2. This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters
Single Judge in W.P.No.13199 of 2021. By the said order, the learned
3. The respondents herein were initially appointed as Police
having entered service on 03.01.1989. After rendering long and
4. Meanwhile, a dispute arose with regard to the minimum
converted constables. Initially, the requirement prescribed was five
years of service. However, the Government, with a view to rationalize
5. The said Government Order was subjected to challenge before
Police Constables (Civil). The Tribunal, by its order dated 30.01.2014,
was pleased to set aside G.O.Ms.No.212. Aggrieved thereby, the
converted constables, including the present respondents filed
operative from the date of issuance of the said Government Order.
6. During the pendency of the aforesaid litigation and in view of
Promotional Training (PPT). The PPT which was scheduled on
15.12.2014 was postponed on account of such judicial orders. The
civil police after conversion from Armed Reserve Police".
7. Subsequent to the final adjudication by the Court upholding
G.O.Ms.No.212, the Department initiated necessary steps in
compliance thereof. Accordingly, the eligible converted Police
8. However, after a considerable lapse of time, the respondents
the 1990 batch were promoted. The learned Single Judge, without
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the
10. Learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for
(iii) A direct recruit shall be eligible during the period of training for
stipend as fixed by the Government from time to time.
(iii-a) The Director, Andhra Pradesh Police Academy / Heads of
Police Training Institutes are authorized to award maximum 50
conduct marks to Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector of Police
(Civil), Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve & Andhra
Pradesh Special Police) and Stipendiary-Cadet Trainee Police
Constables Civil, Armed Reserve & Andhra Pradesh Special Police.
This will be based on negative marking pattern and these conduct
marks should be added to the Grand Total of final examination
marks in case of directly recruited Sub-Inspectors and to the marks
obtained at the time of recruitment in case of Police Constables for
fixing the inter-se-seniority of the cadets.
(iv) Head Constables of Category-3 of Class-A and Category-2 of
Class-B and Assistant Sub Inspector of Category-2 of Class-A
selected for promotion for the post of Sub Inspectors in the
departmental qualifying examinations prescribed for such promotion,
shall undergo a 4 ½ months pre-promotion Training course in the
Police Training College/Police Training Institutions Andhra Pradesh
Police Academy for such period and as per such programme and
syllabus as may be prescribed by the Director General & Inspector
General of Police from time to time. At the end of the training course
they should pass the indoor and outdoor tests for inclusion in 'C'-list
according to their seniority in Range/Hyderabad city. Two further
attempts will be given to candidates who fail.
(v) Police constables of Category-4 of Class-A and Category-3 of
Class-B promoted as Head Constables shall undergo a course of
training in the Police Recruitment School for such period and pass
the tests at the end of the training course. Two more chances will be
given to failed candidates. The probation will be terminated if they
do not pass the prescribed tests.
Explanation:-Police Constable who is promoted as Head Constable
and whose probation is terminated on account of not passing the
tests will not be eligible for promotion again for a period of three
years from the date of termination of probation as Head Constable.
(vi) The Police Constables of Armed Reserve selected for appointment
to this service shall undergo a training in a Police Recruitment School
Police Training College for such period and as per such syllabus and
programme as may be prescribed by the Director General and
Inspector General of Police from time to time and pass the prescribed
tests before declaration of their probation.
Seniority: (i) The inter-se-seniority of Police Constables of-Class-A
and Class-B recruited direct in a particular batch of a particular
district Hyderabad City Police shall be fixed based on the total
marks secured by them at the time of recruitment together with the
marks secured in the examination-conducted at the end of the
training.
(ii) The Inter-se-seniority of directly recruited Sub-inspectors of Class-
A and Class-B shall be fixed on completion of training period in the
training institution, instead of at the time of selection in accordance
with the list which shall be arranged in the order of merit which
shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate of marks
obtained by each probationer.
(i) In respect of his marks secured in the first and second
terminal examination and the marks in outdoor events like
drill, revolver and musketry events and the marks secured in
the passed subjects of the final examination. (The marks in the
subjects in which they failed in the final examination need not
be taken Into account for fixation of seniority). The seniority so
fixed shall be liable to revision by the Deputy Inspector
General/Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad if he considers it
necessary, before completion of probation for reasons to be
recorded in writing.
(ii) The seniority of Police Constables of Armed Reserve or
Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions transferred to this
service shall be determined with reference to their date of first
appointment in the former category.
(iii) The seniority of assistant Sub-Inspectors and Head
Constables in the respective categories shall be determined
with reference to the dates of their appointment to the relevant
categories.
(Emphasis supplied)
ii) That, as per the amended Rule 7, brought into force by
G.O.Ms.No.212, Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 06.09.2013,
a Police Constable (Civil) appointed by way of conversion from
the Armed Reserve becomes eligible for promotion to the post of
Head Constable (Civil) only upon completion of three years of
service in the Civil Police cadre, reckoned from the date of such
conversion, i.e., from the year 2010 in the present case.
Therefore, in the present case, the respondents did not complete
this mandatory qualifying service until 2013. Even thereafter,
they had not undergone the mandatory PPT, which is an
essential pre-condition for promotion in terms of Police Manual
Order No.83.2. Therefore, in the absence of completion of PPT,
no right to promotion could have accrued to the respondents at
the relevant point of time.
iii) That the appellants have placed on record contemporaneous
material, including the FAX message dated 20.12.2014, which
clearly states that the scheduled PPT programme was
postponed on account of the "Status Quo" orders passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.23212 of 2014 and
batch. The Department was under a legal obligation to strictly
adhere to the judicial directions and could not have proceeded
with the promotional process in contravention thereof. Thus,
the delay in conducting the PPT and consequential promotions
was neither deliberate nor arbitrary, but was solely attributable
to the pendency of litigation and the legal uncertainty
surrounding G.O.Ms.No.212.
iv) That the respondents cannot claim any vested or accrued right
to promotion from a date when the very rule governing their
eligibility was under active judicial scrutiny. The claim for
retrospective or notional promotion from the year 2013 is
therefore wholly untenable in law.
v) In regard to the alleged promotion of certain junior direct
recruits, it is submitted that the alleged juniors were not
promoted as Head Constables in 2013, but were sent for PPT at
an earlier point of time. In any event, even assuming, without
admitting, that any irregularity had occurred, it is a settled
principle of law that Article 14 does not envisage negative
equality. Thus, a wrong or illegality, if any, committed in favour
of one individual cannot be relied upon to claim similar relief by
another.
vi) That the reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.14443 of 2020,
dated 03.08.2022, and the subsequent administrative
instructions issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, is
wholly misplaced. The said judgment pertains to the service
conditions extant in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and cannot
be treated as binding precedent for the State of Telangana,
particularly when the applicable service conditions and the
factual matrix are distinct, and more so when the issue in
question was already sub judice before the competent Courts in
the present case.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents
11. Learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned
order and advanced his submissions as under:
i) That, in view of Rule 10(ii) of the 1999 Rules, the seniority of
Police Constables who were transferred or converted from the
Armed Reserve to the Civil Police service is required to be
reckoned with reference to their date of initial appointment in
the former category, i.e., the Armed Reserve. In the present
case, the respondents having been appointed in the year 1989,
their seniority in the cadre of Police Constable (Civil) must
necessarily relate back to the said date. Consequently, they are
senior to the directly recruited Police Constables of the 1990
batch, and ought to have been considered for promotion prior to
such juniors.
ii) That the right to be considered for promotion is a facet of the
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the
Constitution of India, and any arbitrary denial of such
consideration amounts to violation of the equality clause.
According to the respondents, despite their becoming eligible in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 06.09.2013, the Department
failed to send them for PPT in the relevant panel year, i.e.,
2013-2014, thereby depriving them of their legitimate
promotional prospects.
iii) That the pendency of litigation did not operate as an absolute or
blanket prohibition on all promotional activities, as the
Department had proceeded to send certain other constables for
training. Therefore, the selective non-consideration of the
respondents is alleged to be arbitrary and discriminatory.
iv) That since G.O.Ms.No.212 was ultimately upheld by a division
bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special
Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.7325-7326 of 2015 dated
23.03.2018, the said Government Order must be deemed to
have been valid and operative from the date of its issuance, i.e.,
06.09.2013. Consequently, the respondents assert a legitimate
expectation to be considered for promotion from the panel year
2013-2014, when they had completed the requisite qualifying
service.
v) That by placing reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P.No.14443 of 2020, dated 03.08.2022, and
the subsequent implementation thereof by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, it is submitted that similarly situated
employees have been extended the benefit of notional
promotion, and therefore, denial of such relief to the
respondents would amount to discrimination.
12. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and
perused the material on record.
Consideration by this Court
13. In the present case, promotion from the post of Police Constable
to Head Constable is governed by the procedure prescribed under
Police Manual Order No.83.2, which mandates that eligible
candidates, identified on the basis of service seniority, must be
deputed to undergo the prescribed PPT of about 2½ months, and only
upon successful completion of the training and passing of the
requisite examinations, both indoor and outdoor, can they be
included in the approved panel for promotion.
14. Admittedly, the respondents themselves, in their representation
dated 06.10.2020, have acknowledged that they were not deputed for
such training in the year 2013. The material on record further
indicates that such non-deputation was occasioned due to the
pendency of litigation and the challenge to G.O.Ms.No.212, which
resulted in postponement of the training process. In the absence of
successful completion of the mandatory PPT, no right to promotion
could have accrued to the respondents in the year 2013, irrespective
of their seniority or eligibility. The direction of the learned Single
Judge to grant notional promotion from a date when the respondents
had not fulfilled this essential pre-condition effectively amounts to
dispensing with the statutory and procedural requirements and
directing performance of an act which was legally impermissible.
15. It is trite that in service jurisprudence completion of the
minimum qualifying service only renders an employee eligible for
consideration and does not confer any indefeasible right to promotion.
16. Further, in order to examine the effect of the pendency of
litigation on the promotional process and whether the delay
attributable thereto can constitute a valid ground for grant of
retrospective or notional promotion, it is pertinent to note that the
FAX/RM/APPMS Message, Rc.No.275/Trg.1/2014, dated 20.12.2014,
unequivocally establishes that the Department was constrained to
defer the PPT programmes in view of the judicial orders then in force.
The said communication clearly evidences that the postponement of
the training process was not on account of any administrative lapse,
but was a direct consequence of the subsisting orders of the Court.
The relevant portion of the said communication is extracted
hereunder:
Refer Chief Office Radio Message of even number dated 11-12-2014
wherein it has informed that the Pre Promotional Training Courses for PCs fit
to act HCs both (Civil & AR) commencing from 15-12-2014 in PTCs Warangal,
Karimnagar, DTCs Warangal & Karimnagar stands postponed in view of
administrative reasons (.)
In this juncture, the ADGP Personnel vide U.O.Note Rc.No.632/E2/2014, dt:
16-12-2014 has informed that "the G.O.Ms.No. 212, dt: 06-09-2013 reduced
the minimum service period of (05) years to that of (03) years to get next
promotion as HCs (Civil) in respect of convertee PCs (.) The G.O. 212, dt: 06-
09-2013 was set aside by the APAT in its Order dated: 30-01-2014 (.)
However, the Orders of the APAT have been challenged in the High Court in
W.P.No.23212/2014 and batch cases and the High Court in common Orders
dated 24-09-2014 issued orders to maintain "Status quo" (.)
Further, the ADGP Personnel has informed that, as per the Orders dated:
18-11-2013 of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.Nos. 21610/2007 and batch cases
a formula has been evolved regarding fixation of seniority of convertee PCs
(AR) from TSSP and a proposal was sent to Govt. to give service weightage to
PCs (AR) appointed by transfer from PCs (TSSP) in Chief Office letter Rc.No.
340/E2/2014, dt: 03-07-2014 (.) Order of the Govt., are still awaited (.)
Inview of above Orders the PPT Courses for PCs fit to act HCs both (Civil
and AR) stands postponed till receipt of final Orders from the Hon'ble High
Court and Government respectively (.) Unit Officers are requested to take
action accordingly (.)
This contemporaneous record clearly demonstrates that the
Department's actions were guided by and in strict compliance with
the orders of the Court.
17. In the case on hand, it cannot be said that the delay in
deputing the respondents for training or in effecting promotions was
on account of administrative inaction, arbitrariness, or mala fides. On
the contrary, the Department was placed in a situation where
proceeding with promotions pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.212 would have
exposed it to the risk of violating the "status quo" orders passed by the
Court, while withholding the process has now been construed as
denial of rights. Therefore, the delay, is directly attributable to the
pendency of judicial proceedings and the resultant legal uncertainty,
and not to any fault on the part of the appellants.
18. In regard to the issue of sustainability of the respondents' claim
for notional promotion from the year 2013, which is based on the
assertion that their alleged juniors, i.e., directly recruited Police
Constables of the 1990 batch, were promoted earlier, it is to be noted
that the respondents have not placed any cogent or unimpeachable
material on record to conclusively establish that any such junior was
regularly promoted to the post of Head Constable (Civil) in the year
2013. The documents relied upon, including proceedings dated
05.10.2013, at best indicate that certain constables were either
deputed for training or granted promotion on a purely temporary or
ad hoc basis, which cannot be equated with regular promotion in
accordance with the governing rules. The delay in the case of the
respondents, as already noted, was occasioned due to the subsisting
legal deadlock.
19. More importantly, the contention advanced by the respondents
being in the nature of an invocation of the doctrine of negative
equality, is impermissible in law, as the Article 14 embodies a positive
concept and cannot be pressed into service to perpetuate an illegality
or irregularity.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fuljit Kaur v. State of
Punjab 1, has categorically held as under:
11.....Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14
of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which
cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a
citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity
has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals
or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial Forum, others cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or
multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong
order.
21. Moreover, even assuming that certain individuals were extended
benefits contrary to the prescribed procedure, the same would not
create a vested or enforceable right in favour of the respondents to
claim similar treatment. The claim for notional promotion must
necessarily be tested on the touchstone of the applicable statutory
rules and prescribed procedure, and not on the basis of alleged
irregular or isolated instances. Accordingly, the plea founded on
parity with such alleged promotions is misconceived.
(2010) 11 SCC 455
Conclusion
22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view
that the learned Single Judge erred in law and on facts in directing
the appellants to grant notional promotion to the respondents with
effect from the year 2013. The respondents did not fulfill the
mandatory pre-conditions for promotion in 2013, such as the
successful completion of the Pre-Promotional Training. The delay in
the process was not attributable to any willful inaction on the part of
the Department but was a direct consequence of the legal challenges
to G.O.Ms.No.212.
23. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order dated
03.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13199 of
2021 is hereby set aside. W.P.No.13199 of 2021 stands dismissed. It
is, however, made clear that the promotion of the respondents as
Head Constables with effect from 29.06.2016 shall remain unaffected.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed. No costs.
_______________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN,J
Date: 16.04.2026
szt
