the two would be to treat two unequals as equal which would violate the equality clause.

But if the appointment is made after considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules made for regular substantive appointments, there is no reason to exclude the officiating service for purpose of seniority. Same will be the position if the initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the rules applicable to substantive appointments as in the present case. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrary. ...

***

47. To sum up, we hold that:

(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to a rule, his seniority has to counted from the date of appointment and not according to date of his confirmation.

The corollary to the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stopgap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account considering the seniority."

(emphasis supplied)

...

25. The Notification dated 3-5-1977 stated that the ad hoc appointments were made in administrative interest in anticipation of regular appointments and on account of delay that takes place

PK, J

in making regular appointment through the agencies concerned. In this regard, the vacancies were notified to the employment exchange or advertisements were issued, as the case may be, by appointing authorities. The appointments were not made on the recommendation of the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board. However, subsequently a policy decision was made to regularise the ad hoc appointees since their ouster after a considerable period of service would have entailed hardship. Thus, the initial appointment was supposed to be a stopgap arrangement, besides being not in accordance with the rules, and the ad hoc service cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority."

16. From the above, it is quite clear that the ad hoc appointments/

promotions granted dehors the Rules cannot form the basis for

determining seniority. Thus, retrospective regularization cannot

disturb existing seniority norms, particularly where the rights of the

direct recruits are directly involved. Hence, in the case on hand,

when the Screening Committee regularized the services of the ad hoc

promotees in the year 2022, it was incumbent upon it to apply the

rota rule prescribed under Rule 3 Note 1 of the Special Rules issued

in G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 01.06.1998, and assign seniority accordingly.

Here, in the instant case, there is only one direct recruit, i.e., the

petitioner herein, who has to be placed appropriately and the effect

would have been negligible. Further, it is to be noted that the

petitioner is not claiming seniority from a date prior to his

appointment or from any other specific date, rather, he is challenging

the manner of promotion of promotees en bloc over him without

PK, J

following the rota rule. In view of the above, the decision relied on by

the learned Government Pleader of Services (Home) is not applicable

to the facts of the present case.

17. As regards Point No.3, the respondents raised an objection that

all the promotees against whom the petitioner is claiming seniority

have not been made parties. It is well-settled law that impleadment in

a representative capacity is sufficient, particularly when a general

seniority list is under challenge, rather than the services of particular

individuals. Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Shukla and others v. Arvind Rai and

others 6, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"45. The other ground taken by the High Court for non-suiting the appellants were that they had not impleaded all the affected Junior Engineers. For the said proposition, the Division Bench [Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Rajeev Nain Upadhyay, 2019 SCC OnLine All 4782] of the High Court has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar [Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 16 SCC 187 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 532] . The above case was in respect of selection and appointment on the ground that the same had been made only on the basis of interview without holding any written test. The High Court had quashed [Vinay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2003 SCC OnLine Pat 960] such selection and appointments even of those appointees who were not even parties to the petition. It was in these circumstances that this Court held that the appointments of non- parties could not be quashed. Facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable.

46. The Division Bench of the High Court also relied upon another judgment of this Court in Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. [Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 704]

6 (2022) 12 SCC 579

PK, J

This case again related to challenge to appointments and in the said case there was no impleadment even in the representative capacity. In such circumstances, this Court said that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. In fact, this judgment helps the appellants. Para 50 thereof is reproduced below : (SCC pp. 288-89)

"50. ... (1) A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as the respondents or at least some of them being before it as the respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as the respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties."

(emphasis supplied)

47. The third case relied upon by the Division Bench for the above proposition, namely, State of Uttaranchal v. Madan Mohan Joshi [State of Uttaranchal v. Madan Mohan Joshi, (2008) 6 SCC 797 :

(2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 197] was again a case where none of the affected parties were impleaded not even in the representative capacity. In such circumstances, this Court remanded the matter to the High Court leaving it open to the original petitioners therein to move an appropriate application for impleading some of the affected teachers in their representative capacity.

48. The fourth case relied upon by the Division Bench on the above proposition is Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. [Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 8 SCC 129 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1916] In this case also, the affected parties were not impleaded and this Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Prabodh Verma [Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 704].

49. In Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B. [Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 119] , C.K. Thakker, J., held that the case falls within the ambit of non- joinder of necessary parties as none of the 66 candidates against whom the complaint was made, were made parties. It further held that some of the respondents should have been arrayed in representative capacity. Para 41 is reproduced below : (SCC p.

780)

"41. Regarding protection granted to 66 candidates, from the record it is clear that their names were sponsored by the employment exchange and they were selected and appointed in 1998-1999. The candidates

PK, J

who were unable to get themselves selected and who raised a grievance and made a complaint before the Tribunal by filing applications ought to have joined them (selected candidates) as the respondents in the original application, which was not done. In any case, some of them ought to have been arrayed as the respondents in a "representative capacity". That was also not done. The Tribunal was, therefore, wholly right in holding that in absence of selected and appointed candidates and without affording opportunity of hearing to them, their selection could not be set aside."

(emphasis supplied)

50. In the recent case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. [Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2020) 4 SCC 86 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 736] , Ashok Bhushan, J., laid emphasis that when there is a long list of candidates against whom the case is proceeded, then it becomes unnecessary and irrelevant to implead each and every candidate. If some of the candidates are impleaded then they will be said to be representing the interest of rest of the candidates as well. The relevant portion of para 81 from the judgment is reproduced below : (SCC p. 119)

"81. ... We may further notice that the Division Bench [Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 5970] also noticed the above argument of non-

impleadment of all the selected candidates in the writ petition but the Division Bench has not based its judgment on the above argument. When the inclusion in the select list of large number of candidates is on the basis of an arbitrary or illegal process, the aggrieved parties can complain and in such cases necessity of impleadment of each and every person cannot be insisted. Furthermore, when select list contained names of 2211 candidates, it becomes unnecessary to implead every candidate in view of the nature of the challenge, which was levelled in the writ petition. Moreover, few selected candidates were also impleaded in the writ petitions in representative capacity."

51. The present case is a case of preparation of seniority list and that too in a situation where the appellants (original writ petitioners) did not even know the marks obtained by them or their proficiency in the examination conducted by the Commission. The challenge was on the ground that the Rules on the preparation of seniority list had not been followed. There were 18 private respondents arrayed to the writ petition. The original petitioners could not have known who all would be affected. They had thus broadly impleaded 18 of such Junior Engineers who

PK, J

could be adversely affected. In matters relating to service jurisprudence, time and again it has been held that it is not essential to implead each and every one who could be affected but if a section of such affected employees is impleaded then the interest of all is represented and protected. In view of the above, it is well settled that impleadment of a few of the affected employees would be sufficient compliance of the principle of joinder of parties and they could defend the interest of all affected persons in their representative capacity. Non-joining of all the parties cannot be held to be fatal."

(Emphasis supplied)

18. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, when there is a long list of

candidates against whom the case is being processed with, even if

some of the candidates are impleaded, they will be said to represent

the interest of the rest of the candidates as well. Therefore, the

objection of the respondents that the petitioner has not impleaded all

the promotees cannot be countenanced.

19. As regards Point No.4, which is regarding the vacancies created

by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.159 dated 22.09.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.62

dated 24.04.2017, i.e., 13 Civil and 3 others and 57 posts of Deputy

Superintendent of Police (Civil) and 8 others, it is to be noted that

both the G.O.s have been issued after the panel has been finalized in

the year 2016-17. Hence, they must be carried forward to the panel

year 2017-18. Further, as per Rule 4 of the Telangana State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, a vacancy cannot be treated as a

substantive vacancy until they are in existence for a continuous

PK, J

period of five years. Further, as per Rule 6, only the vacancies

existing as of 1st September of the preceding year are eligible to be

included for the promotions of that particular panel year. Therefore,

as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

vacancies created under G.O.Ms.No.159 dated 22.09.2016 and

G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 24.04.2017, could not have been retrospectively

included in the 2016-17 panel year, and they were required to be

carried forward to the panel year 2017-18 only.

20. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered view that the impugned final seniority list of Deputy

Superintendents of Police vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, has

been prepared in utter violation of the statutory Rules and contrary to

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arvinder Singh

Bains (supra). Therefore, the impugned final seniority list is liable to

be set aside.

21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the

impugned final seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.74, Home (Services-I)

Department, dated 29.12.2022, and the respondents are directed to

prepare a fresh seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police,

without including the vacancies created vide G.O.Ms.No.159 dated

PK, J

22.09.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 24.04.2017, duly taking into

consideration the mandate of rota rule issued in Note 1 of Rule 3 of

the Telangana Police (Civil) Service Rules (G.O.Ms.No.137 dated

01.06.1998), and place the petitioner at the appropriate place. The

said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, strictly

in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition,

shall stand closed. No costs.

_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 02.05.2025.

GSP