V. Bhuvaneswar, S/o v. Janaki Ram, Aged about

Petition und,rr Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue ar appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the proceedings Cr. No. A2lB62t2O14lDP&EO(H) daled 12-2-2020 issued by the 4th respondent by holding the same as illegal, arbitrary unjust, unauthorized, void and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Prohibition and Excise Head Constables at therr respective places by holding the final interse seniority of P&ECs of Hyderabad vide proceedings Cr. No. A218621 2014l P&ESH dated 15-6-2015 would be valid legal and in order and binding and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2O2O Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings No. Cr. No. A2l862l2014lDP&EO(H) daled 12-2-2020 issued by the 4th respondent and direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Prohibition and Excise Head Constable in their respective places of posting. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. BHARAT SHAH FOR SRI D. LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S to 8: SRI VADAPALLI RAMESH The Court made tht> following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.4OO4 OF 2O2O ORDER: Heard Sri M. Bharat Shah, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise for Respondenls 1 to 4 and Sri Vadapalii Ramesh, learned counsel for Respondents 5 to 8.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to set aside the proceedings dated I2-O2-2O2O issued by the 4fr Respondent and consequently, direct Respondents to continue Petitioners as Prohibition and Excise Head Constables at their respective place duly holding the final inter se seniority of Prohibition & Excise Constables of Hyderabad uide Proceedings dated 15-06-2O15, as valid legal.

3. It the case of Petitioners that they were initially appointed as A.P.S.P. Constables at lst battaiion at Yousufguda, l4-i0-1995, 15-1O-1995, Hyderabad appointed on 15-10-1995, 15-10-1995 respectively and later, were deputed to work in Prohibition and Excise Department and were subsequently absorbed as Prohibition and Excise Constables uide proceedings dated 2a-O5-2OO9, based on G'O'Ms' No' 1103 1 ) dated 17 -(t8-2OO7 . Petitioners submitted willingness for absorption as Prohibition and Excise Constables and after their deputation on the strength of the orders of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and after obtaining options and willingness from Petitioners that they would abide by the seniorit5r list , hnal seniority list was issued by the department after considering the objections uide proceedings dated 15-06-2015 by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, the said list was issued after considering the objections. In the final senioriry list for the period Ol-o1-2O08 to 3l-1,2 2012, and petitioncrs are shown at serial Nos.12, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Basing upon the seniorit5r list, Petitioners were prompted as Head Constable uide proceedings dated 29-12-2O17, issued by the District Prohibition and Exercise Officer Hyderabad. Basing on the saitl proceedings, petitioners reported to duty as Prohibition and Excise Constables on O2-O1-2O18 and continued to work till date. While matter stood thus, the 4th Respondenr. had issued Proceedings dated I2-O2-2O2O, which is enclosed with the revised provisional list of absorb of A.P.S.P. Constables of 1995 batch of Hyderabad District, wherein the Iinal seniority list dated 15-06-2015 was revised. In view of I I -l I issuance of revised senioriry list, Petitioners' position in the seniority list had completely changed which action of the Respondent No.4 is without any jurisdiction, unauthorized and illegal. In view of the revised seniority list, Petitioners' seniority was shifted to Serial Nos.4O,38,25, 27 and33 and the revised list is impugned.

4. Altering the status of final seniority iist does not arise by way of the order dated 27-04-2012 in OA No. 7i03 of 2OiO and batch and the said order became final, thereby the question of reopening the issue which was decided in the aforesaid OA and batch is nothing but re-litigating the same matter after lapse of three years. Furthermore, there is specific assertion that has been made by Petitioners that Government uiae circtiiiar"filerit8ffi ff td8$ti !i$$,:2$2d . I t has been ca te go rical ly held that no request for revision of senioritlr for a period v"hich is more than three years old shall be considered. Petitioners rely upon a judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in B.S. BaJwa o. Sto:te of PunJabl, the relevant portion is hereunder:- 'ltoosy z scc s23 .+ During the entire period of more than one decade thereby all " along treatcd as junior to the other a{oresaid persons and the rights interse had crystal2ed which ought not to have been reopened after the lapse of such a long period. As every stage other for prompted before R.S.Rajwa and B.D.Gupta right from the beginning as found by the diusion bench itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopen in such situation after the lapse of a rt:asonable period because that results in disturbing the settlecl position which is notjustifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grieYance. This alone was suflicient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the Writ Petition".

5. Petitioners had also relied upon another judgment in Narranrula Kotam Ra.iu u. Reglonal lrePutg Dlrector ot Fisherles, Kakinada2 wherein it has been held that seniority fixed after l-lotice to all the employees concerned cannot be reopened after a long lapse of time if the same is directed to be done at this stage, it would amount to revocation of the order of promotion.

6. No Counter/ rebuttal is filed on behalf of Respondents, t.hereby, the pleadings of Petitioners remained unchallenged in the present Writ Petition. However, this Court is taking judicial notice of the counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.4 in writ Petition No. 4717 of 2o2o and other '?2001 (3) ALD 649 (DB) I I ) Writ Petitions, for proper adjudication. Respondent No.4 had Iiled counter to Writ Petition contending that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Telangana had communicated the merit list of A.P.S.P Constables recruited during 1995 furnished by the I.G., Battalions (Recruiting Agencies) pertaining to the lst, 2nd, 4t1\, 7th and 8m Battalions (Except 9 , Battalion) and instructed to re-fix the seniorit5r in terms of the orders issued by the this Court in Writ Petitions No. 31978 and 670 i of 20 18, Writ Petition No. 26855 of 2Ol9 and other Writ Petitions and also instructed all the nodai District Prohibition and Excise Officers to take care and to ensure that notices are issued to all the individuals affected by the process, calling for objections, if any. Atl the objections hled shall be listed ald disposed of as per rules by issuing a proper speaking order. From the counter of Respondent No.4 it is evident that government had issued G.O.Ms.No.1 103, dated 17 -Oa-2OO7 and instructions of the Commissioner of Prohibition ald Excise, A.P., Hyderabad dated 22-O5-2OO7, wherein the Constable deputed to Prohibition and Excise Department, working in Medak District have absorbed as Prohibition and Excise constables subject to following conditions:- I f I I I 6 "1. Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of l,ocal Cadres and Regulation of Dtect Recruitment) Order, 1975 zrnd other relevant rules u hich are in vogue. 2. Thel. shotrld be paid pay and allowances and Scale of pay on par with Prohibition and Excise Constables. 3. The\ shall forego the benefits attached to the-Constables in Police Department. 4. Their seniority shall be fixed commencing from the last candidate in the cisting seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Constables. Hence, the petitioner contention is true'.

7. It is admitted by the 4h Respondent that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad in Cr.No.36O71/2}ll ICPE,/H3, dated: 13-06-201 1 instructed to prepare the scniority list of Prohibition and Excise Constables in continuation to the existing seniority list and communicate to the individuals i.e., absorbed A.P.S.P. Constable as per Andhra Pradesh Sub Ordinate Service, Rules 1996 and Accordingly, provisional and final seniority list of A.P.S.P. Constables/ Prohibition and Excise Constables up to 3 i -07-2O 12 was prepared subject to outcome of O.As/WP/ Govt.Orders/Orders of Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad and communicated vide Cr. No. A2116612011, dated: O7-O4-2O15.

8. Respondent No.2 admitted that after finalizing the seniority list of absorbed A.P.S.P. Constables, Petitioners were 7 promoted as Prohibition and Excise Head Constables subject to following conditions: "1. The above promotion is pureiy temporary and shall not confer any right what so ever including regularization o[ services etc., in the cadre of Prohibition ald Excise Head Constable in future. 2. The above Promotion is subiect to outcome of O.A's/W.Ps pending before the Hon'ble APAT/High Court/Supreme Court. 3. The above promotion is also subject to Iinalization of seniority list on part with the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P.., Hyderabad". g. It is contended by Respondent No.4 that seniority tist in the present case was communicated oo l7-ll-2o14 and it is settled seniorit5z list and Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, T.S., Hyderabad being the Head of the Department had issued orders to all the Nodal District Prohibition & Excise Officers, to revised seniority list in terms of Merit- The said orders of Commissioner were passed based on the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No- 31978 of 2O18 and batch. Certain Prohibition & Excise Constables of Rangareddy and Nizambad Districts filed Writ Petition No. 6701 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 26855 of 20 19 to prepare seniority list on merit basis. In the common order dated 18-09-2018, this Court gave a I I i direction that "The Commissioner shall cause notice on all tlrc affected partles and on due ansideration of the respectiue objections, shall take oppropriate decision as utananted by lau and communicate the same to tl'Le porties'. Thc APSP constables initially appointed as

10. Constables in APSP of Police Department, were sent on deputation to Prohibition and Excise Department in 1995 and continued as such for some years. Subsequently, it q,as felt that APSP constables who have put in more than three years of service in Excise Department, shall be repatriated to their parent department. But, later, the Government had taken decision to absorb 2151 APSP Constables who were working on deputation in Excise Department by GOMs.No. 11O3 dated

17.O8.2OO7, in the existing vacancies of excise constables duly following the provisions of the Presidential Order and other relevant rules which are in vogue. They were absorbed after obtaining unequivocal/irrevocable option from the APSP Constable to the effect that they are willing to take scale of pay of Prohibition and Excise constables. In view of the undertaking and willingness given by way of option, their services were absorbed in various District units of prohibition and Excise 9 ') during 2OO9 , in terms of GOMs.No. 1 103 dated 17 .O8.2OO7 . I Though the said exercise was challenged by the interested persons, the same were dismissed by the Tribunal by filing OA.No.3335 of 2OO4 and batch. The Tribunal upheld the orders issued in GOMs.No. 11O3 dated 17.O8.2OO7, absorbing 2151 APSP constables in Prohibition & Excise Department. When the orders passed by the Tribunal were challenged before this Court, this Court also upheld the orders issued in GOMs.No.1 103 dated 17.O8.2OO7, in its order dated 26.O3.2009 in Writ Petition No.8573 of 2OO8 and batch. 1 1 . The post of police constable in APSP is not a local cadre post, whereas the post of Prohibition and excise constable in the AP State excise service is in organized cadre, governed by the Presidential Order. As such, the post of APSP constable is a State-wide post and unit of appointment is not restricted to either Battalion or any unit. It is apparent from the pleadings and record that when the merit list of APSP Battalion constables, who were deputed to Excise Department is not available as informed by the DG APSP Battalion, uide proceedings dated 24.02.2012, there was no other option except to prepare a State list of APSP constables basing on the date of l0 i joining on deputation in Prohibition and Excise Department. On completion of aliotments, the appointment authorities felt that the only possible way for fixing the seniority list is to take date of joining on deputation in the excise depart{nent and date of birth of the candidates as per Rules 33 and 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Strte and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 ['APSSS Rules', for brevity). Accordingly, the Nodal Prohibition and Excise Superintendent have finalized the seniority of absorbed APSP constables as per Rules 33 & 36 and considered promotions to the next higher cadre of prohibition and excise head constable in some Districts where there were vacancies.

12. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise who is Respondent No.1 had initiated steps to prepare the seniority Iist of Excise Constables in the Excise Department based on the merit list as per Rules 33 to 38 with reference lo merit list of selection ol APSP Constables who are later absorbed as Prohibition and Excise Constables and wants to unsettle the settled seniority of Excise Constabies issuecl by the lna Respondent in the seniority list dated 15.06.2015 which was prepared based on the date of joining on deputation in the Prohibition & Excise Department and date of birth. Based on 1l the list of APSP Constables absorbed as Prohibition and Excise Constables, combined seniority list has been prepared by the Commissioner of Prohibition ald Excise taking the date of joining and age, if the date of joining is one and the same under Rules 33 to 36 of APSSS Rules. Based on the list of absorbed I APSP Constables, the Nodal Prohibition and Excise Superintendents concerned have prepared the seniority list o[ Prohibition & Excise Constables based on the date of joining and date of birth and promotion to the category of Prohibition and Excise Head Constables were considered. Now, that is sought to be disturbed by way of impugned proceedings.

13. The competent authority had issued seniority list taking into account date ofjoining/date of birth as the criterion to determine the seniorit5r among absorbed APSP Constables as all APSP Constables absorbed as Excise Constables in the Excise Department duly rejecting the objections hled. The post of Constable in the State Prohibition and Excise Department is organized into a separate cadre as per the said provision. As per Para 3 (8) of the Presidential Order, Central Government is empowered to notify any category to be excluded from organization of local cadre. In exercise of powers under Para 3 I I I l2 f) (8) of the Presidential Order, Government of India has issued notification on 18.1O.1975 in G.S.R.No.529 lE, excluding ali categories of posts in the Special Police Battalions from the purview of the Presidential Order, and in view of such notification, the post of Police Constable in APSP is not a iocal cadre post, whereas the post of Prohibition and Excise Constable in the A.P. State Excise service is in organized cadre, governed bv the Presidential Order as such, the post of APSP Constable is a State-wide post and the unit of appointment is not restricted to either Battalion or any unit. As per Rule 8(l)(a) of the Presidentiai Order, 80% of the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment from the local area of the unit and only 2O7o can be recruited from outside the unit i.e., District. The Director General, APSP Battalions vide C.No.363/A6l2012 dated

24.2.2012 informed that the merit list of APSP Constables who were deputed to Excise Department is not available. Therefore, there was no other option except to prepare a State iist of APSP Constables basing on date of joining on deputation in Prohibition and Excise Department. Accordingly, an exercise has been taken up for implementing the Presidential Order taking the number of locals absorbed in the District and 1i proportional 2O%o open quota to be filled from non-locals. Since l the number of such Constables are more than the number that has given willingness, some Constables have to be compulsorily transferred to other Districts from where. thqy are working at that time to maintain the minimum required proportion of Constables from local area i.e., SOTo.Accordingly three options have been called for from such Constables for allotment to the Districts other than where they are working at that point of time. On receipt of options, they have been allotted to the District opted by them or local area or nearby District with reference to availability of vacancies keeping in view the Presidential Order. On completion of allotments, the appointing authorities felt that the only possible way for fixing the seniority list is to take date of joining and date of birth of the candidates under Rule 33 and 36 of APSSS Rules. Accordingly, Nodal Prohibition and Excise Superintendents have finalized the seniority of absorbed APSP Constables under Rule 33 and 36 ol APSSS Rules and considered promotions to the next higher cadre of Prohibition and Excise Head Constables in some Districts where there are vacancies. Thereby the lst Respondent had grossly erred in issuing the impugned proceedings. t4 f)

14. From the facts and the pleadings, this Court comes to a clear conclusion that earlier, seniority list vvas prepared as per the provisions of Rules 33 to 38 of the APSSS Rules which include detcrmination of seniority based on the date of joining and age which method of determining seniority is in accordance with the provisions of the rules and is therefore valid and cannot be disturbed.

15. [n the present case, it appears that seniority list I dated 15.06.2015 was prepared as per the provisions of Rules 33 to 38, which include the determination of seniority based on the date of joining and age. Further, petitioners who are the affected parties were not arrayed as party respondents to the lis before this Court in the earlier round of litigation. As such, orders passed by this Court in Writ Petitions No. 6701 and 31978 of 2O18 are not binding on petitioners. Since it appears that there was no selection held for the purpose of promotion or appointment to the posts in question, seniority was determined based on the date of joining of absorbed APSP Constables. This Court finds that in the absence of any selection list, it is not open to prel)are a new seniority list based on the merit obtained in APSP Bar talions as per Rules 33 of APSSS Rules. Therefore, -/ l5 the settled final seniority list prepared and confirmed earlier cannot be interfered with at this stage by the lst Respondent Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The power to prepare and publish seniority lists is vested with the appointing authoriqr or any other authorily empowered to do so by the Government or any other competent authority. This Court finds that the 1st Respondent does not have the power or authority to direct the Nodal Officers to prepare a final seniority list based on the merit as per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules, without any appeal being Iiled and without setting aside the said final seniority lists prepared in various Districts.

16. This Court comes to a conclusion that seniorit5r iists dated 15.06.2015 prepared is as per the provisions of Rules 33 to 38 of APSSS Rules based on the dates of joining and age is valid and cannot be interfered with. Further, this Court hereby held that l"t Respondent does not have the power or authority to direct the Nodal Officers to prepare a hnal seniority list based on the merit as per Rule 33 of the ApSSS Rules.

17. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 12.O2.2O2O of the 1"t Respondent and directing Respon{ents to continue Petitioners as prohibition and I / I I I I I I t6 r) Excise Heatl Constables in accordance with the proceedings dated 15.06.20 15. No costs rB. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand r:losecl. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. GOWRI SHANKAR i, PEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principa Secretary to Government Revenue ( of Telagnana, Secretariat, T.S., Hyderabad. cise) Department, State

2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Department, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 4. The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Hyderabad. 5. One CC to SRI D LINGA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Prohibition & Excise, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. One CC to SRI VADAPALLI RAMESH, Advocate [OPUC] B. Two CD Copies To, IVIP BS I-IIGH COURT DATEID:2810512025 -tHa S 7,: ( "6 6 17 JUl'l 2025 c .J ') I DF s,-aTcrlf ORDER WP.No.4O04 ot 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I I