High Court · 2025

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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WritoflVlandamusdeclaringtheproceedingsoftheRespondentNo.l,videCr.No. ozl2olBtCPEtB2 dated 28-01-2020 and consequential proceedings vide Rc'No' Altgol\o2odated20-02-2020ofRespondentNo.2asarbitrary,illegal' discriminatory,malafideandunconstitutionalviolatingArticlesl4,l6and2lofthe ConstitutionoflndiaapartfromfollowingthePrinciplesofNaturalJusticeaswell aScontrarytotheA.PiTelanganaStateSubordinateServiceRulesandSetaside the same and issue consequential direction, directing the respondents to forthwith considerpromotiontothepostofProhibitionandExciseHeadConstableasper the seniority list prepared by the Respondent No 2 by proceedings vide Rc.No.Al/1 34/2009 dated 1B- 10-2013 in the existing vacancies IA NO:1 OF 202O PetitionunderSection.l5lCPCprayingthatintheCircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct theRespondentstoforthwithconsiderpromotiontothepostofProhibitionand Excise Head constable as per the seniority list prepared by the Respondent No'2 by proceedings vi<ie Rc No A1l134l2}Og dated '18-10-2013 in the existing vacancles. IAN O:2 OF 2020 1 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircuntstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspendtheoperationoftheproceedingsvideCr.No.0212018lCPElBzdated28- 01-2020 issued by the Respondent No 1 and consequential proceedings vide Rc.No. A1/90/2020 dated 20-02-2020 of Respondent No.2 pending disposal of this Writ Petition in the interest of lustice' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P' VENKATA SUBBARAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - I FOR GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 8995 OF 2O2O ORDER: Heard Sri P. Venkata Subbarao, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Government. Pleader for Prohibition tb Excise.

2. This Writ Petition hied by the petitioner to declare proceedings of Respondent No. 1 Cr.NO.02l2O18lCPElB2 dated 28-O|-2O2O, ordering Respondent No.2 lor re-hxation of seniority on the basis of merit which is rvholly without power or jurisdiction ald also consequential proceedings of Respondent No.2 uide Proceddings Rc. No. A1 l9Ol2O2O dated 2O-02-2020, without any power or jurisdiction and contrary to the orders of this Court, Respondent No.1 issued impugned proceedings to prepare seniority list by considering the merit. The impugned proceedings are bad in 1aw, in violation of principles of Natural Justice, contrarv to law and u ncon stitutional.

3. It the case of Petitioners that they were initially appointed as A-P.S.P. Constables, thereafter, were deputed to work in Prohibition and Excise Department and were subsequently absorbed as Prohibition and Excise Constables ' 2 based on G.O.Ms. No. 1 103 Revenue (Exercise- 1) Department dated: 17 -O8-2O07. Petitioners were appropriately included in the seniority list for promotion to the post of Head Constable, based on the existing seniority list wherein the date of absorption and age were adopted as the determining criteria under proceedings Rc.NoAl/134 l2OO9 dated 18-1O-2O13. However, the subsequent proceedings issued by Respondent No. 1 vide Cr.No. 02l2018lCPtr'/82 dated 28.01.2O20, directing refixation of seniority based on merit, constitutes a deviation from the earlier lawful directions and lack any statutory or legal authority for their issuance.

4. It is further submitted that the Department issued fina1 seniori[r list after considering objections, vide proceedings Rc No. A1/90 /2O2O dated 2O-O2-2O2O, issued by the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District. The said final seniority list was published after due consideration of objections submitted by the individuals concerned. Respondent No.2 after receiving the proceedings dated 28-O2-2O2O frorn respondent No.1 prepared final seniority lists vide proceedings Rc No. All90l2O2O, dated: 2O-O2-2O2O, after issuing provisional seniority list vide proceedings Rc No. 41/9O/2O20, dated: 2O-O2-2O2O, after obtaining objections from t1.e affected J t, parties by considering the merit lists instead of considering age criteria of the absorbed APSP Constables in to the Prohibition and Excise department. The APSP battalions have recruited the candidates on the basis of Physical efl-rciency. test and there is no parameter for concluding for the merit of the candidate.

5. Respondent No.2 in [heir counter affidavit stated that in 1995, approximately 2,2OO Andhra Pradesh Special Armed Poli<:e (APSP) Constables were deputed to the State Excise Department, namely Prohibition and Excise Department. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms.No. 1103, Revenue (Excise-I) Department. dated 17.O8.2007, the Government directed absorption of 2, 151 APSP Constables who were working on deputation in Prohibition and Excise Department and declared surplus in the APSP. Such absorption was subject ter adherence to the Andhra Pradesh Public trmployment (Organ ization of Local Cadre and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Orders, 1975, and other applicable Rules, following receipt of their unequivocal and irrevocable option to accept the pay scale appiicable to Prohibition ald Excise Constables. It was further directed that their seniority shall be fixed from the last candidate in the existing seniority list of the Prohibition and Excise Constables. It is stated that upon completion of 4 absorption and repatriation process, preparation of seniority list was initiated. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Telangana State, Hyderabad, requested the Inspector Addl. Director-General of APSP Battalions to furnish merit/marks list of the APSP Constables. The Addl. Director-General informed that no State-wise merit list of APSP Constables exists. Consequently, the Commissioner directed Respondent No.2 to prepare and hnalize the seniority list in accordance with Rules 33 and 36 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Ruies, 1996, and the guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 1 1O3, Revenue (Excise-I) Department, dated 17.08.2OO7. Aggrieved, certain Constables petitioned the Commissioner, asserting that senioriW must be finalized based on merit/ marks as per the Rule of Reservation, and requested the Commissioner to obtain merit/marks lists from the respective Commandants.

6. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, A.P., Hyderabad vide Cr. No.396/2O12lCPE lH3 dt.O7- O4-2O12 and Cr.No.565ll2013/CPDIH3 dt.1O-O7-2013, had issued instructions to prepare seniority list of absorbed constables commencing from the last candidate of the existing seniorit5r list of Prohibiton & Excise Constables in the District I I I I T I I 5 .: following the provisions of Rule 33, 35 and 36 of APSP Constables was not available with their parent Department.

7. The Respondent No.2 have hled the counter to the Writ Petition contending that the APSP Constabies appointed in several battalions in 1994-95 were deployed to Prohibition & Excise Department on deputation for effective implementation of total Prohibition of liquor in A.P. State. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.1l03, Rev.(Ex-1)Dept., dated 17-O8-2OO7 issued orders that 2 15 1 APSP Constables who were u,orking on deputation in Prohibition & Excise Department duly lollowing the orders issuecl in A.P Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order. 1975 and other relevarrt rules which are in vogue scrupulously after obtaining unequivocal/ irrevocable options from APSP Constables. ln continuation of the Government Orders, the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, A. P. , Hyderaberd vide Cr.N o. 17 657,t 2OO4 I CPA I H3 Dt.22.O5.2OO9 issued instructions to absorb (58) APSP Constables who had exercised option in 2007 Prohibition & Excise Department, duly obtaining unequivocal / irrevocable options forms afresh once again from the APSP Constables and complete the process before 6 30-05-2009, on the following conditions on their absorption in Prohibition & Excise Department. "

1.Wi1ling to accept the Pay and Allowances as applicable to the Proh.&Excise Constable in Proh.&Excise Dept. 2- Willing to be absorbed as per the provisions of A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of local Cadres ald Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975.

3. Willing to forgo the benefits attached to the Constables in APSP / Police Department.

4. Willing to be lixed seniority commencing from the last candidate in the existing seniority list of Proh.&Excise constables in the District.

8. It is admitted by Respondent No. 1 that, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad in Cr.No.02/2018lCPE lB2 dated: 21-O1 202O 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 after absorption and after implementation of Presidential Orders and as per the instructions of the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad a seniority list was prepared by following the provisions of Rules 33 & 36 and upon guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1 103, dated 17.O8.2OO7 finalized and communicated 7 vide this office Rc. No. A1/90/2020 dated 2O-O2-2O2O basing on I the merit list provided by the APSP Battalions.

9. That it is an undisputed fact that the Government circular No. 57759l Ser.Al2OO4-7, of GA (Ser.A) Department, dated: 20-05-2O04 had clarified that, "Settled Senioritv - 1. Not to rc open: In dealing with the cases for frxing the Seniority, the Procedure and Rules prescribed in AP State & Subordinate Service Rules 1996 or in Special Rules goveming the Post shall be followecl.

2. No rcquest lor revision of Seniority for a period which is more than 3 years old shall be considered. 3. The Seniority List in each category shall be communicated as and when tl-re employee completes the prescribed period of Probation in the respective category. The above instructions are based on the orders passed by the Supreme court of India in (1998) 2 SCC 523 held that "It is well settled rhat in 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 justifiable'. In the Present case, the Seniority list was Communicatcd on 17-11- 2014, rhough it is settled Seniorit5z List, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, T.S. Hyderabad being the Head of the Departr.rent issued orders to all the Nodal District Prohibition & Excise Officers, in the state to revised the said 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.3i978 of 2018 and batch." l 8

10. The APSP constables initiaily appointed as constables in APSP of Police Department, were sent on deputation to prohibition and excise department in the year i995 and continued as such for some years. Subsequentiy, it was felt that the APSP constables who have put in more than three years of service in excise department, sha11 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' 1 103 dated 17.O8.2007, 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 the prohibition and excise during the year 2OO9, in terms of GOMs.No.11O3 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 tJle orders issued in GOMs.No. 1 103 dated 17 .OB.2OO7 , absorbing 6 () 2 15 1 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. 11O3 dated 17.O8.2OO7, in its order dated 26.03.2009 in WP.No.8.573 of 2008 and batch.

11. The post of police constable in APSP is not a local cadre post, whereas the post of Prohibition ald 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.

12. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise who is Respondent No. t had initiated steps to prepare the seniority list of Excise Constables in the Excise Department based on the merit list as per Rule 33 to 38 of the APSSS Rules with reference to merit list of selection of APSP Constables who are later absorbed as Prohibition and Excise Constables and wants to unsettle ther settled seniorit5z of Excise Constables issued by the 2 Respondent in the seniority list dated 08.06.2020 which was prepared based on the date of joining on deputation in the Prohibition & Excise Department and date of birth. Basing on the list of APSP Constables absorbed as Prohibition and Excise l. i ,l l0 f: 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 Rule 33 to 36 of APSSS Rules. Basing on the list of absorbed APSP Constables, the Nodal Prohibition and Excise Superintendents concerned have prepared the seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Constables basing on the date of joining and date of birth and promotion to the category of Prohibition and Excise Head Constabies were considered. Now, that is sought to be clisturbed by way of impugned proceedings.

13. The competent authority had issued seniority iist 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-

14. The post of Constable in the State Prohibition and Excise Department is orgar:tzed 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 frorn organization of local cadre. In exercise of powers under Para 3 (8) of the Presidential Order, Government of India has issued notification on i8.1O.1975 in G.S.R.No.529 /E' 11 v\ excluding all categories of posts in the Special Police Battalions from the purwiew 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 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(1)(a) of the Presidentiai Order, 8Oo/o of the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment from the local area of the unit and only 20% can be recnrited from outside the unit i.e., District. The Director General, APSP Battalions vide C.No.363lA6l2Ol2 dated

24.2.2012 informed that the merit list of APSP Constables who were depult'd 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 Depa-rtment. Accordingly, an exercise has been taken up for implementing the Presidential Order taking the number of locals absorbed in the District and proportional 2O"k open quota to be filled from non-locals. Since the number of such Constables are more than the number that has given willingness, some Constables have to be compulsorily I i;" I l2 ( 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., S0To.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 iocal 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 of 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.

15. From the facts and the pleadings, this court comes to a clear conclusion that earlier the seniority list was prepared as per the provisions of Rule 33 to 38 of the APSSS Rules which include the determination 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.

16. In the present case, it appears that the seniority list dated O8-O6-2O2Owas prepared as per the provisions of Rule 33 to 38 of the said rules, which include the determination of seniorit5r based on the date of joining and age. Further, 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. 670l of 2018 and W.P.No.31978 of 2Ol8 are not binding on the petitioners.

17. Since it appears that there was no selection held for the purposc 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 lisl based on the merit obtained in APSP Battalions as per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules. Therefore, the settled final seniorit5r list prepared and confirmed earlier vide proceedings Rc.No.All134/2OO9, dated 18-10-2013 cannot be interfered with at this stage by the lst Respondent Commissioner of I I I I l I l4 ( Prohibition and Excise. The power to prepare and publish seniority lists is vested with the appointing authority or any other authoritSz empowered to do so by the Government or any other competent authority. This Court frnds that the l't Respondent does not have the power or authority to direct the Nodal Officers tq prepare a linal 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 hnal seniority lists ! prepared in various Districts.

18. This Court therefore, comes to a conclusion that seniority lists dated 2}-O2-2O2O prepared 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 holds that the 1"r Respondent does not have 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' Ig- The proceedings of Respondent No.1, vide Cr.No.O2 / 2O I I I CPE I 82 dated: 28-0 1 -2O2O ard consequential proceedings vide Rc No. A1/90/2O20 dated 2O-O2-2O2O of Respondent No.2 are set aside' Respondents are directed to forthwith consider the cases ol petitioners for promotion to the l5 post of prohibition and excise head constables as per the seniorit5z list basing the age as criteria in the existing vacancies.

21. This Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. To, \ //TRUE COPY//

1. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Bhavan, NamPallY Road, HYderabad SD/- T.VIJAY KUMAR E PIJTY REGIST SECTION OFFICER \ of l-elangana, Abkari

2. The District Prohibition and Excise officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

3.TheDeputyCommissionerofProhibitionandExcise,Adilabad,Adilabad District.

4. The Principal Secretary, Prohibitio.n 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 Services-I, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad lOUTl T.TwoCCstoGPforProhibition&Excise'HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad. [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies MP BS I HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ,} ;:' iL. {tl \. o t 17 iut{ llE o :qtcH'r0 a ('. t ORDER WP.No.8995 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ Lxl6@r