The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pelition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings vide cr No. 02120 18/cpE/82 dated 2810112020 issued by the Respondent No.'l and consequential proceedings vide cr. No. 295120191A2 daled 13102t2020 of Respondent No.2 pending disposal of this Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P. VENKATA SUBBARAO Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES - lll GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT ON No. a457 oF 2020 o RDER: ' Heard Sri P' Venkata Subbarao' learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise for resPondents'

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of tbe Constitutionoflndiaseekingtochallengetheproceedingsof RespondentNo.lvideCr.No.02l2olsICPElB2dated 2a.Ol.2O2O, whereby Respondent No'2 was directed to revise and refix the seniority of Prohibition and Excise Constables based on "merit", and the consequential proceedings of Respondent No.2 vide Cr' No' 2g5l2}lg lA2 dated 13'02'2020' The said actions are assailed as being arbitrary, without 14, 16, and 21 of the jurisdiction, in violation of Articles Constitutionoflndia'andcontrarytotheA.P.andTelangana Stateand.SubordinateserviceRules,aswellastheestablished principles of natural j u stice ' Petitioners are working as a Prohibition and Excise 3. Constable. They were absorbed into the Excise Department from APSP Battalions. Petitioners were initially appointed as an APSP Constable in 1995 through battalion-level recruitment' and later 2 deputed to the Prohibition and Excise Department Lrpon the introduction of Prohibition in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. Following more than 15 years of continuous service on deputation in the Excise Department. the Government of Andhra Prarlesh took a conscious and considered decision to absorb 2,151 APSP Constabies into the Excise Department. Accordingly, G.O. Ms. No. 1 1O3, Revenue (Excise) Department, dated 17.08.2007, was issued. The Government Order laid down specifi c conclitions for absorption: 1 The absorption was to be district-wise, in accordanr:e with the Presidential Order, 1975, which applies to the Excise Department (a district cadre post). The absorbed constables were required to accept the pay scale of 2 Excise Constables. Their seniority was to be fxed from the end of the existing seniority 3 list of Prohibition and Excise Constables, strictly based on agr-'. 4 Communal roster and reservation rules were to be follorr, ed. 5 The absorption would only be completed upon sutrmission o[ unequivocal and irrevocable options from the candidates. Following this, on 28.05.2009, the absorption process was completed, and petitioners and others were formaily inducted into the Excise Department. Objections were ir-rvited, and seniority lists were prepared at the district level in each unit. 4 . It is pertinent to submit that absorption process and seniority fixation criteria, based on age, were challenged by certain individuals. However, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal upheld the legality of the government's decision, including the criteria of age for seniority fixation. These decisions were further affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereby attaining finality. In accordance with the said framework, the Excise Superintendents (Nodal Authorities) in each district prepared provisional seniority lists. After calling for objections, they issued final seniorily lists based on age, recognizing that all APSP Constables were absorbed on the same date, 28.O5.2OO9, and therefore age was the only lawful criterion in terms of Rule 33 and Rule 36 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.

5. In pursualce of these finalized iists, the District Prohibition and Excise Oflicers (Respondent No.2) issued promotion orders for eligible candidates to the post of Prohibition ald Excise Head Constable, which is also a district cadre post governed by the same Presidential Order and service rules. The entire process, from absorption to seniorit5i fixation and promotions, was done transparently, lawfully, and in accordance with applicable statutory provisions and binding judicial precedent. - 4

6. While the seniority stood settled and acted upon, Respondent No.1 issued two distinct proceedings in January (-r 2020: l. Cr. No. 19/2O2OlCPE/84 dated 21.01.2O2O, directing all appointing authorities (Respondent No.2) to prepare seniority lists for all cadres un<le r their jurisdiction by calling for objections and hnalizing the same in accordance with the rules. This was an administrative directive re<luiring the district authorities to follow due pxrcess and finalize senir>ritf in their respective jurisdictions.

2. Cr. No. 02l2O18/CPElB2 dated 28.01.2020, issued merely a week later, whereby Respondent No.1 directed Respondent No.2 to refiri seniority based on "merit", allegedly in compliance with the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 26855 of 2019, Importantly, this proceeding r:nclosed "merit lists" ald directed re-evaluation of seniority accordingly. Issuance of these contradictory proceedings, one directing adherence to procedural safeguards, and another mandating merit based seniority without €rny such direction from the Court, demonstrate s arbitrariness and legal inconsistency.

7. The order in W.P. No. 26855 of 2Ol9 did not mandate seniority to be fixed based on merit but merely directed disposal of pending appeals in accordance with la\r'. ,n.." *u" no judicial directive to alter the settled seniority criteria. It is the petitioner's case that the concept of a merit list is wholly foreign to the contcxt of their original recruitment. Recruitment to ApSp ) Battalions in 1995 was conducted on the basis of physical endurance tests, and no unilied, comparative merit list was ever prepared or communicated. Even the DG of APSP Battalions confirmed in 2Ol2 that no such inter-battalion merit list existed. Therefore, applying a fabricated or retrospective merit criterion at this stage not only violates statutory rules but causes grave prejudice to those who had already been promoted based on finalized, lawful senioriry lists. Further, Respondent No. i is not the appellate authority under the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and cannot unilaterally direct revisional action without a lawful challenge to existing seniority lists. The so-called representations or appeals considered by Respondent No.l from other districts were time-barred, hled without impleading affected parties, and disposed of without any notice----clearly violating the principles of natural justice. Petitioners had already submitted a comprehensive representation on 23.O9 .2019 opposing any merit-based revision and pointing out the binding nature of G.O. Ms. No. 11O3 and the earlier finalization of seniority based on age. Nevertheless, their concerns were disregarded. It is further submitted that the original linal seniority lists, issued after due process in accordance with the statutory rules, had attained finality and resulted in promotions. Revising such lists based on I (r ( an arbitrarv and retrospective merit standard is impermissible in law, prejudicial to vested rights, and disruptive to administrative stability. Since it appears that therc was no selection held for the purpose of promotion or appointment to the posts in question, seniorify was determined based on the date of joining of absorbed APSP constables. Opposing the Petitioners' claim, Respondents have

8. filed counter. It is the contention of the Respondent that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Telangana state had communicated the merit list of A.P.S.P Constables recruited during 1995 furnish by the I.G., Battalions (Recruiting Agencies) pertaining to the lst, 2nd, 4th, 7th and Bth Battalions (Expect 9th Battalion) and instructed to re-fix the seniority in terms of the orders issued by the this court in W.P. No. 31978 of 2O1U, W.P. No. 6701 of 2018, W.P. No. 26855 of 2Ol9 and other W.P.s and also instructed all the nodal District Prohibition and Excise Officers to take care and to ensure that the notices are issued to all the individuals affected by the process, calling for objections, if any. All t.he objections filed shall be listed and disposed of as per rules by issuing a proper speaking order. From the counter of Respondent No.4 it is evident tltat government had issued G.O.Ms.No.l 1O3, Revenue (Ex. I) Department, dated: 17-08- 2OO7 and instructions of the Commissioner of Prohibition and I 7 Excise, A.P., Hyderabad in Cr. No.17657 l2oO7 lCPElH3, dated: 22-OS 2OOg, wherein the Constable deputed to Prohibition and Excise Department, working in Medak District have absorbcd as Prohibition and Excise constable subject to following conditions:

1. Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of l-ocal Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 and other releYant rules which are in vogue.

2. They should be paid pay and allowances and Scale of pay on par with Prohibition and Excise Constables.

3. They shall forego the benefits attached to the Constables in Police Department.

4. Their senioritv shall be fixed commencing from the last candidate irl the existing seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Constables' Hence, the petitioner contention is true". In the counter, it is admitted by the 4fi Respondent 9. that, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A' P', Hyderabad in Cr,No.3607l l2Oll lCPE-lH3, dated 13-06-2O1 1 has 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 flnal senioriry list of A.P.S.P. Constables/ Prohibition and Excise Constables up to 3l-O7 -2012 was prepared subject to outcome of O.As/WP/Govt. Orders/ Orders of Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad arrd communicated vide Cr. No. A21166/20ll' \ I ( dated: O7-04 2015. Respondent No.2 has admitted that after finalizing the seniority list of the absorbed A.P.S.P. Constables the Petitioners were promoted as Prohibition and Excise Head Constables subject to lollowing conditions: - . "1. Thr: above promotion is purely temporary and shall not confer any right rvhat so ,:ver including regularization of services etc., in the cadre of Prohibition ancl 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 finalization of seniority list on part \r,ith the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P.., Hyderabad".

10. From the counter it is an evident that it is an undisputed fact that the Government circular No. 57759/Ser. A|2OO4-1, of GA (Ser. A) Department, dated: 2O-O5-2O04 had clarihed tha t, oSettled Senioritg - l. Not to re open: In deating with the cases for fixing the Seniorit], the Procedure an,l Rules prescribed in AP State & Subordinate Service Rules 1996 or in Special Rules governing the Post shall be followed. 2. No request for revision of Seniority for a period which is morr: than 3 years old shall be considered. 3. The Seniority l.ist in each category shall be communicated as and when the employec completes the prescribed period of Probation in the respective category. The above instructions are based on the orders passed by the Supreme court of lndia in {l!)98) 2 SCC 523 held that "It is well settled that in 11 9 l) service matters, the question of seniority should not be re-opened in such situations after the lapse of reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justfiable"' In the Present case, the Seniority list was Communicated on l7-ll-2114' though it is settled Seniority List, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, T.S. Hyderabad being the Head of the Department issued orders to all the Nodal District Prohibition & Excise Officers, in the state to revised the saicl seniority list in terms of Merit The orders of Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, T.S. Hyderabad based on the direction of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in W P'No 31978 of2018 and batch'' In the said counter, it is contended by the 11. Respondent No.4 that seniority list is the settled seniority list and Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, T'S', Hyderabad being the Head of the Department, had issued orders to all the NodalDistrictProhibition&ExciseOfficers,torevisedseniority list in terms of Merit. Certain Prohibition & Excise Constables of Rangareddy and Nizambad districts frled Writ Petition in W'P' No. 6701 of 2018 dated: 28-02-2O18 and W'P' No' 26855 of 20 19 seeking to prepare seniority list on Merit basis' [n the common order passed by this court in W'P' No' 31978 of 2078' dated: 18-09-2018 the direction given is tL.at "The Commissioner sltrrll cause notice on atl tle affected parties and on due consid"eration of the respectiue objections, shall take appropriate decision a-s toarranted bg latt; and communicate the same to the parties" I l0 ( L2. The APSP constables initially appointed as constabies in APSP of Police Department, were sent on deputation to prohibition and excise department in the year 1995 and continued as such for some years. Subsequently, it was felt that the 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. 1103 dated 17.O[J.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 alter obtaining uncquivocal/ 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 willinllness given by way of option, their services were absorbed in various District units of the prohibition and excise during tl-r,: year 2009, in terms of GOMs.No. 1103 dated

17.Oa.2OO7. 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. i 1O3 dated 17 .O8.2OO7 , absorbing 2 151 APSP constables in Prohibition & Excise Department. t) When the orders passed by the Tribunal were challenged before this Court, this Court also upheld the orders issued in GOMs.No. i 103 dated 17.O8.2OO7, in its order dated 26'03 '2OO9 in WP.No.8573 of 2008 and batch. The post of police constable in APSP is not a local

13. 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 ofAPSP 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 Battalion' vide proceedings C.No.363/A6/ 2Ol2 dated 24'O2'2012' 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 way for fxing the seniority list is to take date of joining on deputation in the excise department and date of birth of t-l.e candidates as per Rule 33 & 36 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 I'APSSS Rules', for brevity)' Accordingly' the Nodal Prohibition and Excise Superintendent have finalized the I -_r t2 ( seniority of absorbed APSP constables as per Rules 33 & 36 of APSSS Rules and considered promotions to the next higher cadre of prohibition and excise head constable in some Districts where there r.r,ere vacancies. The competent authority had issued senioritv list taking into account date of joining/date of birth as the criterion to determine the seniority alnong absorbed APSP Constables as all APSP Constables absorbed as Excise Constables in the Excise Department duly rejecting the objections filed.

14. 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 noti$r an1' category to be excluded from organization of local cadre. In exercise of powers under Para 3 (8) of the Presidential Order, Government of India has issucd notihcation on 18.1O.1975 in G.S.R.No.529 /8, excluding iill 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 local cadre post, whereas the post of Prohibition and Excise Constablc 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 and the unit of appointment is I I I I t3 \ not restricted to either Battalion or any unit. As per Rule 8(1)(a) of the Presidential Order, 9OV. of the posts are to be fiiled by direct recruitment from the local area of the unit and only 2Oo/o can be recruited from outside the unit i.e., District. The Director General, APSP Battalions vide C.No.363 /A6l2Ol2 dated

24.O2.2OL2 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 list 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 proportional 2Oo/o open quota to be itlled 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 maintain the minimum required proportion of Constables from local area i.e., 807o. Accordingly, three options have been called for from such Constabies 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 ol vacancies keeping in view the Presidential Order. I l4 (^ On completion of allotments, the appointing authorities felt that the only possible \ ray for fixing the seniority list is to take date of joining an<l date of birth of the candidates under Rule 33 and 36 of APSSS Rules. Accordingly, Nodal Prohibition and Excise Superintend<:nts have hnalized the seniority of absorbed APSP Constables under Rule 33 and 36 of APSSS Rules and considered promotions to the next higher cadre of Prohibition and Excise Heacl Constables in some Districts where there are vacancies. 1'hereby the lst Respondent had grossly erred in issuing the impugned proceedings.

15. From the facts and the pleadings, this court comes I to a clear conclusion that earlier the seniority list was prepared as per the provisions of Rule 33 to 38 of the APSSS Ruies which include the cletermination 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. In the present. case, the petitioners herein 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 W P. No. 6701 of 2018 and W.P.No.31978 of 2018 are not binding on the petitioners. - 15 I I I n

16. 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 prepare a new seniority list based on the merit obtained in APSP Battalions as per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules. Therefore, the settled final seniority list prepared and confirmed in earlier cannot be interfered with at this stage by the l st Respondent Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The power to prepare and publish seniority lists is vested with the appointing authority or any other authorit5r empowered to do so by the Government or any other competent authority. This Court finds t that the lst Respondent does not have the power or authority to direct the Nodal Olficers to prepare a final seniority list based on the merit as per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules, without any appeal being filed and without setting aside the said {inal seniority lists prepared in various Districts. I I This court therefore, comes to a coriclusion that 17. seniority lists dated i5.06.2015 prepared is as per the provisions of Rule 33 to 38 of APSSS Rules based on the dates of joining and age is valid and cannot be interfered with. 1 I I I l6 Further, it is that the 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.

18. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings of the Respondent No.1, vide Cr. No. 02l2018/CPE/82 dated 28-O 1-2O2O and consequential proceedings vide Cr. No. 295/2019/A2 dated 13-O2-2O2O of Respondent No.2. Respondents are directed to forthwith consider the cases of petitioners for promotion to the post of Prohibition & Excise Head Constable as per the seniority list basing the age criteria in the existing vacancies.No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any

19. shall stand .losed' ' I //TRUE COPY// sD/-p. cowRl SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, The Commrssroner of prohibition and Excise, Bhavan, Nampally Road. Hyderabad. tate of Telangana, Abkari

2. The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

4. The Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

5. One CC to SRI P. VENKATA SUBBARAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Servlces-lll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CCs to GP for Prohibition & Excise, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] t\,1P BS

8. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 'iHE s r1 9R 1 e o o /<, 17 lu[M i ', \ ORDER WP.No.E457 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ IN \ I I