Seniority For Promotion Is Determined By Date Of Promotion To Feeder Category, Not From Date Of Initial Appointment: Andhra Pradesh HC

Background Facts of the case

The petitioners were working as Head Constable (HC) and Assistant Sub Inspectors (ASIs) in SPSR Nellore District. They were appointed as Police Constables (civil) in the year 1989 in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Nellore. They were promoted to Head Constables on 22.06.2012. The next promotion was to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (S.I).

The respondent issued a Fax/Radio Message to all Superintendents of Police. The message directed the selection of 58 ASIs/WASIs to attend a Pre-promotional training course for promotion to S.I. The petitioners were seniors as per their enlistment as Police Constables but they were ignored and the juniors, enlisted after them as Police Constables were identified for promotion.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the writ petitions.

It was contended by the petitioners that the selection was done without preparing a provisional seniority list, without calling for objections, and without publishing a final seniority list. The petitioners further argued that respondent's action was illegal, arbitrary, and violated Rule 34 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.

The petitioners submitted that the respondent failed to adhere to Rule 2(b) (ii) and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules (APPSS). They also submitted that the seniority of a person in the class shall be determined as per the date of his first appointment to such class. And the petitioners were enlisted as Police Constables in the year 1989, whereas the persons identified by the respondent were enlisted as Police Constables in the year 1992. The respondent has not calculated the seniority as per Rule 15 (a) of the APPSS Rules.

On the other hand, it was contended by the respondents that the Departmental Qualifying Examination is required to undergo pre-promotional training for promotion to S.I. But the junior HCs and ASIs (civil) were not included in the list for this examination. Further, it was contended that the date of enlistment as Police Constables (civil) is not a criterion for selection for the promotion. It was further contended that though the petitioners were enlisted/appointed as Police Constables in the year 1989, the persons whose names were mentioned in the probable list, were promoted as Head Constables before the petitioners.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the court that Rule 15 (a) of the APPSS Rules state that the seniority of a person in the class shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such class. Therefore petitioners' contention that they were appointed as Police Constables in 1989 and hence, their seniority must be calculated from 1989 in the class, has no merit.

It was further observed by the court that the Head Constable/ASI is the feeder category to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The words “first appointment to such class or category or grade” meant employees working in that category are eligible to be promoted to the post of next category.

The case of Ganga Vishan Gujrati Vs. State of Rajasthan was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that the seniority amongst members of the same grade has to be counted from the date of initial entry into the grade.

Further the case of State of Bihar Vs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre. Seniority amongst members of the same grade must be counted from the date of their initial entry into the grade.

It was observed by the court that the petitioners were enlisted as Police Constables in the year 1989, however, the other candidates identified for promotion, though appointed in the year 1992, were promoted as Head Constables prior to the petitioners. Therefore common integrated list of Head Constables/ASIs was prepared and the senior most Head Constables /ASIs 70 persons were called for to attend the Departmental Qualifying Examination.

It was held by the court that the respondent authority adhered to Rules 2 and 15 of the APPSS Rules. With the aforesaid observations, writ petitions were dismissed.

Case No. : Writ Petition Nos. 27026 and 27865 of 2024

Name of the case: T. Venkateswarlu and Others v. State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Counsel for the petitioners: K Muralidhar Reddy

Counsel for the respondents: GP for Services I