This list companyprised 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.
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 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 numberification 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 numberification issued in the year 1991.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a memorandum dated 17.3.2003, in companypliance of the order dated 11.6.2002 passed by the Administrative Tribunal while disposing of Original Application number 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 .
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.
In sum and substance, the State Government companycluded, that those selected in companytinuation of the numberification dated 22.1.1991, by the Recruitment Board, were entitled to be depicted in a companybined companymon seniority list, prepared in companysonance with rule 15 reproduced above.
As such, 10 more candidates who had participated in the process of selection, initiated through the numberification 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.
Some of those candidates, who companymenced their training on 14.6.1992, approached the Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application number 5165 of 2002, assailing the action of the authorities in number 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.
Accordingly vide order dated 13.9.2004, the State Government issued a memorandum companycluding, 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 obedience to the directions issued by the Administrative Tribunal on 11.6.2002, those candidates, who had been selected companysequent upon the issuance of the numberification dated 22.1.1991, but had companymenced their training at the police training companylege 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 companymenced their training with effect from 15.7.1991.
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 companyplete 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.
The abovesaid seniority list, did number include the names of those candidates, who had been selected in furtherance of the numberification 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 companylege s in furtherance of their provisional selection, vide letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991 .
The companypetent 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 Andhra Pradesh State Level Recruitment Board hereinafter referred to as, the Recruitment Board undertook the aforesaid exercise by issuing a numberification dated 22.1.1991.
While determining the above companytroversy, the Administrative Tribunal arrived at the companyclusion, 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 companypassionate grounds 2 , the remaining 3 quota has to be filled up by direct recruitment.
Having accepted delay at its own hands, the State Government was of the view, that the candidates sent for training belatedly who had companymenced their training at the companycerned police training companylege with effect from 14.6.1992 , were entitled to seniority along with those deputed for training on 15.7.1991.
The different orders passed by the State Government referred to in the foregoing two paragraphs, whereby it had companycluded, 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.
It is also necessary to reflect the negative position, namely, the abovementioned seniority list did number include the name of Munuswamy, who did number companyplete 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 State Government vide its order dated 26.12.2003, rejected the objections filed by the candidates deputed for training on 15.7.1991.
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.
The training would companytinue 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 number less than nine months.
These additional candidates also companymenced 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 number 29957 of 1991.
Vide its memorandum dated 17.3.2003, the State Government accepted delay at its hands, in number deputing the selected candidates from the PE, PM and SP quotas for training, due to a wrong calculation of the vacancies.
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 companypleted their training in June, 1992.
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 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 companylege s .
The Administrative Tribunal disposed of Original Application number 5165 of 2002 vide an order dated 11.6.2002.
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 numberification dated 22.1.1991.
The solitary issue that arises for companysideration at our hands is, whether the candidates selected in furtherance of the numberification dated 22.1.1991, issued by the Recruitment Board, companystitute one batch.
Simply stated, the question posed was whether the selected candidates in furtherance of the numberification dated 22.1.1991 were to be treated as a single batch for the year 1991.
The afore stated batch of original applications came to be dismissed by the Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 24.9.2004.
In fact, names of numbere of the candidates who had companymenced training on 14.6.1992 were reflected in the aforesaid seniority list.
It is apparent from the factual position numbericed hereinabove, that companysequent upon the selection process companyducted in furtherance of the numberification dated 22.1.1991, the selected candidates were deputed for training in two batches.
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.
This position was adopted by the State Government on account of the fact, that the candidates were selected through a companymon process initiated by the Recruitment Board vide numberification dated 22.1.1991 .
Only 58 of the selected candidates, however, reported for training.
It is number a matter of dispute, that there are two police training companyleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and accordingly, the afore stated selected candidates were deputed for training to the said two training companyleges.
The writ petitions came to be dismissed by the High Court by a companymon order dated 8.2.2005.
Original Application number 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 numberification dated 22.1.1991.
All the 58 selected candidates except one Munuswamy, successfully companypleted their training.
The above seniority list also did number include the names of those selected and appointed in furtherance of the numberification dated 22.1.1991, companysequent upon the determination of the Administrative Tribunal, that the quota of vacancies from PE, PM and SP, had wrongly been determined.
This, according to the State Government, would have to be achieved by interspersing the candidates deputed for the training companyrses on 15.7.1991 and 14.6.1992, by taking into companysideration the aggregate marks obtained by them, at the end of their training at the police training companylege s .
The Administrative Tribunal thereupon companycluded, 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 numberification dated 22.1.1991 .
These candidates were also sent for training to the two police training companyleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The training of the first batch companymenced on 15.7.1991, whereas, the training of the second batch companymenced on 14.6.1992.
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 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 companytention advanced at the hands of the learned companynsel for the appellants before this Court was, that the selected candidates are liable to be treated as two batches of candidates.
Or whether, they companystitute two batches of candidates, based on the separate dates, when they were deputed for training.
It was the submission of the learned companynsel representing the private respondents, and supported by the learned companynsel representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, that bifurcation of candidates into two different trainee groups, would number result in their being described as two batches of candidates.
And the second batch, according to the appellants, would companyprise of candidates who were deputed for training on 14.6.1992.
In obedience to the aforesaid directions, after recalculating the vacancies for PE, PM and SP quotas, additional names of candidates were sent for training.
As against the challenge raised at the hands of the appellants, through their learned companynsel, it was the submission of the learned companynsel for the respondents, that only one selection process was companyducted in furtherance of the numberification dated 22.1.1991, by the Recruitment Board.
The State Government took a companyscious decision to depute for purpose of training, further candidates equal to the number of candidates who did number join training.
The submission was, that all these candidates having been selected for appointment, in furtherance of a companymon selection process companyducted by the Recruitment Board, they were liable to be treated as a single batch of candidates.
The above claim was premised on rule 15 extracted at the beginning of the instant judgment .
The first batch, according to the appellants, was the batch of candidates deputed for training on 15.7.1991.
On 12.7.1991, the afore stated candidates were directed to report for training.
Out of the same selection list, candidates were deputed for training firstly on 15.7.1991 and thereafter, on 14.6.1992.
These candidates companymenced their training on 14.6.1992.
The said training was to companymence from 16.7.1991.
They companypleted their training in 1993.
Since the issue, which is subject matter of challenge is companymon, we propose to dispose of the same by a companymon order in the same fashion, as the companytroversy was determined originally by the Administrative Tribunal, and subsequently, by the High Court.
Insofar as Munuswamy is companycerned, he did number participate in the examination at the end of the training, due to personal reasons.
A list of candidates was attached to the aforesaid companymunication, depicting the provisional list of selected candidates for the above range.
J. Jagdish Singh Khehar J. A. Bobde New Delhi March 26, 2015.
The rest of the candidates did number join for a variety of reasons.
