Atmakur Fire Station, Mahaboobnagar District v. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Krishna Prasad, Age

P. Chondroioh S/o.Mclloioh, Aged 43 yecrs Diiver Operolor, Office of the Fire Stotion, peddopolly, Korimnogor Dir;lrici. Bhukyo Shivoji S/o.Vasrom, Aged 48 yecrs Driver Operoior. Office oi the Fi.e Sioiion, Huzoornagqr, r 20 2i 2-2-- M. Veeresh S/o.Ihimmoppo, Aged 47 yeors, Driver Operofor, Office of the Fire Stolion, T.D. Gutlo, Mohoboobnogor Dislrict. A. Murolidhor Reddy S/o.A. Nogi Reddy. Aged 54 yeors, Driver Operotor. Office of lhe Fire Stotion, Mohoboobnogor. Mohoboobnogor Districl. S.K. Foisuddin S/o. Kholeeluodin, Aged 42 yeors. Driver OPerotor, Office of the Fire Stotion, Sottupolli. Khommom Diskict -) (Resoondent Nos.1O to 22 are impleaded as per Court order dated )ilriiiirli, Vii" ia.fuo.i or 2022 in WP.No'30s41 ot 2012t. ...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe 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 WritofCertioraricallingfortherecordsrelatingtotheordermadeino-A.No. T3T5o,f2003datedl3loTl2ol2bytheHon,bleAndhraPradeshAdministrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and quash the same as contrary to Law and erroneous' lA NO: 1 oF 2021 PetitionunderSectionl5,tCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to receivetheWritaffidavitfiledinWPNo.344lsl2ol2asadditionalmaterial papers in the main writ petition, in the interest of justice' : i i I --.--L EK 4 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012( WVMP. NO:3787 OF 2012 Between: Andhra Pradesh Fire and Emergency Services Association C/o Fire Station Gowliguda Hyderabad Rep By its President Janagama Raj Kumar S/o Sattaiah. ...PETITIONEFYPROPOSED RESPONDENT AND 1 V.Srinivasa Rao, son of Krishna Prasad, aged about 44 years, Occupation Driver operator, Fire Station, Snarikal, S.P.Road, Secunderabad. C.H.Rami Redcy, son of Nagi Reddy, aged 51 years, Occupation Driver Operator, Fire Station, K.T.P.S. Paloncha, Khammam District. P.Satyanarayana, son of P.Sailoo, aged 54 years, occupation Driver operator, Fire Station, Banswada, Nizamabad Dist. P. Lakshminarayana, son of Bapu, aged about 45 years, Occ Driver operator, Fire Station, Sirpur Kagaznagar, Adilabad District. ...PETITIONERS IN W.P./RESPONDENTS M.Chennakeshvulu, working as Leading Firemen, O/o A.P. Fire Station, Dharmavaram, /\nantapur District. (Not necessary party to the instant W.P. As the O.A. was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order of the Tribun al dt.911212011 in O.A.No.7376 Of 2008). B.Adiseshaiah, 'rvorking as Firemen, O/o A.P. Fire, Station, Kalyanadurgam, Anantapur District. The Secretary Crovernment of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Home (Prison-A) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 a 4 5 o 7 The Director Gereral of Fire Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 8 I 10.Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Represented by its Registrar. The Regional Fire Officer, S.R., Ananthapur, Ananthapur Districl. ...RESPONDENTS IN W.P./ RESPONDENTS Petition under {lection 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to dismiss the W.P.No.3058'1 of 2012 by vacating the interim orders dated 26-9-2012 in WPtvlP No. 39023 of 2012 in Wp No. 30581 of 2012. 5 lA NO: 1 OF 2O2A BETWEEN ra", 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 P.Govind, S/o. Galaiah, Age; 39 years, working as Firemen, Panjagutta Fire Station, Hyderabad. A.Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, Age: 35 years, working as Leading Firemen, Miryaleguda Fire Station, Nalgonda District. E.Raj.u, S/o. Sarjeeva, Age: 39 years, working as Firemen, Secretariat Fire Statior-r, I{yderabad. Y.Sudhakar, S/o.Yadagiri, Age: 31 years, working as Firemen, CLB Fire Station, I{yderabad. R.Adarsh, S/o. R.Lingam, Age: 35 years, working as Firemen, Assembly Fire Station, Flyderabad. MD Gouse Pasha, S/o. Abdul Khareem, Age: 34 years, workin65 as Firemen, Atmakur Fire Station, Mahaboobnagar District. .... Petitioners /Respondents And V. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Krishna Prasad, Age: 51 years, Occ: Driver operator, Fire station, Snarika.l, SP Road, Secunderabad. C.H.Ra-uri Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, Age: 58 years, Occ: DriVer operator, Fire Station, KTPS, Paloncha, Khammam District. P. Satyanarayara, S/o. P.Sailoo, I J i I i I I I I I I ,l I 4 D 6 7 8 Age: (>2 year-s, Occ: Driver operator, Fire Sitation, Bansrvada, Nizamabad District. P. La 1<shminarayana, S/o. Bapu. Age: Ii2 vears, Occ: Driver operator, Fire Sitation, Sirpur Kagaznagar, Adilairad District. ... Respondents / petitioners M. Ch,:nnakesh.,rrlu; working as Leading Firemen, O/o .\ P. Fire Station, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur Distri:t, (r'rot necessary party to the instant WI, As the OA uras dlsmissed as withdrawn vide order of the Tribunal dt: 9-12-'.2071 in OA No.7376 of 2008). B.Adir;eshaiah, working as Firemen, O/o. ,\.P. Fire Station, Kalyandurgam, Analthapur District. The Government of Andhra pradesh. Rep b.r its Secretary, Home (persin A) Department, Secretariar, Flyderabad. The D Lrector General of Fire Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 9 The Rr:gional Fire Officer, SR, Anant--rapur, Analtha pur District. 10 Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Repres;ente:d by its Registrar. ...Respondents / Respondents Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to permit the petitioners t(r come on record as respondent No.7 to 12 by impreading them as respondent in the writ petition. T I I I i I I 7 IANO:1O F 2022 BETWEEN Between r) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Ponogonti Sridhor S/o. f . Romolingom, Aged 45 yeors ,Driver OPerolor, Oifice of the Fire Stoiion. Secunderobod. Telongono Stote Disoster Response & Fire service Deportment. Secunderobod. P. Probhokor S/o Shonthoioh, Aged 46 yeors, Driver OPerotor, Oifice of the Fire Slotion, Sodoshivpet, SonogoreddY District. G.R. Vijoy Kumor S/o G.S. Romnoth. Aged 56 Yeors, Driver OPerotor, Office of the Fire Slolion, Achompet, Nogerkurnool Dlslrict. S. Kishon S/o.S.Anthoioh, Aged 54 yeors, Driver OPerotor, Oifice of the Fire Slotion. Noroyonkhed, Songoreddy Districl. K. Yodogiri S/o.Achoioh, Aged 59 yeors. Driver OPerotor, Office of the Fire Stotion. Nokrekol, Nolgondo District. Abdul Homeed S/o. Munot, Aged 44 yeors, Driver OPerolor, Office of the Fke Stotion, Devorokondo, a--=-,!-lY---' L 7) 8l e) l/d.-lehongeer S/o.Md.Shoreef. /\ged 42 yeors, Driver OPerotor ()ftice of the Fire Slotion, Godwol. (lodwol District. ,\. Rovi S/o. A- Norosoioh, lged 47 Yeors, Driver Operotor, ,f ifice ol the Fire Stolion. Moncheryolo ). Chondroioh S/o.Molloioh, Aged 43 yeors, Driver OPerot'cr, 3ffice of the Fire Slotion, Peddopolly. (orimnogor Dlslricl. l0) Bhukyo Shivoji S/o.Vosrom, Aged 48 Yeors, Driver OPerotor, Olfice of the Fire Stotion, Huzoornogor, I I ) M. Veeresh S/o.Thimmoppo, Aged 47 Yeors. Driver OPerotor, Office of the Flre Slotion, T.D. Gutto, Mohoboobnogor District. 12) A. Murolidhor Reddy S/o.A. Nogi Reddy, Aged 54 Yeors. Driver OPerotor, Oflice of the Fire Stolion, Mohoboobnogor, Mohoboobnogor District. t3) AND r) S.K- Foisuddin S/o. Kholeeluddin, Aged 42 yeors, Driver Operotor. Office of the Fire Stolion, Sottupolli, Khommom Dislrict ...-. Pelitioners/ Proposed Respondent No. l0 to 22 M Chennokeshvulu Working os Leoding Firemen, O/o. A.P. Fire Slotion, Dhormovorom, Anontopur District, Nol necessory porty lo the lnsiont W P os'fhe O A wos dismissed os withdrown Vrde Order of the Tribunol dt . 9112/201 I in O'A l'10.7316 o'2008. i !{ 'I: .:. r.-al _ tfFad:Gr;- I l, 1i i I 1 I 2) 3l 4) s) 6) 7) 8l e) 9 B. Adiseshoioh, working os Firemen, O/o. A.P. Fire Slolion. Kolyonodurgom. Anontapur Dislrict- The Governmenl of Andhro Prodesh, Represented by its Secretory, Home Prison- A Deportment, Secretoriol, Hyderobod. The Director Generol of Fire Services, Andhro Prodesh. HYderobod. The Regionol Fke Officer S.R., Anonthopur, anonthoPur oistrict. Andhro Prodesh Adminiskotive Tribunol, Represented by its Regislror, Andhro Prodesh Flre ond Emergency Services Associollon. C/o. Fire Stofion Gowligudo, Hyderobod, Rep. by its Presideni Jonogomo Roi Kumor S/o.Sottoioh (RZ is impleoded os per Court Order doled 2l.l 1.2013 in WPMP No.42469 of 2012) 't,t Andhro Prodesh Stote Disoster Response, Fire Services Associotion, Rep. by its Presideni K. Sukhodev S/o.Subbo Roo, Age 54 Yeors Andhro Prodesh Stote Disosler Response, Fire Services Associolion, B Romu Noidu S/o. Lote Peddi Noidu, Age 53 Yeors. Generol Secretory, (R B ond 9 ore impleoded os per Court order doted 16'122016 in WPMP No.48s4l2015) . -... Respondenls/ResPondenis l0l V. Srinivoso Roo S/o.Krishno Prosod, Occ:Driver Operotor, Fke Stoiion Snorikol, S P. Rood. Secunderobod. I I ) C.H. Romi Reddy S/o.Nogi Reddy. Occ:Driver OPerotor Fire Stotion. l -:1,,I .i r5 l i I l a K T P S Poloncho, Khommom Dislrici 12) P-SotyonoroyonoS/o.P.Soiloo, Occ: Driver Operotor, Fire Stotion, Bonswodo, Nizomobod Dislricl. l3) P. Loxminoroyono S/o. Bopu, Occ:Driver Operolor, Fire Stotion, Sirpur Kogoznogor. Adilobod Diskicl. .. Responden ts/Writ Petitioners 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 modified interim orders dated 1010412017 granted by this Honble Court in WPMP No.39(123 ol 2012 in WP No.30581 of 2012, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 6: GP FOR SERVICES Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI M'V'S'SA| KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.8 & 9: SRI M'SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.10 to 22: SRI P'V'KRISHNAIAH counsel for the Proposed Respondents in l.A.No.1/2020: SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU I t : ! j r & 9 WRIT PETITI ON NO: 46084 0F 2022 Between: r - Fire Station, Sadashivpet, SanagaieOAy diitnci. of the Fire Station. Achampet, Nagerkurn6oi Oiitiict. Station, Narayankhed, Sanga"redOy Dlstrici. - - '1. Panaganti Sridhar, S/o. p. Ramalingam, Aged 45 years ,Driver Operator, Office of the Fire Sration, Secunderab-ad. i"fingrn, dt;t"bi;;i;;R"J;;;:" and Fire service Department, Secunderabad - 2. P Prabhakar, S/o Shanthaiah, Aged 46 years, Driver Operator, Office of the 3 gB V.rjay [umar, S/o. G.S. Rariinath, Aged 56 years, DriverOperator, Office 4' s. Kishan, s/o.S.Anthaiah, Aged 54 years, Driver operator, office of the Fire 5 K' Yadagiri. S/o.Achaiah, ls-"d 59 years, Driver operator, office of the Fire 6. AP9trt Hameed, S/o. Munaf, Aged_44 years, Driver Operator, Office of the Fire 7. rvld.Jehangeer, S/o. t\rrd. sha reef, Aged 42 years, Driver operator office of the B. A. Ravi, S/o. A. Narasaiah, Aged 47 yearc, Driver Operator, Office of the Fire 9. P- chandraiah, s/o.Ma[aiah., Aged 43 years, Driver operator, office of the Station, Mancheryala Fire Station, peddapally, Karihnigar Oisirici.-' - - -

10. Bhukya Shivaji, S/o.Vasram, Aged 4g years. Driver Operator, Office of the Station, Devarakonda, NalgonEa District. Fire Station, Gadwal, Gadwal Distr"ict. Station, Nakrekal, Nalgondai)istrict.' Fire Station, Huzoornagar, SurySpet Dist'rici. '

11. [M. V^eeresh, S/o.Thimmappa,. Aged 47 yearc, Driver Operator, Office of the Fire Sration, T.D. Gutta, tvtdhduo5unagai oiJtiicL "Ao,Hl?lfl lT,[t',{;i]t}}1'JrffS jl,^4ffi1"?"tJ:3:?,r?,Jixeroperator, 13.s.K. Faisuddin, S/o. Khareg-ruddin, Aged 42 years, Driver operator, office of the Fire Station, Sattupaili, XrrammaniDisti[f -- AND ...PETITIONERS 1 3 :1", "::lB#3ft Li,.iiE " 2nd Ftoor, potice Head duarters auiloing Hyderabad-500004. :1" if. :i iifd,:ff;"t a ry to c ove rn m e nt Ho m e ( F i re 2' The Director Generar, Teran-gana state Disaster Response and Fire services -iciD-'sritairg), iriiiil':pri 3. B. Adisheshaiah, working as Fireman Fire Station, Karyandurg, Anantapur District Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ .,.RESPONDENTS 10 rction of the Respondents 2 and 3 herein in drverting the runal dated 13loll2O12 rendered in OA No 7375 of 2008 quential proceedings issued by the Respondents 2 and 3 No.495, Home Department dated' 23t0412021 issued by and issue consequential directions directing the of Mandamus declaring i orders of the Honble Trit including all other conse herein including GO Rt. the 2nd ResPondent Respondents 2 and 3 herein to forthwith review the promotions to the post Station Fire Officers in t--rms of Note t ot Rule 3 of the Telangana State Fire a Subordinate Services Rules and consider the cases of the Petitioners and other Driver Operators to the post of Station Fire Officers against the vacancies earmarked for Driver Operators in terms of Note 1 of Rule 3 of the Telangana StateFireandSubordinateServicesRuleswitheffectfromthedateofavailability of vacancies with all consequential benefits such as seniority' etc' IAN O:2OF 2022 PetitionunderSr:ctionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in riupport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders of the Honble Tribunal daled 1310712O12 rendered in OA No.7375 of 2008 and all other consequential proceedings issued by the Respondents 2 and 3 herein including GO Rt No 495' Home Department daied, 23tO4t2021 issued by the 2nd Respondent' pending disposal of the Writ Petitio n lA NO: 3 oF 2022 Petition under Section 'l 5l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated intheaffidavitfiledinsuppodofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto direct the Respondents 2 and 3 herein to consider the cases of the Petitioners andotherDriveroperurtorstopromotethemtothepostofStationFireofficersin terms of Rule 3 of th,: Telangana State Fire and subordinate Services Rules' pending disposal of tht: Writ Petition- lA NO: 4 OF 2022 Petitionunders)ectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to i r / r a.qF- 11 directtheRespondents2and3toforthwithreviewallthepromotionsmadeto the post of Station Fire Officers as per GO Rt-No 495, Home Department' dated 2110412021 in terms of Note 1 of Rule 3 of the Telangana state Fire and subordinate service Rules and consider the cases of the Petitioners and other Driver operators with effect from the date of availability of the vacancies of Station Fire officers earmarked for Driver operators as per the Note 1 of Rule 3 of the Telangana state Fire and Suboidinate Services Rules, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 3 AK:..] & LNA,J \!p 30 r81 20 12 8 u p .+61)U.+ 2O22 THE HON'BJ;E SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLIi SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Writ Petition Nos.3O581 of 2OL2 and 46O84 of 2A22 COMMON ORDER: (Per tLLe Ilon'bi. Sn.tusltcc Abhtnatkl Kunnr SIL.,uilll Both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of b1, u'av of this r:ommon order since the issue raised in both the Wrir Petitions is one and the same.

2. Both tire Wrlt Petitions are filed aggrieved bv the order passec. in O.A.No.7375 af 2OOB uide order, dated

13.O7 .2012 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. H,r'derabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') anc thcse Writ Petitionr; are filed with the 1ea're of the Court. ers thev r ere not parties before the Tribunal. 3" Heard ilri M. Srikanth, learned counsel ald Sri P.V Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the peti'ioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for official respondents and Sri M. Surender Rao, k:arned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents I I l l ; I t i F I l, 1l I : t, & wp 46084 2022 \

4. For the sake of cont enience, the facts in W.P.No.3O58 I of 2Ol2 are hereunder discusse d

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners are r,vorking as Driver Operators, whiie the contesting respondents are r.r,orking as Leading Firemen. The contesting respondents have filed O.A.No.7375 of 2008 belore the Tribunal, challenging Rule 3 of the A.P. Fire Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 (for short, 'the Ru1es,), issued ulde C.O.Ms.No.56B, dated 24.7I.1992, which pertains to the promotion of Station Fire Of{icer from the post of Driver operator. The contesting respondents contended that the post of Leaciing Firemen is superior to that of Driver Operator. Both the posts of Leading Firemen and Driver Operator are made as feeder categories for promotion to the post of Station Fire officer. The contesting respondents further contended that the post of Driver operator- a, inferior post., was considered for promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer. *.hereas, the post of Leading Firemen, being a superior post rvas equated with inferior post for promotion to the post of Station Fire rr 1: --;; t{, '-;; ..s :* '-* -). ' :ri - ;a :\A, j !1p .ll. si -101-l & \tp +(r(.84 2022 Officer and tltc Leading Firemen \\.as made to u,ork under I)river Opera tors if they aie promoted as Statior r Fire Ofiicer

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners had fLtrther contendeci r r,rt the Tribunal has allovyed the said O.A. by settrng aside the Rule-3 of the Rules, u,herein, the post of Driver Operator included in Category-4 is made as .eeder ca.tegotr. to tl- e post of Station Fire Officer u,as heid to be bad in iau ar d the same u,as set aside, therebv depriving t1-re promor:onal avenl-tes of the petitioners. Le,lrned counsel for the petitioners had further contendecl that the State has nc,t filed counter and in the absence of corrnter, the Tribunal L as set aside the Rule, u,hich is detrimental to th e Drtver Operators.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the Tribunal, has relied on para 51 1 of Chapter XXVI of A.P.Fire fic:rvice Manual, rr,,herein, it states tha the Leadir-rg Firerr en can be kept as in charge of a Sl ation during th.- lemporary absence on leave of the Station Officer. Bascrl on this the Tribunal has come ro a I! 6 AKS,.] & LNA,] \rP 30581 2Oi2 \\,P 46081_2022 conclusion that the Leading Firemen is a superior post tha. the Driver operator. Learned counser had further contended that the said observations macle b1._ the Tribunal is totally erroneous, as the pay scales of Leading firemen and the Driver Operator are one and the same and both the posts are made as feeder categon. lor promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer. Additionally, after successf.uliy completing four months of training, Driver Operators are equaily qualifieri and thel' are not less inferior to that of Leading Firemen. Therefore, the Tribunal rvas nor justified in setting aside the Rule 3 of the Rules.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that if the Rule is struck dor.l,,n and Driver Operators are removed from the feeder category. then the1. would be ieft vl.ifh no promotional avenues. Learnecl counsei for the petitioners had retied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dwarka prasoid and. others u. Union of Indiat, ,nvherein, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the fixation of quotas or ' izoo:.y o scc ::5 i l 7 AKS ,] & LNA,J \\p 30.81 20i2 & !{,p -+6(.34 2022 different av.lrues and ladders for promotion in favcur of rrarious catcgories of posts in feeder cadres based upon the structure atrci pattern of the Department is a prerogative of the emplor er. In ihe instant case, the State Goverement has framed t-rc Rules making Leading Firemen and Driver Operator as leeder category for promotion to the post of Station Fire (lflicer. The Tribunal could not have sei aside the Rule, u,herein, the Driver Operator lvas included in the feeder cateqcn' for promotion to the post of Statio n Fire OfIicer. There fore. appropriate orders be passed by the Writ Petitions bv s;etting the order, dated 13.07.20i2 passed in O.A.No.7375 oI 2008 by the Tribunal and alloq, th,: Writ Pe titions

9. Lrn the other hand, learned Senior Counsel f:r the contesting re sponcients had contended that the post of Leading Fircnen is included rn Catetory-3, whereas, Driver Operator is ncluded in Category-4, which demons:trates that the Drirrer Operator is an inferior post. Learned tlenior Counsel had further contended that the State has treated un -equais i1s equals and the Tribunal was justif:ed IN I 8 AKS,J & LNA,J rvp 30581 2012 & wp 46084 2022 Act,) ailor,r.ing the O.A. in favour of the contesting respondents. Learned counsel further contended that Section 2 (m) of the Telarlgana Fire Services Act, i999 (ior short, ,the clearl_y states that rvhen the Officer in_charge of F.ire Station is absent from the station or unable to discharge due to iliness or other cause to perform his duties, then the lire officer next in rank to such officer shall perform his duties. As such, whenever the Station Fire Ollicer is not availabie, then the Leading Firemen w_i1l ta1<e the charge to control the Fire Station. Learned counsel had further contended that the Act defines "Service" as the fire seMce established and maintained under the Act Admittedl)', the State Government has not framed any ne\.\,. Rules foilou.ing the promulgation of the Act The existing Rules n.ere issued under Go.Ms.No.568, dated 24.77.1992 and remained of the ,{ct stipulates that the apporntment of members of the ser-v-ice, r.vhere the Director General or such other officer of the services as the Government may authorise in this behalf may appoint members of the service in accordalce u,ith the Ruies macle there under this Act Ho\^/ever, since no nerr", Ruies harre unaltereci. Section 6 9 AK!.J & LNA,J !\.p 3C.;8I 20 I 2 t. \np 16084 2022 been framed undcr the Act, the appointments conti.nue to be governcc b1- outdated provisions. Learned Senior Counsel had iirrtl-rer contended that the Leading F;remen ."r,ou1d be g-:-ting their promotions at the fag end of their career, u.her:as, Lhe Driver Operators are being promoted to the post c,f Station Fire Officer ahead of the contesting respondents (Leading Firemens), that necessitated the contesting rrrspondents to challenge Rule-3 of the Rules and the Trjbunal rvas justified in coming to a conclusion that Lu1 eqlrtLls rvere treated as equals. The post of Driver Operator, 1;r:ing an inferior post than that of Leading Firemen is nadc as feeder category for promotion to the post of Statior-r Fire Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal alter examining ltLc qualifications of Leading Firemen and the Driver Opeiator has come to a conclusion that the Driver Operator is an inlerior post ald also concluderl that equating ttrivcr Operators rvith Leading Firemen and making the t)rii,er Operator as a feeder category to tl-re next promotional tost of Station Forest Ofhcer u,as improPer. ::10:: AK5,] & LNA,.,J lr.p 30531 2Ot 2 wp 46Oa4 2a22 &

10. Learned Senior Counsel had further clrawn attention to Rule i6 of A.p. Fire ald Emergency Operatrons and Lery of Fee Rules, 20O6, wherein, it specifies that members of the fire service shall act in accordance with the procedure and attendalce at Fire Station as provided under Chapter XXIX of the A.p. Fire Service Malual and moreover, the members of fire service not beiow the rank of Station Fire Officer and officer in charge of the fire station ancl the Leading Firemen, in cases where the Station Fire Officer is absent shall act in accordance with Chapter XXVII of the Malual. A perusal of the Rule_16 of A.p. Fire and Emergency Operations and Ler.y of Fee Rutes makes it clear that if the Station Fire Officer is not available then, the Leading Firemen takes charge of the Station Fire Officer, u.hich clearly indicates that the Leading Firemen is superior than that of Driver Operator. Therefore, the Tribunal u.,as iustified in setting aside the Rule-3 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.56g, ciated 24.11.7992, to the extent of making the Driver Operator as feeder category for to the post of Station Fire Officer. Therefore, .* ..-O.o-o,ron ::111: AK5,J t. LNA,J \\'p 3O5t 20I2 & rtp.1608'1 2022 I t-. i I there are no m3rits in both the Writ Petitions and the sarne are liable to be dismissed'

11. This Ccurl. having considered the submissions lnade bl, both the parties is oi the view that the Tribunal \\''as not justified in setting aside Ruie 3 of the Rules in the absence of counter lroln the State Government' The Tribunal could not have colr(l to a conclusion that the Driver Operator is an inferlor post than the Leading firemen The issue as to whether fixir-rii the ratio or feeder categories is concc:rned' the Honourairle Supreme Court in the case of Duarka Prasad's cas,e has held that the fixation of quotas or providing different avenues ald ladders for promotion in lavo ur of varirus categories of posts in feeder cadres based upon the structlrre and pattern of the Departmen t is a prerogative c f the employer' Admittediy' in the instant case, it is eviCent that the State, in its wisdom' considered the posts cf Leading Firemen and the Driver Operato' to be equivalent arLcl therefore, included both the posts as feeder categorv for promotion to the post of Station Fire Ofhcer' Therefore. tL e Tribunal \'vas not justified in setting' aside a i:12:i AKS, J & LNA,J tvp_30581 2012

8. wp 46084 2022 the Rule-3 of the Rules as issued in G.O.Ms.No.56g, dated

24.11.1992, to the extent of making Driver Operator as a feeder category for promotion.

12. The contention of the contesting respondents that new Rules have to be framed in accordance w.ith Act is concerned, it is always for the State Government to frame appropriate Rules in accordance with the Act. Section 2 (p) of the Act, mandates that "Service,, refers to the fire senice established and maintained under the Act. Therefore, the State Government is directed to examine the Rules and formuiate the Rules required uncler the Act. Whiie framing these nern, Ruies, it is ahvays open for the State to stipulate the feeder category for promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer, taking all relevant cases into consideration. The Tribunal could not have set aside Rule_3 of the Rules, thereby taking away the promotionai avenues of the Driver Operator. Therefore, the order, dated 13.07.2012 passed in O.A.No.7375 oi 2008 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside and the State Government is directed to examine this matter and framc the Rules under :: l3:: AKS,J & !NA, ] sp 30581 2012 rvp.+t3084 2022 a I i. the Act in acc rrdance u'ith the lau', as expeditiousir' AS possibie

13. With tl-resre observations/ directions, both lhese Wrlt Petitions are clisposed of. No order as to costs As a sec1uel, miscellaneous applications pending if an1 . shail stan 1,losed. SD/. V HARI PRASAD REGTSTRAR ASSIST //TRUE COPY// S ON OFFICER N1 Evcrl one Fair copy to -ir::[.,:'i:51*$tJJ,?.=rX""TrNAND KUMAR sHAvrLr To, Gouern."nt of Telang^ana H[ i]!1ii,t ?!,'#yl ]ii *A N A A L I s H ErrY l The Secretary, Home (Prison-A) Department' Secretariat' Hyderabad' ' a+i:E[:Ji!F'i&".8*sri"x,ilffi ,Fiti{i$Itrfi7 j[:",.FreAnd a The Reqlstrar, Anc'lhra l- ei[i'Js'#:1ru:xg:*lls'ffiir],""*i"--'iq:ffi s;."-81;,,,", 6 The President K surnadev' Sio Subba Rao Anon " R;";";;-d iire services Association e Services, Telangana. Hvderabad. r " * ": f; t",:11 3 i.?'&'j,",i 3; ffi '- t!'{'fi{;!i:'5;:fl ,. : : " :::: / ' Ii;, a Tho prin.inrt secretarv'i3"6;"!;;""i Home (Fire Services) Department ;;l:'+t:l![qqdh"',"Jqi#n',1'mnrr"[58"3,]ffi "T:i:?':."#;:i as Fireman Fire station' Kalvandurs' Anantapur ,to Elt",l*n1o#3fl11 "*,"n 11.11 LR Copies r ,-r:^ rr;6icr^, nf I aw Justice and Company 12.The Under Secretary' Union of lndia' lVinistry of Law' Justice and Company ,r.+[f:U:y"';]ii"'"n'"' Advocates Association Library' High court District. Buildinqs, HYderabad' q{,,i,i,r,,i-,".r,,,*unnun,,, iiffi lt.13.g31ffiffi,65ffi ," +*f$t'l"8tJ to* HoME' Hish court ror the state or relansana at zl.two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUT] BSR - clp !1r HIGH COURT DATED: 22tO1t2O2S \ \ j<' -9 ,li , L i, I ,,ii :!:,7 "s t/ 'a' COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.30581 of 2012 and 46094 of 2022 1i Jtl-l rt: DISPOSING wTHouT cosTs OF B H THE wRtT PETtrtoNs, ZacoSnA {*,