Abdul Alam & Ors Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors  INSC
547 (15 April 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 SCALE (4)175
O R D
learned counsel on both sides.
appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal made on December 19,1995 in O.A. No.5733 of 1995 and O.A. No.505 of 1995 and also
from order dated December
28, 1995 in O.A.
No.7111 of 1995. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Andhra Pradesh
State Police Subordinate Service Rules operate for recruitment of the
subordinate staff of the police department. Rule 2[b] thereof contemplates
selection on the basis of merit and ability and seniority will be considered
only where merit and ability is approximately equal. In implementation thereof,
it would appear that the Director General of Police and the subordinates seem
to have conducted written tests of Head Constables to be promoted in 30% quota
reserved for them, for promotion as Sub- Inspectors. Candidates including some
of the appellants came to appear in the examination and they appear to have
passed the test. The Rules prescribed that they were required to be sent for
training and on their passing the training they would be appointed on regular
basis. In the meanwhile, the respondents have issued order in G.O Ms. No.585
dated October 17, 1991 amending the Polices Standing Orders prescribing
seniority-cum-fitness as the criteria for promotion of Head Constables as
Sub-Inspectors without corresponding amendment to the statutory rules. That
came to be challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal while quashing the same,
issued the directions as under:
Substitution of PSO 107 by G.O.Ms. No.585, Home dated 7.10.1991 is held to be
list of Head Constables prepared in the year 1990 in various parts of the State
in anticipation of G.O. Ms. No.585 for sending them for training is held to be
illegal and will not be operated any further. This will not affect the persons,
who have already successfully completed the tests after training by the end of
list of Head Constables prepared in 1992 for sending them to training in the
various parts of the State is held to be illegal and will not be operated upon.
Only those Head Constables who have passed the initial test contemplated by 2
[c] by the respective zonal officers viz., Deputy Inspector Generals in
accordance with the provisions of 2 [c] except the requirements of a common
question paper for all the Head Constables in the State, to be treated as
qualified for being sent for training and to the extent of vacancies for them,
should be sent for training for regular appointments after training according
to rule 11 [c] and 15.
Inclusion in any lists other than the one mentioned in para 4 will not confer
any right like preference for being appointed or continued as OSSIs otherwise
than in accordance with law or as mentioned in this Judgment.
Head Constable working as OSSI will be replaced by another temporarily
appointed Head Constable as OSSI. For effecting reversion of OSSIs for want of
vacancies due to regular candidates being appointed or other valid grounds, the
version of OSSIs will be in reverse order of seniority of Head Constables [in
District-wise seniority] among those who were already working as OSSIs by the
date of the interim order viz., 9.2.193 which is adopted by the Director
General of Police in his Memo dated 25.2.1993. The Government will immediately
take steps for making regular appointments to the post of Sub- Inspector of
Police in accordance with the rules both by direct recruitment and by
promotion. This should be initiated within three months from the date of
receipt of this order." It would appear that some of the candidates who
had approached the High Court and seem to have obtained directions to if follow
the principle of "last come first go" for the purpose of reversion.
In the light of the directions issued by the Tribunal, which were allowed to
become final, necessarily the respondents had to follow the above directions.
Paragraph 4 clearly indicates that such of the candidates who have been
qualified by passing the written examinations as per Rule 2 [c] in the
respective zones, were required to be treated as qualified for training and
after passing the training they were required to be regularized for appointment
according to Rule 11 [c] and Rule 15 of the said Rules. It would also appear
that the Government in the meanwhile, had amended the Rules in G.O.Ms. No.787
dated November 16, 1994 giving retrospective effect to the
Rules. In clause II of the amended Rules it sought to regular Rule 2 [b] as
to all non-gazetted posts in this service shall be made in accordance with the
seniority- cum-fitness, provided they pass the tests, undergo training and fulfil
all other conditions prescribed in the rules and on the instructions of the
Andhra Pradesh Police Manual.
The aforesaid provision shall not be applied to a case where:
promotion of a member has been withheld ss a penalty; or b] In such of the
cases, where a member is given a special promotion in recognition of a
conspicuous merit and ability".
these cases, we are not concerned with these contingencies. We are concerned with
reversion of the appellant from the posts of temporary OSSIs. In view of the
fact that direction No.4 was allowed to become final, necessarily direction
No.6 has to be complied with before making any recruitment as contemplated in
second part of direction No 6. It would be open to the Government to follow the
direction issued thereunder and when any reversion is to be made, they should
necessarily follow the principle laid down therein. If any direction issued by
the High Court is required to be clarified with, the respondents are free to
approach the High Court and seek necessary clarification which would be done
consistent with the law.
appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.