Chikurthi Kishore Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Somagutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

Challenging the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent in rejecting the petitioner's claim for assigning notional seniority in the rank of Sub Inspector of Police, on par with the 2006 batch, considering the aggregate marks of 1094.5 secured by him in the examination conducted by Andhra Pradesh Police Academy, the instant writ petition is filed.

The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Sub Inspector of Police on 25.02.2012. He was provisionally selected to the said post pursuant to a common recruitment notification issued by the Police Recruitment Board on 15.09.2006. The said provisional selection was cancelled by proceedings dated 18.06.2007 on the ground that the petitioner was alleged to have been involved in a criminal case in Cr.No.63 of 1998. The petitioner contends that although the police registered the said crime against him, the court of Additional Judicial 1^st Class Magistrate, Gudivada, had acquitted him in the said case, well before the date of recruitment notification. It is contended that while submitting the application for the said post of Sub Inspector of Police, the petitioner had disclosed about the involvement in the said case. However, the provisional selection was cancelled vide proceedings dated 18.06.2007, alleging that he was involved in a criminal case. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the A.P Administrative Tribunal by way of an application in O.A.No.3646 of 2007. The said O.A. was allowed on 13.11.2009, setting aside the proceedings of cancellation of the provisional selection. In pursuance thereof, the Police Recruitment Board issued proceedings dated 20.01.2010, directing the 3^rd respondent to appoint the petitioner as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil Men) in Zone-II. Pursuant to the said orders, the 3^rd respondent issued proceedings dated 25.02.2012 and the petitioner was sent for training for a period of 21 months. After the said training, the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police vide proceedings dated 23.03.2013. In the Provisional Seniority List dated 01.01.2017, in the category of Sub Inspector of Police in Zone-II, the petitioner's name was not included with the 2006 batch of SI’s appointed in 2007. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had made a representation dated 06.04.2017 to the 1^st respondent. The said request was not considered. The petitioner then filed an application before the Tribunal in O.A.No.1201 of 2017. The Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. on 16.06.2017. Challenging the Tribunal's orders, the petitioner contends that he approached the erstwhile Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.2779 of 2018. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 06.04.2017, taking into account the orders issued by the Government, within two (2) months from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent issued proceedings dated 27.05.2020 rejecting the petitioner's claim for admission of seniority along with the 2006 batch. Thus, the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2017 was rejected. The petitioner contends that the respondents cancelled the provisional selection to the Post of Sub Inspector of Police on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case. He contends that he made no mistake in disclosing the involvement at the time of recruitment and that it was not pending as on the date of the notification. On account of the aforesaid actions, the respondents have kept the petitioner's appointment in abeyance. The petitioner cannot suffer, given that, as on the date of appointment, no criminal case was pending against the petitioner. The petitioner, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vasam Surender Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others and this High Court in W.P.No.18057 of 2004 contends that it has been already held that as long as the individuals are selected in the same recruitment, they cannot be treated as a separate batch with reference to the dates of commencement of the training but must be considered to be part and parcel of the same recruitment batch, to maintain the seniority of the individuals, notwithstanding the fact that the different dates of appointment and commencement of the training. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following judgments:

The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that during the verification of the petitioner's antecedents, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Cr.No.63 of 1998 on the file of Nandiwada Police Station, Krishna District. Subsequently, the said case ended in acquittal. The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, cancelled the petitioner’s provisional selection as he was arraigned as an accused in a criminal case, and consequently declared him disqualified for appointment under Rule 12(1)(A) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 read with Rule 3(F) of Andhra Pradesh Police Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Rules,1999. His appointment was cancelled vide proceedings dated 18.06.2007. It was only pursuant to the Tribunal's orders in the O.A. directing the respondents to pass orders, the 3^rd respondent issued a Memo RC.No.372/R&T/Admn.1/2007 dated 20.01.2010 directing issuance of appointment orders to the petitioner as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector of Police. In light of the same, the petitioner was provisionally selected to the post of SCT SI(Civil)(Men) in Zone-II, by the 3^rd respondent and was sent for training. After completing the training, the petitioner was appointed on probation as Sub Inspector of Police vide appointment order dated 23.03.2013 by the 3^rd respondent.

It is further stated by the respondents that the facts as brought out in the investigation as well as the charge sheet indicate that the petitioner’s character is not such as would satisfy oneself that he is a person suitable to be appointed in Government Service more so a discipline force like police. It is not the question of suppression of facts as contended by the petitioner but it is the question of suitability to hold the post of the Government servant in a disciplinary force like Police made the Recruitment Board to cancel the provisional selection of the petitioner for the post of SI. It is further stated that the State Level Police Recruitment Board decided to cancel the provisional selection of the petitioner as SI owing to the unsatisfactory character which is not suitable to be appointed him in Government Service more so in a discipline force like police. The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police as per the orders of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed on 13.11.2009 in O.A.No.3646 of 2007. There was no administrative delay in appointing him to the post of Sub Inspector of Police provisionally. The petitioner was made to undergo Training along with the next batch of SIs basing on the orders of the Tribunal and orders from the State Level Police Recruitment Board. The petitioner was not sent for training at the first instance due to cancellation of his provisional selection as per rules but he was sent at a later with latest batch basing on the court orders. Since the delay in provisional selection was not on administrative grounds, his claim for fixation of his seniority along with 2007 batch could not be considered. It is contended that per Rule 3 (F) of Andhra Pradesh Police Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Rules, 1999 read with G.O.Ms.No.97 Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 01.05.2006 and Para 17 of the notification Rc.No.486/R&T/Genl.1/2006, dated 15.09.2006 :

One should have such character and antecedents as to qualify him for such service. The State Level Police Recruitment Board after verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not suitable to be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in view of his character and antecedents. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I in support of his contentions relies on the following judgments:

Considered the submissions.

The contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not considered suitable for the post is misconceived. Having regard to the fact that none of the conditions of Recruitment Notification, disqualify a person, if involved in any criminal case. And it is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner had failed to inform the respondents about such an involvement. In any event, when the Courts have negated the contentions of the respondents in the said regard, and set aside all the proceedings and directed the respondents to issue appointment orders, the said contention of the respondents no longer holds good, as it was adjudicated in the earlier round of litigation,and the same has been set aside by the Administrative Tribunal vide its order in O.A.No.3646 of 2007. The issues which have attained finality against the respondents, the respondents, cannot be permitted to re-open re-agitate, or otherwise rely upon the same issues to deny the petitioner the consequential benefit of seniority.

In my considered view, the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6002-6005 of 2007 and batch in the case of Vasam Surender Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others, would squarely apply to the case of the petitioner, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that:

Following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4712 of 2022 in the case of V. Satish Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4962 of 2014 in the case of Government Of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Vs. K. Satyanarayana and Others, referred supra, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to assign the notional seniority on par with 2007 batch of SIs. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.