"REPORTABLE"
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5862 OF 2007
A. Raghu, son of Rajaiah ... Appellant
versus
Govt. of Andhra Prdesh & others ... Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6002-6005 OF 2007
Vasam Surender, son of Veeraswamy & others ... Appellants
versus
Govt. of Andhra Prdesh & others ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
1. It is not a matter of dispute, that the conditions of service
including the manner and method of determining seniority in the cadre of
Sub-Inspectors of Police, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, are regulated by
the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter
referred to as, the Service Rules), notified on 26.8.1959, read with the
Special Rules notified on 14.12.1990. Learned counsel for the rival
parties are agreed, that the issue of seniority (which is the pointed issue
of dispute between the rival parties in the present appeals), is to be
determined under rule 15 of the said rules, which is extracted hereunder:-
"15. "Seniority:-- (a) The seniority of a person in the class or category
or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to lower rank as a punishment be
determined by the date of his first appointment to such class or category
or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count
towards his probation under the General Rules his seniority shall be
determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards
probation:
Provided that in the case of Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors of Police
(Intelligence) and Reserve Sub-Inspectors, the seniority inter se shall be
fixed on completion of training in the Police Training College or with the
Andhra Pradesh Special Police, as the case may be, instead of at the time
of selection in accordance with the list which shall be arranged in order
of merit, which shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate of
marks obtained by each probationer--
(i) in respect of his record in the Police Training College or with the
Andhra Pradesh Special Police, as the case may be; and
(ii) at the final examination.
In determining such order of merit, no account shall be taken of marks
awarded to a probationer in any subject in which he has failed. But such
seniority shall be liable to revision by the Deputy Inspector General of
Police concerned if he considers it necessary, before completion of
probation.
This sub-rule shall not affect the seniority of any members of the service
which may have been fixed expressly or by implication before the 19th
November, 1941 or any orders as to seniority which may have been passed by
competent authority before the 19th November, 1941.
Provided that in the case of directly recruited Sub-Inspectors of Police
(Intelligence) the inter se seniority shall be fixed on completion of
training the Police Training College/Andhra Pradesh Police Academy, instead
of at the time of selection, in accordance with the list which shall be
arranged in order of merit, which shall be determined in accordance with
the aggregate of marks obtained by each probationer in the tests and
examinations prescribed for them in the training modules conducted at these
Institutions.
The seniority of the Sub-Inspectors of Police (Intelligence) appointed by
transfer from among Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) or equivalent ranks of
this service carrying the same scale of pay shall not be treated as first
appointment but shall be determined with reference to the date of his
seniority in the Class or Category from which he was transferred.
Provided also that the inter se seniority of the Sub-Inspectors selected
from among the Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Armed Reserve and Andhra Pradesh
Special Police Battalions by transfer shall be fixed in the order of merit
for each Range (Zone) separately based on the aggregate marks obtained by
them in the final examination conducted at Police Training College at the
end of six months training. In determining such order of merit, the marks
secured in the failed subjects need not be taken into account.
(b) The appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order
appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a class or category fix
for any reason the order of preference among them; and where such order has
been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it.
(c) The transfer of a person from one class or category of the service to
another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not
be treated as first appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority and
the seniority of person so transferred shall be determined with reference
to the date of his first appointment to class or category from which he was
transferred. Where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying this sub-
rule, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority.
(d) Where a member of the service in any class, category or grade is
reduced to a lower class, category or grade, he shall be placed at the top
of the ladder unless the authority ordering such reduction directs that he
shall take rank in such lower class, category or grade next below any
special member thereof.
(e) The seniority of qualified special policemen appointed by transfer as
constables in this service shall be determined by the date of their first
appointment in this service for purposes of confirmation in vacancies in
this service.
(f) The seniority of the Prohibition staff absorbed in this service shall
be determined on the basis of their pay fixed with reference to Fundamental
Rules 22 and 31, in the service:-
Provided that the inter-se seniority of these at the same stage of the time
scales of pay of the service will be determined by the dates on which they
began to draw pay at that stage; and
Provided further that no member of the Excise and Prohibition Department
will, on appointment to this service, be senior to any member of the
service who has put in the same or more period of service than himself.
In the case of members of such ranks in the Excise and Prohibition
Department, the scales of pay of which correspond to the scales of pay of
the ranks of this service, the date of their first appointment in the
Excise and Prohibition Department shall determine the seniority."
Insofar as the above rule is concerned, the further admitted position is,
that the inter se seniority between the rival parties is liable to be
determined in terms of the first proviso to rule 15(a) extracted above.
2. Before venturing into the determination of the inter se seniority
between the rival parties, it is necessary in the first instance, to
delineate the factual position. We shall accordingly hereinafter, in the
first instance, narrate the factual position, as it emerges from the
pleadings, as also, from the different orders appended to the instant batch
of civil appeals.
3. The Police Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh decided to fill
up existing posts of Sub-Inspector of Police by way of direct recruitment.
The Andhra Pradesh State Level Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to
as, the Recruitment Board) undertook the aforesaid exercise by issuing a
notification dated 22.1.1991. As per the said notification, 470 posts of
Sub-Inspector, in 7 different zones were sought to be filled up. The
process of selection from amongst eligible candidates, was to be based on a
physical test followed by a written test and an interview. Having
concluded the aforesaid selection process, lists of provisionally selected
candidates were prepared on the basis of their inter se merit in the
selection process, for each of the 7 zones. While disposing of the present
controversy, we have chosen to pass a common order, wherein we shall take
into consideration the vacancies sought to be filled up for Zone V
(Warangal range). In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention here,
that the office of the Director General & Inspector General of Police,
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, issued a communication dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991
indicating the names of provisionally selected candidates for Zone V
(Warangal range). A list of candidates was attached to the aforesaid
communication, depicting the provisional list of selected candidates for
the above range. This list comprised of 38 names from the open category, 5
names from the backward class 'A' category, 7 names from the backward class
'B' category, 1 name from the backward class 'C' category, 5 names from the
backward class 'D' category, 11 names from the scheduled castes category, 4
names from the scheduled tribes category, 2 names from the ex-servicemen
category, 6 names from among the police executives, 1 name from the
ministerial service, and 1 name from amongst the sportsmen.
4. On 12.7.1991, the afore-stated candidates were directed to report for
training. Only 58 of the selected candidates, however, reported for
training. The rest of the candidates did not join for a variety of
reasons. It is not a matter of dispute, that there are two police training
colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and accordingly, the afore-stated
selected candidates were deputed for training to the said two training
colleges. The order dated 12.7.1991 vide which the short-listed candidates
were deputed for training reveals, that the candidates were placed on
probation from the date of joining the police training college(s). The
training would continue for a period of nine months followed by practical
training for one year and three months, including holding independent
charge of a police station for not less than nine months. The said
training was to commence from 16.7.1991.
5. All the 58 selected candidates except one Munuswamy, successfully
completed their training. Insofar as Munuswamy is concerned, he did not
participate in the examination at the end of the training, due to personal
reasons. Munuswamy was allowed to enroll himself for training along with a
batch of candidates who were deputed for training on 14.6.1992. Munuswamy
also completed his training with the said subsequent batch of candidates,
in 1993.
6. It is relevant to mention, that in the statutory provision regulating
appointments against the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Police, 50% of the
posts are earmarked to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, 30% of
the posts are to be filled up by promotion from Head Constables, 7% from
amongst police executives (hereinafter referred to as, PE) out of the
Constables and Head Constables, 4% from police ministerial staff
(hereinafter referred to, as PM), 2% from sportspersons (hereinafter
referred to as, SP), not more than 5% by way of transfer from Reserve Sub-
Inspectors (from Armed Reserve/Andhra Pradesh Special Police) and 2% by way
of appointment under special circumstances, on compassionate grounds.
7. Original Application no. 29957 of 1991 came to be filed before the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred
to as, the Administrative Tribunal), questioning the validity of the
determination of the different quotas of recruitment in the aforementioned
notification dated 22.1.1991. While determining the above controversy, the
Administrative Tribunal arrived at the conclusion, that except the quota of
promotion from Head Constables (30%), by transfer of Reserve Sub-Inspectors
of Police (Armed Reserve/Andhra Pradesh Special Police) (5%) and
appointments under special circumstances on compassionate grounds (2%), the
remaining 3% quota has to be filled up by direct recruitment. The
Administrative Tribunal thereupon concluded, that the direct recruitment
quota, had been incorrectly determined for all the 7 zones, for which the
selection had been made (in furtherance of the notification dated
22.1.1991). Accordingly, the Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated
30.7.1991, directed the authorities to recalculate the vacancies under the
PE, PM and SP quotas for all the ranges, and to make appointments in
furtherance of the selection process initiated through the notification
dated 22.1.1991.
8. In obedience to the aforesaid directions, after recalculating the
vacancies for PE, PM and SP quotas, additional names of candidates were
sent for training. These candidates commenced their training on 14.6.1992.
They completed their training in 1993. It is pertinent to record here,
that the candidate whose training was deferred, namely, Munuswamy, and the
candidates whose names were short-listed for training in furtherance of the
directions issued by the Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 30.7.1991
(passed in Original Application no. 29957 of 1991), commenced the course of
training simultaneously on 14.6.1992.
9. We have recorded hereinabove, that out of the names of candidates
provisionally selected for Zone V (Warangal range), only 58 candidates had
reported for training. The State Government took a conscious decision to
depute for purpose of training, further candidates equal to the number of
candidates who did not join training. As such, 10 more candidates who had
participated in the process of selection, initiated through the
notification dated 22.1.1991, and were placed immediately below the
selected candidates as per the first list (deputed for training vide letter
dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991), were sent for training. These candidates were
also sent for training to the two police training colleges in the State of
Andhra Pradesh. These additional candidates also commenced training on
14.6.1992, i.e., in the same batch along with the aforementioned Munuswamy,
as also, the candidates who came to be deputed in furtherance of the order
passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Original Application no. 29957 of
1991.
10. The competent authority, namely, the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Warangal, vide a memorandum dated 17.1.1996, issued a seniority
list of Sub-Inspectors of Police, Zone V (Warangal range). The said
seniority list included the names of the original 58 Sub-Inspectors of
Police (out of the 80 selected for the said Zone), who had completed their
training in June, 1992. It is also necessary to reflect the negative
position, namely, the abovementioned seniority list did not include the
name of Munuswamy, who did not complete the training along with the 58
candidates who had joined training in furtherance of their provisional
selection vide letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991. The above seniority list
also did not include the names of those selected and appointed in
furtherance of the notification dated 22.1.1991, consequent upon the
determination of the Administrative Tribunal, that the quota of vacancies
from PE, PM and SP, had wrongly been determined. The abovesaid seniority
list, did not include the names of those candidates, who had been selected
in furtherance of the notification dated 22.1.1991, for the sole reason,
that some of the candidates who had been selected (and appointed), had
failed to join the police training college(s) (in furtherance of their
provisional selection, vide letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991).
11. It is apparent from the factual position noticed hereinabove, that
consequent upon the selection process conducted in furtherance of the
notification dated 22.1.1991, the selected candidates were deputed for
training in two batches. The training of the first batch commenced on
15.7.1991, whereas, the training of the second batch commenced on
14.6.1992. Some of those candidates, who commenced their training on
14.6.1992, approached the Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original
Application no. 5165 of 2002, assailing the action of the authorities in
not including their names in the seniority list dated 17.1.1996, wherein
only the names of 58 candidates, who had joined training on 15.7.1991 were
reflected. In fact, names of none of the candidates who had commenced
training on 14.6.1992 were reflected in the aforesaid seniority list. The
Administrative Tribunal disposed of Original Application no. 5165 of 2002
vide an order dated 11.6.2002. The ultimate directions issued in the
aforesaid order are being extracted hereunder:-
"In view of the matter, the applicants are directed to make a detailed
representation to the Director General and Inspector General of Police
putting forth their complete case, and the Director General and Inspector
General of Police is directed to dispose of the representation of the
applicants preferably, before making promotions to the posts of Inspector
of Police in Zone-IV."
In obedience to the directions issued by the Administrative Tribunal on
11.6.2002, those candidates, who had been selected consequent upon the
issuance of the notification dated 22.1.1991, but had commenced their
training at the police training college(s) on 14.6.1992, submitted a
detailed representation wherein they asserted, that their names ought to
have been interspersed with the candidates who had commenced their training
with effect from 15.7.1991. The above claim was premised on rule 15
(extracted at the beginning of the instant judgment). The Director General
& Inspector General of Police, on receipt of the representation, sought the
following clarification from the Principal Secretary to the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, vide letter dated 21.1.2003:-
"Whether the seniority of SIs (Civil) though selected on the notification
for 1991 batch but appointed and underwent Basic Training during 1992 can
be fixed alongwith 1991 batch of SIs (Civil) as they were selected as per
the notification issued in the year 1991."
A perusal of the clarification sought reveals, that the real intent behind
seeking the aforesaid clarification was, whether the candidates selected in
furtherance of the notification dated 22.1.1991, were to be treated as
candidates belonging to a single batch, or whether, they were to be treated
as two batches, on the basis of the different dates of commencing training
(the first batch on 15.7.1991, and the second batch on 14.6.1992). Simply
stated, the question posed was whether the selected candidates (in
furtherance of the notification dated 22.1.1991) were to be treated as a
single batch for the year 1991. Or alternatively, they were to be treated
as two batches, one of the year 1991 (i.e., in respect of candidates
deputed for training on 15.7.1991) and the second of the year 1992 (i.e.,
in respect of candidates deputed for training on 14.6.1992). The
Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a memorandum dated 17.3.2003, in
compliance of the order dated 11.6.2002 (passed by the Administrative
Tribunal while disposing of Original Application no. 5165 of 2002), and in
reply to the letter dated 21.1.2003 (issued by the Director General &
Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, seeking clarification with
reference to the inter se seniority of the parties in dispute). Vide its
memorandum dated 17.3.2003, the State Government accepted delay at its
hands, in not deputing the selected candidates from the PE, PM and SP
quotas for training, due to a wrong calculation of the vacancies. Having
accepted delay at its own hands, the State Government was of the view, that
the candidates sent for training belatedly (who had commenced their
training at the concerned police training college with effect from
14.6.1992), were entitled to seniority along with those deputed for
training on 15.7.1991. This, according to the State Government, would have
to be achieved by interspersing the candidates deputed for the training
courses on 15.7.1991 and 14.6.1992, by taking into consideration the
aggregate marks obtained by them, at the end of their training at the
police training college(s). It is, therefore apparent, that the State
Government accepted the contention of the candidates deputed for training
on 14.6.1992 (namely, the applicants who had approached the Administrative
Tribunal by filing Original Application no. 5165 of 2002). This position
was adopted by the State Government on account of the fact, that the
candidates were selected through a common process (initiated by the
Recruitment Board vide notification dated 22.1.1991).
12. The claim of the candidates, whose names were included in the list of
provisionally selected candidates, issued on 11.4.1991/7.5.1991 was, that
they were higher in the merit list, vis--vis candidates who were deputed
for training on 14.6.1992, and as such, those deputed for training vide
letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991 should be treated as a batch separate and
distinct, from the batch of candidates who were deputed for training on
14.6.1992. The 58 candidates, whose names were included in the letter
dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991, and who were exclusively placed in the seniority
list dated 17.1.1996, filed detailed objections to the determination
rendered by the State Government vide its order/memorandum dated 17.3.2003.
The State Government vide its order dated 26.12.2003, rejected the
objections filed by the candidates deputed for training on 15.7.1991. In
sum and substance, the claim of the candidates, who were deputed for
training on 15.7.1991, that they should be placed en-masse above the
candidates deputed for training on 14.6.1992, in the seniority list, came
to be rejected. Accordingly vide order dated 13.9.2004, the State
Government issued a memorandum concluding, that the candidates deputed for
training on 14.6.1992 were entitled to be interspersed in the seniority
list, along with the candidates who were deputed for training on 15.7.1991.
In sum and substance, the State Government concluded, that those selected
in continuation of the notification dated 22.1.1991, by the Recruitment
Board, were entitled to be depicted in a combined/common seniority list,
prepared in consonance with rule 15 reproduced above.
13. The different orders passed by the State Government referred to in
the foregoing two paragraphs, whereby it had concluded, that the candidates
deputed for training on 15.7.1991 were liable to be infused for purposes of
seniority, with candidates deputed for training on 14.6.1992, were assailed
by the former, through a bunch of original applications filed before the
Administrative Tribunal. The afore-stated batch of original applications
came to be dismissed by the Administrative Tribunal vide order dated
24.9.2004. The applicants before the Administrative Tribunal, therefore,
approached the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
(hereinafter referred to as, the High Court), by filing a series of writ
petitions. The writ petitions came to be dismissed by the High Court by a
common order dated 8.2.2005. The determination by the High Court in
upholding the orders passed by the State Government, as also, the orders
passed by the Administrative Tribunal, are subject matter of challenge in
the instant batch of appeals. Since the issue, which is subject matter of
challenge is common, we propose to dispose of the same by a common order in
the same fashion, as the controversy was determined originally by the
Administrative Tribunal, and subsequently, by the High Court.
14. The solitary issue that arises for consideration at our hands is,
whether the candidates selected in furtherance of the notification dated
22.1.1991, issued by the Recruitment Board, constitute one batch. Or
whether, they constitute two batches of candidates, based on the separate
dates, when they were deputed for training. The contention advanced at the
hands of the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court was, that
the selected candidates are liable to be treated as two batches of
candidates. The first batch, according to the appellants, was the batch of
candidates deputed for training on 15.7.1991. And the second batch,
according to the appellants, would comprise of candidates who were deputed
for training on 14.6.1992.
15. As against the challenge raised at the hands of the appellants,
through their learned counsel, it was the submission of the learned counsel
for the respondents, that only one selection process was conducted in
furtherance of the notification dated 22.1.1991, by the Recruitment Board.
Out of the same selection list, candidates were deputed for training
firstly on 15.7.1991 and thereafter, on 14.6.1992. It was the submission
of the learned counsel representing the private respondents, and supported
by the learned counsel representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, that
bifurcation of candidates into two different trainee groups, would not
result in their being described as two batches of candidates. The
submission was, that all these candidates having been selected for
appointment, in furtherance of a common selection process conducted by the
Recruitment Board, they were liable to be treated as a single batch of
candidates.
16. We will venture to determine the controversy in hand, by adopting a
three-step consideration process. We shall thereupon record our
conclusion.
Consideration, One:
We shall, in the first instance, examine the seniority position only with
respect to Munuswamy. The name of Munuswamy was included in the list of
selected candidates issued by the Director General & Inspector General of
Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991.
It is not a matter of dispute, that the aforesaid Munuswamy was originally
deputed for training at the police training college on 15.7.1991.
Munuswamy, however, could not complete his training on account of the fact,
that he did not participate in the examination conducted at the end of the
training, due to personal reasons. The aforesaid Munuswamy was allowed to
complete his training, along with the batch of candidates deputed for
training in the succeeding batch, on 14.6.1992. The above factual
position, which was duly taken into consideration by the Administrative
Tribunal, and by the High Court, was not disputed during the course of
hearing before us. The question which arises for our consideration is,
whether Munuswamy would be entitled to be included in the seniority list,
along with the batch of candidates, with whom he was originally deputed for
training on 15.7.1991, or with the batch of candidates who were deputed for
training thereafter, on 14.6.1992. Having given our thoughtful
consideration, and keeping in mind the basic principle underlying the
relevant proviso to rule 15 (extracted at the beginning of this judgment),
we are of the considered view, that the mandate for the determination of
seniority under the aforesaid proviso is to the following effect. Firstly,
inter se seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police is not to be determined in
accordance with the merit list drawn up, "at the time of their selection".
And secondly, inter se seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police has to be
determined on the basis of "the aggregate of marks obtained by each
probationer", "at the final examination" on the conclusion of their
training, at the police training college(s). Insofar as the aforesaid
Munuswamy is concerned, it is not open to the candidates deputed for
training in the first instance to contend, that though Munuswamy's name was
included in the list of provisionally selected candidates issued on
11.4.1991/7.5.1991, his seniority ought to be determined along with the
candidates deputed for training later. It is apparent, that insofar as the
Munuswamy is concerned, since his name was included amongst the names of
candidates provisionally selected as Sub-Inspectors of Police vide letter
dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991, those deputed for training vide the same letter
(dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991) can not be permitted to contend, that his
seniority cannot be determined alongwith them. The above mentioned course,
suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants, is not open, because
the same would give primacy to something beyond the purview of the proviso
to the rule in question. We have no doubt in our mind, that Munuswamy, must
figure in the seniority list along with those deputed for training on
15.7.1991, for the simple reason, that his name existed in the list of
names (including the appellants), deputed for training vide letter dated
11.4.1991/7.5.1991. There can, therefore be no doubt whatsoever, that
insofar as Munuswamy is concerned, even though he completed his training in
the course which commenced from 14.6.1992, his position in the inter se
seniority list was bound to be reflected alongwith those with whom he was
deputed for training, according to the aggregate of marks obtained by him,
on the completion of his training at the police training college, in terms
of rule 15.
Consideration, Two:
Insofar as this step is concerned, we shall exclusively take into
consideration the manner of determination of seniority of candidates
appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police, against the vacancies belonging to
the PE, PM and SP quotas, consequent upon the directions issued by the
Administrative Tribunal, dated 30.7.1991 (while disposing of Original
Application no. 29957 of 1991). In this behalf, it is relevant to mention,
that the vacancies falling to each of the aforesaid quotas, was found to
have been incorrectly determined by the State Government, while making
appointments in furtherance of the notification dated 22.1.1991. The
Administrative Tribunal accordingly, directed the State Government, to re-
calculate the strength of the said quotas, and to make appointments. It is
not a matter of dispute, that consequent upon the determination of the
Administrative Tribunal, the quotas with reference to the aforesaid cadres,
which had wrongly been determined, for each of the zones, were re-
calculated. The State Government on re-calculation of the vacancy
position, with reference to the PE, PM and SP quotas, appointed candidates
from the aforesaid quotas, out of the selection process conducted by the
Recruitment Board, in furtherance of the notification dated 22.1.1991.
Thereupon, they were deputed for training on 14.6.1992. It is, therefore
apparent, that had the quotas been correctly determined by the State
Government, these candidates would have been originally appointed along
with others, when the letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991 was issued by the
Director General & Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
In the above eventuality, they would have been deputed for training in the
very first instance on 15.7.1991. For no fault of theirs, despite their
selection in the same recruitment process, which was conducted in
furtherance of the notification dated 22.1.1991, they were deputed for
training on 14.6.1992. The delay in deputing the candidates belonging to
PE, PM and SP quotas, squarely falls on the appointing authority, and not
on the candidates who were subsequently deputed for training from the PE,
PM and SP quotas. For exactly the same reason, as had been depicted under
"Consideration, One" above, we are of the view, that those deputed for
training against the PE, PM and SP quotas on 14.6.1992, being not in any
manner responsible for their not having been deputed along with the
originally selected candidates on 15.7.1991, are liable to a fixation in
the seniority list, in exactly the same manner as Munuswamy. This is
liable to be done in terms of the mandate of the relevant proviso to rule
15 aforementioned, by interspersing them along with those included in the
original seniority list, by determining their position on the basis of the
aggregate marks obtained by them, in the final examination, at the
conclusion of their training at the police training college(s).
Consideration, Three:
In "Consideration, One" and "Consideration, Two" above, we have concluded,
that even though the appointees in question were deputed for training on
14.6.1992, their seniority had to be determined alongwith the candidates
who had been deputed for training on 15.7.1991. We shall now endeavour to
consider the manner of fixing inter se seniority of the candidates, who
were selected in the process of selection conducted in furtherance of the
notification dated 22.1.1991, by the Recruitment Board, but had not been
appointed on account of the fact, that they did not fall within the number
of vacancies advertised. It is however relevant to notice, that after the
issuance of the letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991, whereby provisionally
selected candidates were deputed for training to fill up the advertised
vacancies for the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police in all the 7 zones, it
came to be realized, that all the provisionally selected candidates did not
join the police training college(s) for the said training. So far as Zone
V (Warangal range) is concerned, only 58 candidates joined training. At
that very moment, it was open to the appointing authority to depute further
candidates for training, out of those whose names fell immediately below
the names of candidates deputed for training vide letter dated
11.4.1991/7.5.1991, against the balance vacancies. The competent
authority, however, delayed in deputing the names of these candidates. It
eventually deputed these candidates for training on 14.6.1992. From the
factual position depicted hereinabove, it is not possible for us to accept,
that the candidates, who were deputed for training on 15.7.1991, and those
deputed for training on 14.6.1992 to fulfill the deficiency, can be
described as two different batches. The selection process having been
joint, and in furtherance of the same notification dated 22.1.1991 (issued
by the Recruitment Board), it is inevitable for us to conclude, that the
candidates deputed to the two different courses of training (on 15.7.1991
and 14.6.1992) were essentially candidates belonging to a singular batch,
who were selected through a common process of selection. In fact, the
instant inference, insofar as the issue of inter se seniority is concerned,
is inevitable, as the dates on which the candidates were deputed for
training, are inconsequential, so far as rule 15 is concerned. Rule 15
leaves no room for any doubt, that even the merit position in the selection
process is not to be taken into consideration, while determining the inter
se seniority of candidates selected from a common process of selection. If
we were to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants, that
those deputed in the first batch should be placed above all those deputed
in the second batch, we would necessarily be placing the selected
candidates in two groups, based on their merit position in the selection
process. Those deputed for training in the two batches (of 15.7.1991 and
14.6.1992), came to be so deputed, only because of their respective merit
position in the selection process. This determination would be in clear
breach of the proviso to rule 15, which postulates, that inter se seniority
of Sub-Inspectors of Police, is not to be determined in accordance with the
merit list drawn up "at the time of their selection". The seniority of
candidates, who are selected from a common process of selection, is to be
determined on the basis of the final aggregate marks obtained by them,
during the course of their training, at the police training college(s) in
the State of Andhra Pradesh. That being the mandate of the rule, we are of
the considered view, that for candidates who had participated in a common
process of selection, irrespective of the dates on which they were deputed
for training, their inter se seniority is liable to be determined, on the
basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by them, at the final examination
at the concerned police training college. This interpretation placed by us
on rule 15 of the Service Rules, satisfies the underlying principle given
effect to in the rule, namely, that the candidates appointed against the
posts of Sub-Inspector of Police, were to be arranged in the seniority
list, not on the basis of the marks obtained in the process of selection,
but according to the aggregate marks obtained by them, at the culmination
of the training processes. Additionally, the instant interpretation would
result in a uniform determination of the three separate considerations
dealt with by us. It would be absurd to apply one principle to Munuswamy,
another principle to those selected and appointed in furtherance of the
directions issued by the Administrative Tribunal on 30.7.1991 (in Original
Application no. 29957 of 1991), and a separate principle for determining
seniority of candidates who were deputed for training later, because some
of the selected (and appointed) candidates did not join training. This
process of deputing candidates for training, could have been adopted within
a few days, of the candidates not assuming training, at the police training
college(s) despite being required to do so. The concerned authorities
delayed the matter, for about a year. Neither is it possible for us to
find fault with the concerned individuals deputed for training belatedly,
nor is it possible for us to interpret a simple and straightforward rule of
seniority differently, just because, candidates were deputed to the
training course belatedly.
17. The view expressed by us upholds the order passed by the State
Government, and also affirms, the legal position expressed by the
Administrative Tribunal in its common order dated 24.9.2004, as well as, in
the impugned order dated 8.2.2005 passed by the High Court.
18. Insofar as the conclusions in the "Consideration, Three" recorded
hereinabove are concerned, it would be relevant to mention here, that the
learned counsel for the appellants, namely, the candidates who were deputed
for training on 15.7.1991, had also vehemently contended, that the first
proviso to rule 15(a) would not be applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, because the first proviso contemplates a
joint training process, where those selected and appointed as Sub-Inspector
of Police, are graded on the basis of their performance during a
joint/common training process at the police training college. It was
submitted, that it would be unfair and unreasonable to determine inter se
seniority of candidates, on the basis of two different training processes,
the first which had commenced on 15.7.1991, and the second which had
commenced on 14.6.1992.
19. The submission noticed in the foregoing paragraph, seems to be
attractive on first blush. Learned counsel for the respondent-State
however pointed out, that those selected provisionally (vide letter dated
11.4.1991/7.5.1991), and who were deputed for training on 15.7.1991, had
been sent to undergo training, to two different police training colleges,
in the State of Andhra Pradesh. If the submission advanced at the hands of
the learned counsel for the appellants was to be accepted, according to
learned counsel for the State Government, even the seniority position of
the 58 candidates, who had joined training on 15.7.1991, having been
selected in Zone-V (Warangal range), could not be validly determined, for
the simple reason, that they had undertaken training at two different
police training colleges. According to learned State counsel, candidates
who were deputed for training subsequently, on 14.6.1992, were also deputed
to the same two police training colleges, in the State of Andhra Pradesh,
the curricula for the police training colleges, and the standard prescribed
being the same, just as the manner in which the candidates deputed for
training to the two different police training colleges, could be compared
with one another on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by them, for
fixing their position in the seniority list, so also, those deputed for
training on different dates (on 15.7.1991 and 14.6.1992) could likewise be
compared with one another on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by
them, in the final examination of their police training. We find merit in
the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the State of
Andhra Pradesh. For the above reason, it is not possible for us, to accept
the above noticed contention, advanced at the hands of the learned counsel
for the appellants.
20. During the course of hearing, some judgments were cited at the Bar,
to support the cause of the appellants, and that of the private
respondents. The judgments cited pertain to the particular rule of
seniority, which was subject matter of consideration. None of the
seniority rules which were taken into consideration is akin to rule 15
which is to be applied for determining the inter se seniority of Sub-
Inspectors of Police, in the present case. Since the validity of rule 15
aforementioned, is not a subject matter of challenge, we have ventured to
interpret the same, in consonance with the mandate and intent thereof. We
would not like to burden this judgment, with the judgments cited at the
Bar, by the rival parties.
21. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant
civil appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed.
.................................J.
(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
.................................J.
(S.A. Bobde)
New Delhi;
March 26, 2015.
ITEM NO.1C COURT NO.4 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 5862/2007
A. RAGHU, SON OF RAJAIAH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 6002-6005/2007
[HEARD BY HON'BLE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND HON'BLE S.A.BOBDE,JJ.]
Date : 26/03/2015 These appeals were called on for judgment
today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. P. Vinay Kumar,Adv.
Mr. K. Shivraj Choudhuri,AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,AOR
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,AOR
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar pronounced the judgment
of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde.
For the reasons recorded in the Reportable judgment, which is
placed on the file, the appeals are dismissed.
(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Renu Diwan) Court
Master Court Master
