http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SYED ABDUL ALAM & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (4)175

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel on both sides.      These 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:      "1.  Substitution  of  PSO  107  by      G.O.Ms.    No.585,    Home    dated      7.10.1991 is held to be invalid.      2.  The  list  of  Head  Constables      prepared  in   the  year   1990  in      various  parts   of  the  State  in      anticipation of G.O. Ms. No.585 for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    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      April, 1994.      3.  The  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.      4. 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.      5. 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.      6. No  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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 under:           "Promotion 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.      Note: The aforesaid provision shall      not be applied to a case where:      a] The  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".      In  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.      The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.