1. P Narsimha Reddy v. 1. Commissioner of

Petition under 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 a writ, or order preferably in the nature of writ lMandamus/ and after calling for records pertaining to the impugned order vide Cr No.02l2018/CPE/B2, dated 19-3-19 passed by the 1st Respondent and consequently declare the impugned order issued by the '1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, wholly without power or jurisdiction, contrary to law and contrary to the Judgement rendered in WP No.670'1/2018 dated 28-2-18 and Wp No.31978/2018 dated 1B-9-18 and unconstitutional and consequently quash the same as such. lA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 impugned order of the 1st Respondent issued vide Cr No.02/2018/cPE/"132 dated 2B-B-19 and consequential provisional seniority list issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Cr No B/8BS/2012 dated 16-9-19 pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 impugned order dated 19-3-j9 made in Cr No.02l201gtCpElBz, passed by the lst Respondent and consequenfly pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Between:

1. Commlssioner of Hyderabad Prohibition and Excise, Government of Telangana, 2 State of Telangana, Revenue ( Excise) Department, re Secretary to Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hydera p by its Principal

3. District Prohibition and Excise Telangana. Ranga Reddy Dt Officer, Saroornagar. Government of AND ...PETITIONERS

1. P Narsimha Reddy, aged 50 years S/o Late Sri P Adivi Reddy. Occ head constable Prolibition Excise and Station, Pargi Rl/o khanapoor (v)post Regadi Ganapoor Chevella (M) RR Dt 501-503

2. M Yadaiah, aged 50 years. S/o Late Sri M Venkatatah.cc. Prashanth garHeandanConNstaable.. Prohibition and Excise. SHO Shamshabad. Rt/o H No 9-1-43, r Near Alankar Theatre. Langar House. Hyderabad

3. B Narasimulu, aged 51 years.S/o Late Sri B Laxmaiah. Occ. Head Constable. Prohibition and Excise. AC Distillary. Ft/o H No 13-4-47, V Ramarao Nagar, Motinagar, Borabanda. 500-01 5

4. M Shiva Kurnar, aged 49 years. S/o Late Sri M Sathiah. Occ. Head Constable. Prohibition and Excise. AC Distiltiary. R/o H No -4l2, Koheda(Vill), Abdullapur Mr:ftu (M). RR Dt

5. B.Lokeshwar Reddy., aged 49 years. S/o Late Sri B Ram Reddy. Occ. Head Constable. Prohibition and Excise. AC Enforcement.r/o H No 2-56, Manchal (Vill and Mandal),RR Dt

6. P Narsing Rac., aged 49 years. S/o Late Sri Lingaiah. Occ. Head Constable. Prohibition and Excise. AC Enforcement.Ryo H No 4-'14, Manikonda Quarters. Post Manikonda RR Dt 500-0Bg I I I

7. V Srinivas., aged 49 years. S/o Late Sri V Balraj. Occ. Head Constable. Prohibition ard Excise. Station Balanagar. Rio H No 3-3/1 , Adibatla(V) lbrahimpatnarn. RR Dt 501-510 K Bikshapathi., aged 47 years. S/o Late Sri K Jangaiah Constable. Prohibition and Excise. AC Distilliarv. Rl/o PeddaGolkonda Shamshabad .RR Dt 509-2'lB . Occ. Head H No 1-37, 8

9. S Amar Singh., aged 50 years. S/o Late S Narsingh. Occ. Head Constable, Prohibition and Excise. SHQ Qutubulla. F/o Manjeera Rcad. Sri Sai Balaji Colony, Near PJR Stadium.Chandanagar. Serilingampally .RR Dt 500-050 ... RESPON DENITS/PETITIONERS '10.K Chandra Shekar Goud., aged 44 years. S/o Sri K Anjaiah. Occ. P and E Constable working at Station HOuse Officer, Excise Station,shamshabad,RR Dt

11.B Ramesh., aged 45 years. S/o Sri B Chary. Occ. P and Constable working at the office of Assistant Commissioner of P and E. Enforcement RR Dt

12. Md Fakruddin., aged 45 years. S/o Sri Md Jahangir. Occ. P and Constable working at the office of Assistant Commissioner of P and E. Enforcement RR Dt

13.V Karunakar, aged 45 years. S/o Sri V Yadaiah. Occ. p and Constable working at Statron House officer. Excise Station. Medchal RR Dt forcement RR Dt ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS v 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 vacate the interim order Dated:02.04.2019 in Writ Petition No. 6989/2019. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : GP FOR SERVICES lll Counsel for the Respondents No.4to7 : SRI R.V.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.8to12 : SRI VADAPALLI RAMESH The Court made the following: ORDER HON']]LE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPA-KA .WRIT PETITION No.69 89 0F 2019 ORDER: Heard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learnecl counsel for petitioners, Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader on b<'half of learned Government pleader for prohibition & Excise, Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Sri S. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of Sri Vadapalli Ramesh, learned counsel for Respondents 5 to 7.

2. This Writ Petition is filed by petitioners to declare the order dated 19-03-2O19 passed by ths 1"t Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently to quash the sarne.

3. Ir is the case of petitioners that they were initially appointed as constables in the then Special Armed police at different battalions i.e. l"r, 7th & gth battalions at Hyderabad District on dilfercnt dates in l99T and 1998 and later, they were deputed to work in prohibition and Excise Department and was subsequently, absorbed as prohibition and Excise Constable uide proceedirlgs dated 2a-OS-2OO9, based on G.O.Ms. No. 1 lO3 dated 17 -O8-2OOZ . petitioners submitted willingness for absorption as Prohibition and Excise constabre and after their ,. l 2 deputation on the strength of the order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and trxcise, and after obtaining the options and wiliingness from Petitioner that he would abide by the seniority lisl.

4. While the matter stood thus, Respondent No. 1 requested the Additional DG of Police, APSP for furnlshing merit list of APSP Constables for preparation of seniority list. In response, the Additional DG uide letter dated 24 02 2Ol2 informed the Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise that a record relating to recruitment of 1995 batch constables was not available. Based on the above letter, Respondent No. 1 uide letter dated 07-O4-2O12 instructed the competent authorities to prepare the seniority lists of all constables as per Rule 33 of APS&SS rules. As per the said direction, Respondent No.3 issued a provisional seniorit5r list dated 25 03-2015 and invited objections from all quarters. [n the said provisional list, Petitioners were above Respondents 4 to 7.

5. Final seniority list was issued by the department after considering the objections uide proceedings dated O4-O5-2O15, by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Saroornagar, Rangareddy District, after considering the objections. In the final seniority 1ist, Petitioners were shown at Serial Nos. 12,14, 16 to 21 & 25. Based upon the said list, J these petitioners were promoted as Head Constables by order dated 22-O5-2O 15 and O1-O7-2016. Further, Respondents 4 to 7 had not hled any appeal under Rule 23 ofTS&SS Rules nor hled any Appeals against their promotion.

6. Respondents 4 to 7 fiied Writ Petition No. 67O1 of 2018 and Petitioners were not made party thereto. The only prayer sought for was that according to them, they have fiIed representations / appeals to the Commissioner of P&E i.e., the 1"r Respondent and sought for direction that the said Appeal be disposed of. Accordingly, this Court disposed of that Writ Petition uide order dated 2a-O2-2OB directing the 1st Respondent therein i.e., the Commissioner P&E to consider their Appeal dated 03-09-2016 and representation dated 30-72-2017 as expeditiously as possible preferably within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. There was no further direction given in that Writ petition nor was there ar-ry direction given to the 1st Respondent. herein to once again tinker with the said fina1 seniority list issued way back in 20 1,r.

7. Contrary to the said direction, the 3.d Respondent had once again issued a revised provisional seniorit5r list dated 23-08-20 18 reviewing his earlier final seniority list and the same was c.hallenged by these petitioners in Writ petition ,+ No.31978 of 2018' While the said Writ petition is pending' petitioners came to know of the order of the 1"t Respondent dated,l6-o1.20lstinkeringthefinalsenioritylistwithoutany basis. Accordingly, IA' No' 3 of 20 18 w3s filed seeking amendment of the prayer by laying challenge to this order also' The above Writ Petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 18 09-2018 quashing the orders of the l"t Respondent dated 16-07-2018 as well as the so-called illegal provisional senioriry list dated 23-08-2018 with a specifrc direction lhat case is remitted to the stage of direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No'67O 1 of 2O 18 d'aLed 28-02 2Ol8 ' Respondent No' 1 without any power or jurisdiction a- and contrary to the orders of this Court had once again issued the impugned order dated 19-03-20 19 not only altering the but also going beYond the the said order is called list. Though the impugned order stated that should give their objections' because of its very Petitioners vagueness, Petitioners cannot put forward their objections and Court. Although, of the seniorttY, entire structure orders of provisional henceseenfromanyangletheimpugnedorderdeservestobe quashed. Respondent No' 3 filed counter contending that Sri g. P. Narasimha Reddy and others filed Writ Petition No'31978 of / ,'1 5 2O18 stating that without giving opportunity, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad directed the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Saroornagar to re-fix the seniorify ol Prohibition and Excise Constable. Hence, this Court in Writ Petition No.31978 of 2018 by order datedl8.09.2O18 passed the follou,ing order: ''Having regard to the said submission, the order of Commissioner Dt. 16.07.2O18 as well as the provisional seniority list impugned in the writ petition are set aside and the matter is remitted to the stage of direction issued by the Court in W.p.No. 6701 of 20lg Dated,. '28.02.2O 18. The Commissioner shall cause notice on all the affecterl parties and on due consideration of the respective objections, shall take appropriate decision as warranted b1 Law and commu n icate the same to the parties. With the above directions the Writ petition is alloued. pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed".

10. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in the above Writ Petition s, Respondent No. 1 issued notices to all the Respondents and Petitioners who have f,rled Appeal and representations, to file objections if any and appear in person or through counsel and after hearing them, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise disposed the Appeai and representations uide Cr.No.O2 I 2018 I CPD /P2, Dared.28.Oa.2otg. Respondent No. 1 directr:d Respondent No.3, i.e. District prohibition and Excise Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District to re_fix the seniority of the Prohibition and Excise Constables (Absorbed t\ 6 APSP Constables) basing on the Merit/Marks list furnished by theCommandantsConcerned.Hence,aspertheinstructionsof thelstRespondentherein,the3'dRespondentissued provisional seniority iist of the Prohibition and Excise Constables (absorbed A'P'S'P' Constables) uide Cr.No.B/885/ 2012, dated t6'Og'2olg calling them to f-rle objections if any within (15) days' After receipt ofthe objections' the final seniority list was communicated <:n 26'10'2079'

11. 2aQ) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, reads as follows: "(C) The aforesaid porver or revision mentioned in the sub rule{a) and sub.rute(b) may be exercised by the State Government or by the head of the department on their own motion' at any time' or on an application made by the aggrieved person' within a period of six monthsfromthedateoftheorderofappointmentorpromotionofa person junior to the aggrieved person" It is stated that from the above rule position' it ts 12. very clear that Respondent No'l being the Head of the Department is very much competent to pass orders in the matter. It is further stated that Notification for recruitmcnt of Police Constable issued by the A'P' State Lrvel Recruitment Board in Letter No. 224 IRUTlAdrnrl'12194' date'd 06'07 '1994 by the Chairman of the Recruitment Board is Inspector General of Police, Battalion, Hyderabad' The recruitment of Police I 7 Constables centrally conducting by the Chairman, State Level Police Recnritment Board, after selection the merit marks lists of Police Constables those who are selected in the recruitment have been sent Battalion wise to concerned Range Deputy Inspector (ieneral of Police, A.p.S.p. Battalions, for appointment. He nce, no common recruitment merit list was maintained in A.P.S.P. As per recruitment notification, physical efficiency test (One star standard) only for minimum qualify. Those who are qualified for the physical efhciency test have to attend National Physical Efficiency Test of 3 Star standard test for (75) marks- Merit list of A.p.S.p Constables recruited during 1995 furnished by the I.G., Battalions (Recruiting Agencies) and instructed to re-hx the seniority in terms of the orders issued by the this Courr in Writ petition No. 3197g and 67O I of 201g, 26855 of 2O t9 and other Writ Petitions and also instructed all the nodal 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 anv. All the objections filed shall be listed and disposed ol as per rules by rssutng a proper speaking order. From the counter of Respondent No.4, it is evident that government had issued G.O.Ms.No. 1103, dated t7 -OB-2OOZ and instructions of the Commissiont:r of Prohibition ald Excise, A.p., Hyderabad dated

22.o5-2oog'whereintheConstabledeputedtoProhibitionand Excise Department working in Medak District have absorbed as ProhibitionandExciseconstablesubjecttofollowing conditions:-

1. Andhra Pradesh Public Emptoyment (Organization of Local " CadresandRegulationofDirectRecruitment)order,1975andother relevant rules which are in vogue 2. They should tre paid pay and allowances and Scale of pay on pai with Prohibition and Excise Constables' 3. They shall forego the benefits attached to the Constables in Potice DePartment- 4. Their seniority shall be lxed commencing from the last candidate in the existing seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Constables- Hence, the petitioner contention is true'' The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise' A'P'' 13. Hyderabad in Cr.No.3607 1 l2}tllCPE|H3' dated: 13-06-2011 instructed to prepare the seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Constable 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 hnal seniority list of A.P.S.P. Constables/ Prohibition and Excise Constables up to 31-07 -2012 was prepared subject to outcome of O'As/WP/Govt' of Commissioner Prohibition and Excise communicated vide Cr' No' A2 / 166 I 2O1l ' admitted that after dated: 07-o4-2O15. Respondent No'2 Hyderabad and Orders/ Orders ' / 9 I I finalizing the seniority list of the absorbed A.P.S.p. Constables, Petitioners were promoted as Prohibition and Excise Head Constables subject to following conditions: , "1. The above promotion is purely temporary and shall not confer any right what so ever including regularization of services etc.. in the cadre of Prohibition and Excise Head Constable in future.

2. The above Promotion is subject 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 frnalization of seniority list on part with the Commissioner of Prohibition and F)xcise, A.p.., Hyderabad".

14. It is contended by Respondent No. 3 that seniorit5z list in the present case was communicated on 04-O5-2O15 and is temporary list and Respondent No. 1 being the Head ol the Department had issued orders to all the Nodal District Prohibition & Excise Officers, to revise 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 2018 and batch. Certain Prohibition & Excise Constables of Rangareddy and Nizambad districts filed Writ petition No. 6701 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 26855 ot 20L9 to prepare seniority list on Merit basis. In the common order passed in Writ petition No. 31978 of 2018, dared: 18-09-2018 the direction given is that 'The Commissioner shall cause notice on alt the affected. parties I 1i i l l t0 and on due consideration of the respectiue objections, shall take appropriate decision as utarranted_ by tau and communicate the same to the parties',. i5. The ApSp constables initially appointed as con sta bles in ApSp ot Police Department, were sent on deputation to prohibition and Excise Department in 1995 and continued as such for some years. Subsequently, it vvas felt that APSP constables who have put in more than three years of service in Excise Department, shail be repatriated to their parent department. But, iater, the Government had taken the decision to absorb 2151 ApSp constables who were working on deputation in Excise Department by GoMs.No. 1 103 dated 17.O8.2OOZ, in the existing vacancies of excise constables duly foliowing the provisions of the presidential Order and other relevant rules which are in vogue. They were absorbed after obtaining unequivocai/irrevocable options 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 the prohibition and excise during the year 2OO9, terms of GOMs.No. 1103 daterj 77.O8.2OO2. Though the said exercise was challenged by the lnterested persons in OA.No.333 S of 2OO4 and batch, the same II were dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the order issued in GOMs.No.1t03 dated IZ.O8.2OOZ, absorbing 2151 ApSp constables in the prohibition & Excise Department. When the orders passed by the Tribunal were challenged, this Court also upheld the orders issued in GOMs.No. 1 1O3 dated 17.OB.2OOZ, in its order dated,26.03.20O9 in Wp.No.8573 of 2OO8 and batch. 16. 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 the excise department is not available as informed by the DG ApSp tsattalion, vide proceedings C.No.363/A6/ 2012 dated, 24.O2.2OI2, there was no other option except to prepare a State list of Apsp constables basing on the date of joining on deputation in prohibition and excise department. On completion of allotments. the appointment authorities felt that the only possible ,,r.ay tbr fixing the seniorigr list is to tate date of joining on deputation in the excise department and date of birth of the candidates as per Rule 33 & 36 of the Andhra pradesh State and Subordinate I I t2 Service Rules, 1996 I,APSSS Rules,, for brevity). Accordingly, the Nodai Prohibition and Bxcise Superintendent have linalized the seniority of absorbed ApSp Constables as per Rules 33 and 36 of APSSS Rules and considered promotions to the next higher cadre of prohibition and excise head constable.in some Districts where there were vacancies. 77 . The Commissioner of prohibition and Excise who is Respondent No.l had initiated steps to prepare the seniority list of Excise Constables in the Excise Department based on the merit list as per Rules 33 to 3g with reference to merit list of selection of ApSp Constables who are later absorbed as Prohibition ald Excise Constables and wants to unset e the settled seniority of Excise Constables issued by the 3ra Respondent in the seniority list dated 1g-o3_2org which was prepared based on the date of joining on deputation in Prohibition & Excise Department and date of birth. Basing on the list of ApSp Constables absorbed as prohibition ancl Excise Constables, combined seniority list has been prepared by the Commissioner of prohibition and 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. Basing on the iist oI absorbed APSP Constables, the Nodal prohibition and Excise Superintendents concerned have prepared the seniorit5z list of -r/ j I l3 Prohibition & Excise Constables basing 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. 18. The competent authority had issued a seniority list taking into account date ofjoining/date of birth as the criterion to determine the seniority among absorbed ApSp Constables as all APSP Constables absorbed as Excise Constables in the Excise Department duly rejecting the objections filed. 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 notifir any category to be exclucled lrom organization of local cadre. In exercise of powers under para 3 (8) of the Presidential Order, Government of India has issued notilication on 18.1O. i975 in G.S.R.No.529IE, excluding all categories of posts in the special porice Battalions from the purview of the presidential Order, and in view of such notification, the post of police Constable in ApSp is not a local cadre post, whereas the post of prohibition ancl Excise Constable in the A..p. State Excise service is in organized cadre, governed by the presidential Order as such, the post of ApSp Constable is a State-wide post ald the unit of appointment is I I I 14 not restricted to either Battalion or any unit. As per Rule B(1)(a) of the presidential Order, gOo/o of the posts are to be lilled by direct recruitment from the local area of the.unit and orrty 2O%o can be recruited from outside the unit i.e., District. The Director General, ApSp Battalions vide C.No.363y'A6/ 2012 dated 24.O2.2O12 informed that the merit list of ApSp Constables who were deputed to Excise Department is not ava able. Therefore, there was no other option except to prepare a State Iist of ApSp Constables based 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 proportio nal 2O,,/o open quota to be frlled from non_locals. Since 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 they are working at that time to mairitain the minimum required proportion of Constables from local area i.e., gOZo. 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 alotted to the District opted by them or local area or nearby District with reference to availability of vacancies keeping in view the I I . i, I I i5 Ac.cordingly, Nodal Presidential Order. On completion of allotments, the appointing authorities felt that the only possible way for fixing the seniority list is to take date ofjoining and date of birth of the candidates under Rule 33 and 36 of ApSSS Rules. Prohibition and Excise Superintendents have fin:rlized the senrorrty of absorbed ApSp Constables under Rule 33 and 36 of APSSS Rules and considered promotions to the next cadre of prohibition and Excise Head Constables in Districts where there are vacancies. Thereby the 1sr Respondent had grossly erred in issuing the impugned proceedings. 19. highcr From the facts and the pleadings, this Court comes to a clear conclusion that earlier the seniorit5, list was prepared as per the provisions of Rules 33 to 3g of the ApSSS Rules which include determination of seniorit5r based on the date of joining and age which method of determining seniority is in accordance u,ith the provisions of the rules and is therefore valid and cannot be disturbed. 20. In the present case, it appears that the senioriqr list dated I9-O3-2O1T was prepared as per the provisions of Rules 33 to 3g of the said rules, which include the determination of seniority based on the date of joining and age. Further, petitioners herein who are the affected parties u,ere not arrayed as party Respondents to the lis before this Court in the 16 earlier round of litigation. As such, orders passed by this Court in Writ Petitions No. 67O1 and 31978 of 20 18 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, senioriqy 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 prepare a new seniority list based on the merit obtained in APSP Battalions as per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules. Therefore, the settled finai seniority list prepared and confirmed earlier cannot be interfered with at this stage by the 1"t Respondent Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The power to prepare and publish seniority lists is vested with the appointing authority or any other authority empowered lo do so by the Government or any other competent authority. This Court finds that the 1"t Respondent does not have the power or authority to direct the Nodal Officers to prepare a hnal senioriry list based on the merit as per Rule 33 of the APSSS Ru1es, without any appeal being filed and without setting aside the said hnai seniority lists prepared in various Districts.

21. This Court, hence, comes to a conclusion that seniority lists dated l9-o3-2ol9 is not prepared as per the provisions of Rules 33 to 38 ofAPSSS Rules is not based on the { t7 dates of joining and age as such is not valid and need to be interlered with.

22. The Writ petition is therefore, ailowed setting aside the impugnecl order dated 19-03-2019 ofthe ?.d Respondent. 23. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. . , i/TRUE COPY// SD/-T.VIJAY KUMAR D PUry REGISTRAR E:CTION OFFICER

1. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Gove Hyderabad ent of Telangana,

5. b.

7. The Principal Secretary State of Telangana, Revenue ( Excise) Department, to Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Saroornagar. Government of Telangana. Ranga Reddy Dt One CC to SRI K.LAKSHIVI NARASIMHA, Advocate. [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTj One CC to SRI R V.I\/ALLIKARJUNA RAO, Advocate. [OPUC] One CC to SRI VADAPALLI RAMESH, Advocate. [OPUC] \ To, r"< 8' ry- Two CD Copies. BSK HIGH COURT DATE D : 2 810512025 ORDER WP.No.6989 of 2019 .:.i\:. O\. ,^ ..\ ' (\\ -tt I a*r/ / 17 J,JN 26 ^toaa6'1f-O .f t) ).'/, ALLOWING 'THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 rT t