N. Uday Reddy v. 1. State of Telangana

Order

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filcd seeking the following reliet "...ro issue a Wi\ Order or Direction, more particularlg, one in the nqture of WRIT OF TVIANDAMUS bg declaing the final sentoritg list issued in G.O.Ms.No.74 Home (Ser.l) Department dated 29.12.2022 as illegal and arbttrary and contrary to the rules and the law laid. tloun bg the Hort'ble Suprerne Court anrd further declore lhot the Petitioner is entitted to be placed at Sl.No.96 instead of SLNo.176 and further consider lhe co.se of the Petitioner for promotion anrd po.ss...'

2. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Scrvices (Home), on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.3. In spite of service of notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5, there was no representation on their behalf.

3. 1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a notification in thc erstwhile statc of Andhra Pradesh, vide Notihcation No.18/201 1 dated 2A.O7.2OlI, inviting applications for Group-I l\. (} 2 PK, J w.P.No.l0184 of 2023 Services, which included the post of Dcputy Superintendent of police - Civil (category-ll) in the Andhra Pradesh police Servicc. As such, in pursuance of the same, the petitioner submit-tcd his appiication, Subsequently, after a prolonged litigation, the selections were Irnalized during October, 2017, and the petitioner herein was selected as Deput5r Superintendent of Police (Civil). However, despitc the petitioner's selection, his appointment order was undulv delayed and was issued only during January, 2O 18, and the entire recruitment was delayed only due to the fault of the authoritics. It wzrs lurthcr submitted that a provisional seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police, dated 25. 1 1 .2022, was issued by the respondents, wherein, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No. 176, i.e., well Lrelow the promotees who have actually been appointed temporarily, and thus, the same is illegal and arbitrary. It was also submitted that the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are placed at Sl.Nos.96, 97 and 98 respectively, have been made parties in their representative capacity, as they are the f-rrst three persons over and above whom the petitioner is entitled to bc placed in the seniority list.

3.2. It rvas further submitted that at the time ol bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the posts allotted to the State of Telangana were 2O9, and later, the cadre strength was shown as PK, J W.P.No-1O184 of 2O23 242, out of which, 1/3rd posts have to be filled in by Direct Recruitment. The Rule specifically prescribes the Roster for Direct Recruitment, viz., l"t, 4th and 7rh out of l0 vacancies. Furthel, while filing up the vacancies, Ruje 6 of the Telalgana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, has to be followed, and all the vacancies arising in that particular year have to be calculated and the eligibiiity of a person for promotion has to be assessed as on the commencement of panel year, i.e., lsr September of the year, and a person fully quaiified and eligible to be promoted by 31st August of the panel year, is to be considered for promotion during the panel year. Here, no year-wise panels have been prepared taking into consideration all the arising vaca,cies in that particular year and a1l

the promotees have been bunched together without assigning them the panel years. Further, in 2017, a review of the cadre was undertaken and the cadre strength has been increased to 312, in which,94 vacancies are to be filled in by Direct Recruitment, and 21g vacancies have to be hlled in by promotees. While preparing the senioritlr list, the cadre strength itself has not been determined and the vacancies arising year-wise, have also not been calculated. As such, it was contended that the entire action of the respondents is in clear violation ofthe Statutory Rules. 4 PK, J W.P.No.10184 of 2023

3.3. [t was further submitted that the seniority list has not been prepared from the year 2014 as was directed by this Court. In fact, the entire quota has been wrongly worked out and the $romotees have been given promotions in excess of their quota. Further, the promotions given on ad hoc basis cannot be counted for seniority. Therefore, il is no longer res integra that where the initial ad hoc promotion was not in accordance with the rules, seniority would have to be determined from the date of regularization and not from the date of initiation entry. However, unfortunately, the promotees who were promoted on ad hoc basis have been brought over and put in a bunch over the petitioner, affecting his seniority.

3.4. It u.as further submitted that as per the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005, vide Rc.No.724lRTl /2022 dated 12..12.2022, no regular promorions had been taken up and all the affected promotions were on ad hoc basis only, without conferring any rights to the promotces. Therefore, in view of the specific disclosure, the question of confcrntent of seniority to those promotees from 2017, over and above the petitioner is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Further, the petitioner has submitted his objections to the seniority list dated 25. 11.2022, on 03. 12.2022, wherein, hc had pointed out that his rights over promotion as 5 PK, J W.P.No.1O184 of 2O23 crystallized in the year 2013 itself or at least in 20'17 , when the selections were finalized, and also pointed out that the time spent in the Courts could not have been held against the petitioner, especially, when the delay is due to the fautt of the respondents. It was further submitted that Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, has been violated, and preparation of panel has not been done, as mandated by the Rules, and the recruitment rules issued in G.O.Ms.No. 157 dated 01.06.1998, have also not been followed, and that the entire exercise of seniority has been undertaken without first determining the cadre strength. It was further pointed out in his objections that the promotees, who have been appointed in excess of their quota, cannot be granted seniority. Hence, he is entitled to be placed at S1.No.96, instead of Sl.No. 176, as shown in the provisional seniority list.

3.5. However, without considering any of thc aforesaid objections of the petitioner, the respondents have issued the impugned final seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.72.2022, placing the petitioner at S1.No.176. It was further submitted that it is well-settled law that a seniority list could not have been finalized without considering the objections. Hence, the action of the respondents in brushing aside the objections of the petitioner, 6 PK, J W.P.No.1O184 of 2023 r\ without actually considering that the promotees were given promotion on ad fnc basis only but not regularly, and that they were neither put on probation nor were they confirmed in that cadre, is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the main objection of the petitioner that year- wise panels have not been prepared and year-wise vacancies have also not been calculated, have also not been considered at all, and all his objections were unjustly rejected, and said action will upset the balance between the direct recruits and the promotees. As such, the said rejection is clearly illegal and arbitrary.

3.6. It u'as further submitted that the appointment of promotees was on ad hoc basis and no vacancies were available for promotees at that point of time, as the posts were created only subsequently. Therefore, the promotees cannot be assigned the dates, which had no vacancies meant for their quota. Further, neither a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was conducted nor panels were prepared by the Screening Committee before the promotions were affected. The entire newly sanctione<l vacancies have been hlled in by the promotees, and then, the action ol the respondents in regularizing the services of such promotees with retrospective dates is clearly illegal and arbitrary. l PK, J W.P.No.1O1a4 of 2O23

3.7 . It was further submitted that the seniority list was prepared without actually determining the cadre strength and the year-wise vacancies, and even without preparing the panels fol each year, the seniority list was finalized. Further, the Honble Apex Court, in Amit Singh u. Ro'vlndra Nath Pandag and othersl, held that in any year of recruitment, appointments are to be made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, and that regular promotions shall not be made unless the selections are made from both the sources. Likewise, in Aruinder Singh Bains u. State ol Puniab and others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held it mandatory to apply the rota and quota rule while determining the seniority where the same is provided for under the Rules. rota arrd quota must necessarily be reflected in the seniority list and any seniority list prepared in violation of the rota and quota rule is bound to be negated. However, in the present case, the respondent authorities failed to notice that the recruitment process was completed by the year 2014, and the issualce of appointment order to the petilioner was unduly delayed due to the administrative lapses on their part alone. Therefore, the petitioner is legally entitled for seniority over and above the temporarily promoted caldidates. l (2022) 20 SCC s59 2 (2006) 6 SCC 673 PK, J W.P.)\o.10184 ol2023

3.8. It rvas lurther submitted that the Hon,ble Apex Court, in a catena ofjudgments, has also emphasized the need for preparation of year-wise panels, by including all the persons who are qualified that year. It was arso held that the Departmentar promotion Committee calnot bunch together the vacancies for all the years, as this would result in enlarging the field of choice for the purpose of selection. It was further submitted that in the present case, all the promotees have placed en bloc without reference to the panel year. Thus, the said action of the respondents is clearly illegal, arbitrary, ald contrary to law. Thereforc, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned final seniority list vide G.o.Ms.No.74, Home (Services I) Department, dated 29.12.2022.

3.9. In support of his submissions/contentions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Hontrle Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.S966 of 2O2l dated O8.12.2021 and in Antinder Slngh Bains (supra).

4.1. On the other hand, learned Government pleader for Home (services), appearing on beharf of respondent Nos. l and 2, submitted regarding the rt:cruitment to Group_l Services, that insofar as all the 9 PK, J W.P.No.10184 of 2023 other departments are concerned, the appointment orders to the selected candidates were issued in the year 2O17 itself, after completion of verification of original documents, whereas, jn the Home Department, the appointment orders \i/ere issued on

20.Ol.2ola to the petitioner herein and another candidate. Further, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission published Notification No. 18/2O11 dated 28.11.2011, notifying 263 vacancies in Group-l services, among which, 5 posts were Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), and had finalized the selections and communicated the list of selected candidates to the Government vide Letter No.617/RS-1/GR- I I 2016 dated 15. I 1 .2017 , and requested the Government to verify the antecedents and original certificates, and to issue the appointment orders only after being fully satished with the particulars of the caldidates. Hence, there was a gap of only two months from the datc of communication to the date of issuance of ttre appointment orders, which cal be construed as the period required for verification of antecedents ald certifrcates, by communicating to the respective zones/ schools/colleges and universities. Therefore, there was no abnormal delay.

4.2. It was further submitted that the senioritv list of Inspectors of Police of seven ranges issued in the united Andhra l 10 PK, J w.P.No.10184 of 2023 Pradesh vide G.O.Rt.No'S4 dated 22.02.2014 ended in dispute' Consequently, the seniority list issued in the category of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil), Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) and Superintendent of Police (NC) based on the senioriry list of the Inspectors could not be operated for the purpose of allocation of State-cadre officers between states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana till the year 2020. Therefore, to meet the administrative agencies, ad hoc promotions were affected from time to time in the categories of Superintendent of Police (NC), Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), subject to the issuance of a rectified integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil), and in the higher categories by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and also subject to hnal a.llocation of the personnel between the two States based on the said seniority lists.

4.3. Further, as per the interim orders dated 19-09'2017 in W.P.No.9654 of 2016 and batch, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the cadre controlling authority till 01.06.2014, issued the following comLrincd seniority lists in the categories as noted against each, up to 0l .06.2014: 11 PK, J W.P.No.1O1B4 of 2023 G.O.Ms.No.153, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 05.10.2018 - State-wide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Police (Civil) of Andhra Pradesh and Telalgala. G.O.Ms.No.187, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 29.1I.2078 - Final Combined Seniority List of Deputy ..Superintendbn tsof Police (Civil)(Direct Recruits and Promotees), G.O.Ms.No. 197, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 12.12.2018 - Seniority List of Additional Superintendents of Police (NC) of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states for the panel years from 1988-89 to 2Ol3-14. G.O.Ms.No.20O, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 14.12.2078 - Seniority List of Superintendent of Police (NC) of Andhra Pradesh and Telargana states for the panel years from 1995-96 Lo 2013-14.

4.4. Further, as per the interim orders of this Court dated

18.08.2020 in W.P.No.4139 of 2O2O, the Government has made hnal allocation of State cadre employees in the category of Superintendent of Police (NC), Additional Superintendent of Police (NC) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), based on the above seniority list issued by the Gover-nment of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the seniority list of Telangana offrcers in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) issued vide G.O.Ms.No.187 dated

29.71.2OIa, was communicated to the individuals vide Memo.Rc.No.4O8 /G3 /2O2O-1 dated O8.12.2O2O, which was up to the period of 2010-11 panel years on1y. Therefore, the petitioner's name t2 PK, J \L'.P.No.10184 of 2O23 did not figure in the list as claimed by him, as he was appointed in the year 2018 only.

4.5. Further, this Court, vide order dated 2l.l2.eO2O in W.P.No.14878 of 2O2O, permitted the respondents to undertake only regular promotions to the posts of Additional Superintendents of Police (NC) and Superintendent of Police (NC), conferred IpS arrd Ex _ cadres. Therefore, to enable to affect regular promotions to the above categories, the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.247, Home (Ser.I) Department, clated lO.O2.2O2l, has constituted a Screening Committee to streamline tlne ad hoc promotions issued in the categories of Superintendents of police (NC) and Additional Superintendents of Police (NC) in the Telangana state from 2014 onwards. Thereafter, the Committee constituted by the Government, after examining the posts allotted to Telangana State during bifurcation and the posts sanctioned subsequently in both the above categories from time to time in Telangala State and the service record of each individual, has made its recommendations for inclusion of eligible officers in the year wise panels from 2013-14 (part) to 2019_

20. Subsequently, the recommendations of the Screening Committee were accepted by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 23.03 .202 I , and all the ad hoc promotions in the categories of I I 1) PK, J W.P.No.1O184 of 2023 Superintendent of Police (NC) and Additional Superintendent of police (NC) were regularizecl from the panei years 2O14_lS (part) to 2O7g_2O, from the respective lower categories as per the G.O. s issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh ald assigned dates in the vacancies existing in Telangana state from 02.06.2014 till 31.0g.202O vide G.O.Ms.Nos.37 and 38, both dated 26.03.2021. Thereafter, regular promotions to the above categories were also completed in the palel yearc 2O2O-21 .

4.6. It was further submitted that the seniority list issued by the Government of Andhra pradesh in three categories, i.e., Superintendent of Police (NC), Additional Superintendent of police (NC) and Deputy Superintendent of police (Civil) were up to O1.06.2O14 only. Hencc, the Government of Telangana, in the above G.O.s, has regularized the ad Lnc promotions already given from 2014 onwards in Tclangana State as per seniority and eligibility of the caldidates and also affected regular promotions to the categories of Superintendent of Police (NC) and Additional superintend.ent of poiice (NC) in the panei years 2O2O-27, as ordered by this Court in its order dated 21.12.202O in W.p.No. 14878 of 2O2O, and as of now, the process of affecting promotions to the above categories, i.e., Superintendent of Police (NC) and Additionar superintendent of police I n 1,4 PK, J W.l,.No.10184 of 2023 (NC) has been completed for the palel year 2022_23. However, in view of the interim orders of this Court dated 25.04.2O23. in the present writ petition, the promotions to the post of. Deputy Superintendent of police (Civil) could not be taken up.

4.7. Further, a similar action has been taken up to streamline the ad hoc promotions given in the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) from 02.06.2014 to 31.08.202 1, based on the above final rectified integrated seniority list of Inspectors of police (Civil) vide G.O.Ms.No. 153 dated 05.10.201g. Further, in compliance of the orders of this Court dated, 27.12.2020, to affect regular promotions to the category ol Additional Superintendent of police (NC), the seniority list of Deputy superintendents of police (civil), in continuation of G.O.Ms.No. 187 datect 29.l1.2}lg, is essential as the sarne was aiready exhausted. Hence, respondent No.2, as the appointing authority in respect of second_levei gazetted post of Deputy Superintende nt of police (Civil), has constituted a Screening Committee as per Rule 7 of the Telangana State a.rld Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, vide proceedings Rc.No.t92/G3/2022 d,ated 03.71.2022, and the Committee was instructed to scrutinize certain aspects while ma&ing the recommendations. PK, J W-P.No.10184 of2023

4.8. Accordingly, based on the irnal rectified seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil) issued in G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 05.10.2018, read with the Office Memo dated 13.O4.2022, tJle Screening Committee has recommended / prepared the year-wise panels of Inspectors of Police (Civil) vide proceedings dated 13.O4.2022, showing the candidates fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) from the panel year 2Ol3-14 (part) to 2O2O-21 in the posts allocated to Telangana State and the posts sanctioncd subsequently, after verifying the service records of each Inspector of Police. Thereafter, based on the recommendations of the Screening Committee, a provisional seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) was issued vide Memo.Rc.No.192/ G3l2022 dated 25. 11.2022, calling for objections, and in the said list, the petitioner's name was appropriately placed at Sl.No.176 as per the date oI his appointment to thc police service. Subsequently, on receipt of objections, proposals have been sent to the Government for finalization of the seniority 1ist, and the Government, after exarnining the proposals and remarks thereon, issued the frnal combined seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) (direct recruits and promotees) with affect from 02.06.2014 to 3 1.O8.2021 vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, duly disposing of all the o 76 PK, J W.P.No- 10184 of 2023 objections, inclucling the objections raised by the petitioner herein, and the sarne was communicated to all the inclividuals vide proceedings dated 30. 12.2O22.

4.9. Therefore, an elaborate exercise was undertaken by the Screening Committee by following the Service Rules, DpC Rules and the Government instructions on Roster points, duly restricting the regularization of promotions of Deputy Superintendcnts of police (Civil) only in the vacalcies that arose in promotee quota prior to the issuance of the seniority list in G.O.Ms.No.74 darerl 29.12.2022. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was illegally and arbitrarily placed at S1.No.176 in the seniority list, i.e., below gO promotees appointed on temporarJi basis, has no basis ald is incorrect. Further, the statutory rules conferred a right to the promotees to the extent of TOo/o of the sanctionecl posts under promotee quota and all those placed above the petitioner were promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of police (Civi1) and reguladzed in their quota only.

4. 10. It rvas further submitted that as per the Service Rules governing the post of Deputy Superintendent of police, issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 137 dated 01.06.1998, in a cycle of lO vacancies, 1st, 4th 17 PK, J W.P.No.1O184 of 2023 and 7th are to be filled in by direct recruitment arrd the remaining, by promotion, i.e., 3oo/o by direct recruitment and Z Oo/o by promotions. Further, the above Service Rules specified rota and quota system in the matter of filling of vacancies in the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil). It was also submitted that as per Rule 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Ru1es, 1996, to affect promotions, the panel of candidates for appointment shall be prepared by taking into account lst September as the qualifying date and on that basis, estimate the vacancies that arise from 1"t September to 31st August of the succeeding year. However, due to non-undertaking of direct recruitment on regular basis, all the earmarked vacancies in direct recruits quota are carried forward without being frlling up and are notified to the public Service Commission for filiing up the same by conducting recruitment, as and when taken up by the Government. Further, in the event, the vacancies a_re filled in by promotion on administrative exigencies, such promotions are treated to be purely on ad hoc basis without any right either for regularization of service or for counting seniority for further promotion, ald such promoted candidates are liable for reversion to lower category without arry notice. Hence, both the direct recruits and the promotees shall be shown as a bunch in the seniority 18 A PK, J lv.P. No.10184 of 2023 list by applying Rule 33(a) of the Telangana state and subordinate Service Rules, 1996, which specifies that seniority of person shall be determined from the date of his first appointment to the Service. Therefore, there is no irregularity or inhrmity in showing the promotees en bloc in the seniority list as they have occupied the posts under their quota only, and also, the published seniority list is the outcome ol year-wise panels only.

4.11. I,'urther, the Screening Committee has gone through the year-wise cadre strength of Deputy Superintendents of police (Civil) (direct recruitment and promotion quotas) and the number of individuals working and vacancies arose in the respective quotas, and only then, regularized the services of only the promoted Deputy Superintendents of police against the vacancies arose in their quota only, by keeping the direct recruitment quota unfilled. The finar seniority list does not reflect year_wise panels, except the dates assigned to the individual officers. Further, the absence of a regular recruitment against the direct recruitment quota is resulting in the carrying fonvard of vaca,cies that need to be hlled in by the public Service Commission, as and when notified, and the r()ta and quota system specified in the Service Rules is not being reflected in the final seniority list published, wherein, the direct recruits are bunched 19 PK, J W.P.No.1O184 of 2023 together with a common date of appointment to service and the promotees with their respective dates of promotion/regularization in the vacancies arose in their quota.

4.12. It was further submitted that the cadrc strength of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) allotted the State of Telangana on bifurcation, i.e., as on 02.06.2014, was 242, and subsequently, 7O posts were sanctioned in the year 2O17, due to lormation of new Rachakonda Commissionerate and re-organization of 10 Police units into 29 Police units. As per the cadre strength, the direct recruitment quota was 73 posts for thc panel year 2Ol3-74 (part) to 2016-17, and the same was increased to 94 posts from panel year 2016-17 onwards. Similarly the quota of promotees was 169 up to the panel year 2015-16 and was increased to 218 from the panel year 2016-17 onwards. Hence, the regularization of promotees was confined to 169 posts up to 2015-16, and from 2016-17, to 218 posts only. Further, prior to the recruitment of the petitioner herein as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) in the year 2O 18, the last direct recruitment was taken up in the united Andhra Pradesh ald all those who were appointed as Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) in the year 2072 h.ave already been included in G.O.Ms.No. 187 dated

29.71.2078 en bloc. Hence, the petitioner and the other individual, I :P (1 20 PK, J W.P.No.1O184 oJ 2023 appointed in the vear 2018 have been placed at their appropriate places in the impugned seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.74 dated

29.r2.2022.

4. i3. It was further submitted that as per Rule 33 (c) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, whenever notional promotion is granted, such date of notional promotion sha_ll be taken into consideration by computing the qualifving length of service in the feeder category for promotion to the next higher category and that notional service shall be counted for the purpose of declaration of probation also in the feeder category. Further, due to a delay in the bifurcation process and allotment of personnel to Telangala State, ad hoc promotions were inevitable in view of the administrative constraints which arose due to law and order situations, general elections to State Legislature, parliament, Local Bodies, etc. Further, ttre ad hoc promotions were not affected randomly but were affected initially from the approved seniority list of Inspectors of Police of three ralges of Telangana State as per the permission accorded by the Government vide Memos dated 3l.l0.20l7 and 26.06.20 18, and subsequently, from the State-wide seniority list of Inspectors of Police issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 153 dated 05.1O.2018. Thereafter, as per the orders of this Court in 21 W.P.No.10184 of2023 W.P.Nos. 14878 of 2O2O and 14O39 of 2O2O ar,d, batch, dated

21.72.2O2O and 31.12.2O2O respectively, the Government, being the competent authority has streamlined ail the ad hoc promotions in the posts sanctioned from time to time by assigning the dates of promotion as Deputy Superintendents of Police to all the individuals as per the seniority list only to the extent of promotee quota as per the seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.153 dated O5. 1O.2018, duly notifying 9 1 vacancies meant for direct recruitment to the Telangana State Public Service Commission, Hyderabad, vide Notification No.O4 /2022 dated 26.04.2022. Tlae remaining individuals who were promoted in excess of the promotee quota on administrative exigencies are being continued on od hoc basis only without any probationaqz rights and subject to reversion lower category without any notice.

4.14. lt was further submitted that as per Rule 7 of Lhe Service Rules, the period of probation of the promotee Inspectors is one year within a continuous period of two years, and as per Rule 18 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, at the end of the prescribed period of probation, the orders declaring the probation arc to be issued by the Appointing Authority, and if no such order is issued within one year from the date of expiry of the probation period, 22 PK, J W.P.No.1O184 of 2023 the probation is deemed to have completed satisfactorily with retrospective effect from the date of expiry of prescribed period of probation. Therefore, by virtue of permitting. notional dates for seniority and other service related purposes and deemcd provision existing for declaration of probation in the Service Rulcs as stated above, the probation of all the individuals included in the G.O.s is deemed to har.e been declared after completion of one vear from the respective assignecl dates of promotions as Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil).

4. 15. It u,as further submitted that the petitioner sought for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and a reply was given to him vide office letter dated 12.72.2022, as per the existing status at that point of time. Subsequenfly, the orders finalizing the seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civi1) were issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, and the objections raised by the petitioner to the provisional seniority list dated 25.11.2 O22 were disposed of at the time of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.74. Further, the petitioner was appointed to the police service as a Deputy Superintendent of police (Civil) under direct recruitment, vide G.O.Ms.No.S4 dated 19.O1.2O18, but he is claiming seniority over and above respondent No.3, who is placed at Sl.No.96, 23 PK, J W.P.No.1O184 of 2023 who was assigned the date of promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civi1), w.e.f., 01.02.2017, is itself irregular as he was not even selected as Deputy Superintendent of police as on the date of promotion assigned to respondent No.3.

4.1.6. It was further submitted that the Government, in Circular Memo.No. 16/Ser.A/93-39 dated 21.14.1999, has issued instructions specifying that the quota/rota rule is applicable oniy for the purpose of recruitment and not for the purpose of determining inter-se_ scniority. It was further submitted that out of the sanctioned strength of 312, the promotee quota of 218 has been reflected in the seniority list published in G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 29.12.2022, and initially, 42 posts were notified to the Telangana State public Service Commission lor direct recruitment vide office letter dated 1g.05.201g, with the consent of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.54, Finance Department, dated 17.05.2018, but the same was put on hold, pending issuance of the new presidential Order-201g. Subsequently, a revised indent was sent for 91 posts, out of the 94 posts under the direct recruitment quota, and the public Service Commission, in turn, issued notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022 and also conducted the preliminary examination. On their recruitment, they shall be appointed in posts meant for them. Therefore, the contention of the CI 24 PK, J W.P.No.1O184 of 2023 petitioner th,rt the promotecs occupied the direct recruitment vacancies is incorrect and devoid of facts

4.17. It \i,as further submitted that the provisional seniority tist of Deputy Superintendents of Potice (Civil) was issued after following all the Rules governing the post, and only after disposing of all the objections raised by the candidates, including that of the petitioner, the impugned final seniority list was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated

29.12.2022. Further, the probation of the petitioner, being a direct recruit, was declared as it is mandatory, whereas, all other individuals including the ones in the seniority list were promotees, and were promoted on ad hoc basis at various points of time due to pending seniority disputes, and subsequently, their promotions have been regularized by assigning notional dates in the seniority list as per their eligibility and seniority in the panel-year wise vacancies and are deemed to have completed the probation period of one year from their respectir.e dates of regularization.

4.18. It was further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police vide G.O.Ms.No.8 dated

19.O1.2018, and according to Clause 14-b of the Government Circular Memo dated 21.04.1999, the seniority of a direct recruit is to be .--a'- 25 PK, J W.P.No.10184 of 2023 determined only from the date of his joining but not from the date on which the vac€rncy earmarked for direct recruitment arose. As such, the petitioner was rightly placed at Sl.No 176 in impugned final seniority list. Further, no direct recruitment vacancy has been utilized for regularization of the services of the Deputy Superintendents of Police working against direct recruitment quota. Thus, the respondents are justified in issuihg the impugned final seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.74 dated. 29.72.2022. Therefore, there arc no merits in the present case, and it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

4. 19. In support of his submissions, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Parkash Gupta and others u. Sto:te of J&K and other*.

5. 1 In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of there being a specific quota between the direct recruits and the promotees, direct recruitment had not been taken up and only the promotees are being appointed in excess of their quota, and the need for creation a_nd lilling up of these ad hoc posts has arisen only 3 I2OOO) 7 SCC s61 n 26 PK, J W.P.NI. 10184 of 2023 because the promotee quota was itself taken up and hlled up without making any effort to take up the direct recruitment. Further, these supernumerary posts were a.ll hlled up by promotees and are now sought to be regularized in utter violation of Rule 5 of the Telangana State ald Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The said posts are selection posts and for hlling up of which year-wise panels have to be prepared. Further, the roster which prescribes that the lst, 4th and 7th vacancies will have to be filled up through direct recruitment has to be followed year wise. However, the said rules are ignored and in complete disregard to these rules, only the promotees have been appointed and on ad hoc basis.

5.2. It was further submitted that the promotions have been given to the unofficial respondent without their completing the mandatory five years of service, which is contrary to the Rules. Further, no Screening Committee was formed to send the promotion proposals to the Telangana State Public Service Commission through the Government, which is the procedure to be follor.i,ed before allecting any promotions as per Section 5 and 6, because the said post is a selection post and the above procedure is a mandatory one. It was further submitted that G.O.Ms.No. 137, which prescribes the quota, has not been followed, though it is stated that the direct recruitment 27 PK, J w.P.No.10184 of 2023 vacancies have been carried forward and in those vacancies, the promotees are being appointed on ad hac basis. Further, by citing the lack of personnel, supernumerary posts have teen created without reference to any cadre strength or to the service rules issued in G.O.Ms.No. 137, and these ad hoc pfomotions are being scrupulously regularized. Further, the counter affrdavit filed by the respondent reveals that in the year 2017, the cadre strength has been increased by 70, but only the direct recruitment vacancies have not been filled up while the vacancies of the promotees have duly been filled up.

5.3. It was further submitted that the present promotions have been hlled in without following the procedure as contemplated under Rule 5 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, hence, the said promotions have to be treated as only ad hoc. Even if year-wise panels are followed, the petitioner would have to be placed at Sl.No. 15O. However, the entire exercise of effecting promotions, without even preparing a proper seniority list is wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside, and the Circular Memo.No. 16 dated 2 1.04. 1999, cannot override the service rules in G.O.Ms.No. 137. Therefore, granting seniority to the promotees over and above the petitioner is highly illegal. It was further submitted that Rule 6 of the Telangana State arrd Subordinate Service Rules, I 28 PK, J W.P.Nct.l0184 of 2023 mandates that year-wise panels have to be prepared. However, without doing so, the respondents granted seniority to promotees by placing them over and above the petitioner' As such, the said action of the respondcnts is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

5.4. It was further submitted that as per the counter filed by respondent Nos. I and 2, the details by which the vacancies have been created and the specific orders creating those vacancies, have not been annexed. The said orders have also not been spelt out except stating that 70 posts have been created in the year 2017' In this regard, it has now come to light that 16 ACP/DSP posts, i.e., 13 Civil + 3 others, have been created vide G'O.Ms.No.159 dated 22.09.2016' while bifurcating and changing the nomenclature of the Rachakonda Police Commissionerate. It was further submitted that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 24.04.2017, had created 62 posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police, which include 57 Civil. As such, since both these G.O.s have been issued after the panel for the year 2O16-17 has been hnalized, they must be carried forward to 2O 17- 18 panel. 29 PK, J W.P.No.10184 of 2O23

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the following points arise for adjudication of this Court. (1) Whether the respondents followed Rule 3 Note 1 of the Telalgana State Police Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.137 dated O1.06- 1998 (special rules), while preparing the seniority list? (21 Whether the promotees are entitled to acquire seniority from the date of their ad hoc promotions? (3) Whether non-joinder of necessar5r party is fatal to the case or not? (4) Whether the posts created on 24.04.201'7 and 22.09-2016 by virtue of G.O.Ms.Nos.62 arrd 159, respectively can be considered for granting promotions in the panel year 2016-2017?

7. As regards Point No.l, a perusal of the record discloses that consequent upon bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, and in view of non-preparation of the seniority lists, ad hnc promotions had been granted in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civi1), without conducting any Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings, and without consulting the Public Service Commission, as mandated by the relevant m1es. Further, the services of those promotees were regularized in the year 2022 only, after the constitution a Screening Committee. ,._.. 30 PK, J W.P.No.1OlB4 of 2023

8. The primary contention of the petitioner herein is that the respondents havc prepared the year-wise par-rels in the cadre of Deputy Superintcndent of Police in blatart violation of Rule 3 Note 1 of the Special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.137 dated O1.06. 1998. The relevant Rule reads as under: "3. Method of Appointment: Note-1: In every cycle of ten vacalcies, the appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall be as follorvs, namely: 1"t vacancy 2",lvacancy 3.d vacancy 4th vacancy 5& vacancy 6tI vacalcy 7ft vacancy 8ti vacancy 9ti vacancy 1otn vacancy .by .by ... by .. by .by .by .. by .by Direct Recruitment Promotion Promotion Direct Recruitment Promotion Promotion Direct Recruitment Promotion Promotion Promotion"

9. From a reading ofthe above Rule, it is evident that a rota-quota system is prescribed, wherein, 30% of posts are earmarked for direct recruits and 7Oo/o for the promotees, arld the rotation of vacancies for every block of ten vacalcies is clearly specified as lst, 4th, ancl 7th vacarcies being allocated for direct recruitment.

10. Further, while filling up the vacancies, the procedure outlined under Rule 6 of the Telangala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, must be scrupulously followed. As per the sai<I Ru1e, all the I 31 PK, J W.P-No.10184 of 2023 vacancies arising in a particular year must be calculated and the eligibility of the caldidates for promotion must be assessed as on the commencement of the panel year, i.e., 1"t September of Jhe year. However, in the instant case, no material has been placed on record to substantiate that proper year-wise panels have been prepared and the vacancies arising each year had been properly ca-lculated while affecting promotions.

11. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arainder Singh Balns (supra), wherein, it was held that the seniority must be determined by strictly adhering to the established rota and quota systems so as to ensure a fair and equitable seniority list. The relevant portion ol the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder. '52. That by getting appointment orders ahead of direct recruits the promotees had already enjoyed morc perks than the direct recruits by way of pay, etc. This became possible because the selection process of promotees was shorter as compared with that of direct recruits. The injustice to direct recruits cannot be compounded by relegating them in the matter of senioritj., also by placing the promotees en block above the direct recruits especially when both of them (promotees and direct recruits) wcre selected against the same requisition sent by the Government to the Pu njab Public Service Commission.

59. We have also referred to the decisions rendered by this Court. This Court said rota and quota must necessarily be reflected in the seniority list arld aiy seniority list prepared in violation of rota and quota is bound to be negated. The action of the rcspondents in determining the seniority is clearly in total disrega-rd of rota- quota rule prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. The action is, 32 PK, J W.P.No. 10184 of 2023 therefore, clearly contrary to the law laid down by this Court Thus, we hold: .1. lhat the action of the State is contrary to the 1976 Rules;

2. the seniority under the 1976 Rules must be based on a collective interpretation of Rule 18 arrd Rule 2 I of the 1976 Rules;

3. the action of the authorities is negation of Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules in determining the seniority by the impugned order. Since the action is contrary to law laid down by this Court, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeat and grant the relief as prayed for by the appellant. 60. we, lherefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare the seniority list of the appellants who belong to the PCS (EB) in accordance q,ith Rule 18 and read with Rule 21 of the 1976 Rules by ltxing seniority according to the roster prescribed under Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. Fresh seniority Iist should be drawn within three months.'

12. From the above, it is clear that where a rotation system is provided in the Rules, along with a quota, seniority should be determined strictly as per the said rotation and the determination of seniority as per the rota is equitable for both the direct recmits as well as the promotees. However, in the instant case, the respondents failed to apply the rota-quota principles while finalizing the seniority list, and the same vitiates the seniority list prepared by the respondents.

13. It is a well-settled law that the Special Rules necessarily prevail over the General Rules. As such, the reliaace placed by the respondents on Rule 33 (a) of the Telangana State and Subordinate PK, J w.P.No.1OiB4 of 2023 Service Rules, 1996, and the Circular Memo dated 21.O4.1999, is unfounded. The instructions by way of a Circular Memo cannot override the statutory Special Rules framed under Article 3O9, of the Constitution of India. Hence, in view of the Special Rules ard the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aninder Singh Bo;ins (supra), no weight can be attached to the said Circular Memo dated

21.o4.1999.

14. As regards Point No.2, admittedly, the promotees, including respondent No.3 herein, were granted promotions only on ad hoc basis, due to non-finalization of the seniority lists. Subsequently, a Screening Committee was constituted in the year 2022, and the services of all the ad hoc promotees were regularized, without preparing the year-wise panels. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'trle Apex Ccurt rn Mhabeno Orrung and others u. M. Moanungba and othersa, wherein, it was held as follows: "9. As stated before us, the post of Junior Engineer was governed by the 1997 Rules in terms of which 90% recruitment is to be done by direct recruitment and 10% by way of promotion. As stated before us, prior to 2oo3 selection by tie Nagaland Public Service Commission no direct recruitment was made. Any seniority list of Junior Engineer rvhich may have been circulated earlier will not have any bearing in the case in hand. After the direct recruitment of the Junior Engineers a tentative seniority list 4 2024 SCC Online 2281 34 PK, J W.P.No.1O184 of 2023 was circulated on 31.05.2004. Its finalization remained pending for years. During the interregnum 47 posts of Sectional Oflicer, Grade I rvorking in the Nagaland Public Works Department were upgratled to Junior Engineer (Class II Gazetted) vide Letter dated 11.10.2007. Alter considering claims and objections of all the rncurnbcnts working in the cadre of Junior Engineers, the senionty list was {inalized on 26.03.2018. lO. The appellants in [email protected].(C) No. 17102 ol 2021 wete shown at Seria-l Nos. 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 & 80 in the aforesaid seniority list; they being the direct recruits. Respondent Nos. 1 to 16 who were earlier working as Sectional OIIicer, Grade I, the post which was subsequently upgraded as Junior Engineer vide letter clated 11.10.20O7 were shown at Serial Nos. 156, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, t40, r4t, 142, L43, t44, 157, 158, 159, r74 & 179. ll. Agqrieved against the aloresaid senioriq, list, two writ petitions rvere filed before the High Court. W.P.(C) No. 74lK) ot 2019 was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 16 herein rvhereas w.P.(C) No. 264(Kl ot 20la was filed by 29 other incumbents who were ea-rlier working as Sectional Officer, Grade-I, the post whici) was upgraded to Junior Engineer vide order dated ll.lO.2OO7.

12. Lea::ned Single Judge rightly dismissed both the writ petitions as the Sectional Officer, Grade I, whose post was upgraded only on 11.1O.2OO7 as Junior Engineers could not be treated to be senior to the Jurior Engineers who were directly recruited on O1.05.2OO3. The impugned seniority list as circulated on 26.03. 20 18 rvas upheld.

13. A perusal of the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court sholvs that it had totally misdirected itsetf while examining the 1997 Rules; the date of appointment of the private contesting respondents as Sectional Officer, Grade-I and the date of their regularization as such. The aJoresaid facts were not o[ any relevan( e 1or the decision of the question of seniority amongst the members of the cadre of Junior Engineers. Atl what was required to be considered was the date on which they became members of the cadre of Junior Engineers coming from two different sources. As to whether the upgradation of the post was right or wrong is not an rssue canvassed before this Court. The Division Bench of the High Court has further gone wrong in considering the upgratlation of post of Sectional Officer and celtain other posts to that Junior Engineers prior to O1.05.2OO3 when direct recruitnlent to the post ofJunior Engineers was made for the Ilrst time. That historical background did not have any relevance for the reason that prior to 2OO3 never before in the cadre ol Junior Engineers there was recruitment from two different sources. The dispute arose only thereafter. 35 PK, J W.P.No.1O184 of 2023

14. The dates on which the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were promoted as such either on officiating basis or their promotions were regularlised though as per the Order dated 31.O3.2OO7 effective from the date when the DPC was held i.e. 16.O3.2007 will not have aly bearing on the case in hand. Even if the Sectional Officer, Grade I, are treated to be working from the date they were. officiating as such, nothing hinges on that as far as the seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers is concerned. It is for the reason that the post of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, on which they were working was upgraded to that of Junior Engineer (Class II Gazetted) vide letter dated 11.1O.20O7 ."

15. Similarly, in Malook Slngh and others u. State oJ Punjab and otherss, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the ad hoc promotions dehors the rules cannot be counted for seniority. This principle dictates that individuals employed in a temporary or ad hoccapacity are not entitled to seniority based on their aci hoc tenure if they are Iater regularized. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder: "22. TF.e law on the issue of whether the period of ad hoc semce can be counted for the purpose of determining seniority has been settled by this Court in multiple cases. [n Direct Recruits lDtrect Reauit Class II Engg. Olficers'Assn. v- State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 3391 , a Constitution Bench of this Court has observed : (SCC pp. 725 &,744-45, paras l3 & 47) "13. When the cases were taken up for hearing before us, it was faintly suggested that the principle laid down in Patwardhdn case [S.8. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra, ll977l 3 SCC 399 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 39ll rvas unsound and flt to be overruled, but no attempt was made to substantiate the plea. We were taken through the judgment by the learned counsel for the parties more than once and we are in complete agreement with the ratio decidendi, that the period o[ continuous ofhciation s (2022) 17 scc 765 36 PK, J w.P.No.1O184 oJ 2023 f} by a government servant, after his appointment by follorving the rules applicable for substantive appointments, has to be taken into account for detcrmining his seniori$r; and seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confrrmation, for, as was pointed oLrt, confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service depending neither on effit:iency of the incumbent nor on the availability of sr.rbstantive vacancies. The principle for deciding inter se senioritl, has to conform to the principles of equatity spelt out by Articles 14 and 16. lf an appointment is made bg way of stopgap arrangenrcnt, witlaut consideing the claims oJ alt the eligible auailoble persons and. uithout folloutitrg the rules of appointment, the experience on such eppointment cannot be eq)ated uith the expeietlce of a regular appointee, becouse of the qualitative difference in the appointment. To equate the two would be to treat tuo unequols os equal which tuould violqte the eqtalitg clause. But if the appointment is made after considering the claims of all eligibte candidates and the appointee continues in regi.llarisation of his service in accordance with the rules maclr for regular substantrve appointments, there is t)r) reason Lo exclude the officiating service for purpose of senrority. Same will be the position if the initial apporntment itself is made in accordance with the rules applir:able to substantive appointments as in the present case. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrarr'.... the post uninterruptedty till

47. To sum rrp, we hold that: {A) Once an incumbent is appointed. to o post accord.ing to a ntLe, lis senioritg htts to counted from the date of appotntment and not according to date of his anfirmation. Tle corollary to ttle aboue rule is that tuhere the initial appoultment is onlg ad hoc and not acarding lo rul,-s and made as a stopgap aftangement, th.e officiation in suclr post cannot be taken into account consideing the semority," {emphasis supplied}

25. The Notification dated 3-5-1977 stated that ttle ad lloc appointments rvere made in administrative interest in anticipation of regular appointments and on account of delay that tales place 37 PK, J w.P.No.10184 of 2023 in making regular appointment through the agencies conccrned' tn this rigard, the vacancies were notified to the employment exchange Jr advertisements were issucd, as the case may be, by authorities. The appointments were not made on the "oooitil.,e relommeridation of the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board. However, subsequently a poticy decision was made to regularise ttre ad hoc appointees since their otrster after a c#siderable period of service would have entailed hardship' Thus, the initial appointment was supposed to be a stopgap arrangement, besides being not in accordance with the rules' and the oi hoc service cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority "

16. From the above, it is quite clear that tl:re ad hoc appointments/ promotions granted dehors the Rules cannot form the basis for determining seniority. Thus, retrospective reguiarization cannot disturb existing seniority norms, pa-rticularly where the rights of the direct recruits are directly involved. Hence, in the case on hand' when the Screening Committee regularized the services ol th.c ad hoc promotees in the year 2022, iL was incumbent upon it to apply the rota rule prescribed under Rule 3 Note I of the Special Rules issued inG.o.Ms.No.l3Tdatedol.06.lggS,andassignSeniorityaccordingly. Here, in the instant case' there is only one direct recruit' i'e ' the petitioner herein, who has to be placed appropriately and the effect would have been negligible. Further, it is to be noted that the petitioner is not claiming seniority from a date prior to his appointment or from any other specific date, rather, he is challenging the manner of promotion of promotees en bloc over him without L 38 r) PK, J W.P.No.10184 of 2O23 following the rota rule. In view of the above, the decision relied on by the learned Ciovernment Pleacler of Services (Home) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

17. As regarcls Point No.3, the respondents raised aI objection that all the prornotees against whom the petitioner is claiming seniority have not been made parties. It is well-settled law that impleadment in a representative capacity is sufhcient, particularly when a general seniority list is under challenge, rather than the services of particular individuals. I{ere, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon,bte Apex Court in Ajag Kumor Shulclc and, othe"s u. An ind Rai and. otherso, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "45.'l'he other ground taken by the High Court for non,suiting the appellants were that they had not impteaded all ttre alfected Junior lingineers, For the said proposition, the Division Bench lRajeslt Kumar Singh v. Rajeeu Nain tlpad.hgog,2019 SC]C OnLine All 47821 of the High Court has placed reliance upon the judgment of tlris Corrrt in Rrrnjon Kumar v. Stqte of Bihar lRanjan Kumar v. State <>f Bihar, l2O t4) t6 SCC 187 : (2O tS) 2 SCC (L&S) S32l . The above case was in respect of selection and appointment on the ground that the sane had been made only on the basis of interuieu rvithout holding any written test. The High Court had quaslred lVinay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2OO3 SCC Online pat 96Ol such selection and appointments even of those appointees who were not even parties to the petition. [t was in these circurnstances that this Court held that the appointments of non- parties could not be quashed. Facts of the said case zrre clearly distin$r ishable.

46.'lhc I)ivision Bench of the High Court also relied upon alother judgrrent of this Court in Prabodh Verma v. State of {.}.p. [prabodh Vennu y. State ol U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 2Sl : 1984 SCC (L&S) ZO4l 6 (2022) 12 SCC s79 ,. 1 I 39 PK, J W.P.No.10184 of 2023 This case again related to challenge to appointments and in the said case there was no impleadment even in the representative capacity. In such circumstances, this Court said that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. ln fact, this judgment helps the appellants. Para 50 thereof is reproduced belorv : (SCC pp. 288-89) "5O. ... (l) A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgnrent bcing before it as thc respondents or ot leqst some of them being before it as the respondents in a representatiue capacitg if their number is too large to join them as the respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessaly part ies. " (emphasis supplied)

47. The third casc relied upon by the Division Bench for the abovc propositiorr, namely, Srcle of uttaranchal v. Madan Mohan Joshi lstate oI Uttaranchal v. Madan Mohan Joshi, (2008) 6 SCC 797 : (2OO8) 2 SCC (t&S) l97l was aga.in a case where none of the affected parties were impleaded not even in the representative capacity. ln such circumstances, this Court remanded the matter to the lligh Court leaving it open to the original petitioners therein to move an appropriate application for impleading some of the aJfected teachers in their representative capacity.

48. Thc fourth case relied upon by the Division Bench on thc above proposition is lndu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. llndu Shekhar Singhv. Stote of U.P., (2006) 8 SCC 129 i 2006 SCC (r ,S) 19161 In this case also, thc affected parties wcre not in.rpleaded arrd this Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Prabodlt Venna lPrabodh Verma v. State of U.P., ll9a4l 4 SCC 251 : 1984 scc (r&s) 7041.

49. In Tridip Kumor Dingal v. State of w.B. lTidip Kumar Dingal v. state of w.8., (2009) 1 SCC 76A : QOO9) 2 SCC (l&S) l19l , c.K. Thakker, J., held ttlat thc case falls within the ambit of non joinder of necessary parties as none of the 66 candidates against whom the complaint was made, were made parties. [t further hcld that some of the respondents should have been arrayed in representative capacity. Para 41 is reproduced below : (SCC p. 78O) "41. Regarding protection granted to 66 candidates, from the record it is clea-r that their names were sponsored by the employment exchange alld they were selccted and appointed in 1998-1999. The cardidates 40 PK, J W.P.No.1O1a4 of 2023 o wllo were unable to get themselves selected and wtro ralsed a grievance and made a complaint before the Tribunal by filing applications ought to have ioined th('r. {selecled candidates} as the respondents in rhe original application, which was not done. ln ong co.se, sorn. of them ought lo haue been anraged as the reslx,rdenls it1 a "representqtiue capacitg". That L,as dlsl,not done. The Tribunal was, therefore, wholl] right in lrokling that in absence of selected and appointed candidates and without affording opportunity of hearing to tlrem, their selection could not be set aside." (emphasis supplied) 5O. Irr the recent case of Mukul Kumar Tgogi v. State of u.p. lMttkttl Kumar Tgagt v. Stqte oI U.P., (2O2Ol 4 SCC 86 | (2O2Ol I SCC (L&S) 7361 , Ashok Bhushan, J., laid emphasis t.hat when there is a long list of candidates against whom the case is proceeded. then it becomes unnecessary and irrelevant to implead each and every candidate. If some of the candidates are impleaded then rhe)' v.,ill be said to be representing the interest of rejt of the carl(liclates as rvell. The relevant portion of para gl from the judgnent is reproduced below : (SCC p. I l9) "81. ... We may lurther notice that the Division Bench [Deepak Sharma v. State of U.p., 2Ol9 SCC Online All 59701 also noticed the above argument of non_ impleadment of atl the selected candidates in the writ petition but the Division Bench has not based its lurlgrnent on the above argument. When the inclusion in the select list of large number of candidates is on the basis o[ an arbitrary or illega] process, the aggrieved partics can complain and in such cases necessity of impleadment of each and every person cannot be insisted. Furthermore, when select list contained names of 221 I candidates, it becomes unnecessalr to implead everr candidate in view of the nature of the challenge, r,vlrich was levelled in the writ petition. Moreover., few selected candidates were also impleaded in the writ petit ions in representative capacity."

51. 'fhe present case is a case of preparation of seniority list and thirt too rn a situation where the appellants (original writ petitioners) did not even know the marks obtained by them or their proficicncy in the examination conducted by the Cornmissjon. The challenge was on the ground that the Rjles on the l)reparirtion of seniority list had not been followed. There were 18.private respondents arayed to the writ petition. The original pelitioners could not have knorvn who all would be affected. Thev had thus broadly impleaded l8 of such Junior Engineers who 41, PK, J W.P.No.1O184 of 2023 could be adversely affected. ln matters relating to s€rvlce jurisprudence, time and again it has been hcld that it is not essential to implead each and every one who could be affected but if a section of such affectcd employees is impleaded then the interest of all is represented and protected ln view of the above. it is well settled that i nr pleadt't't t'tt t of a few of the affec ted employees rvotr ld bc sufhcier-rt r:orl pliance of the principle oI ioinder of Darties and thev could defend the interest of all aflected persons in their rcDresentative caDacitY. Non loItline of all the Dartics c.rnrlot bc held to bc fatal." (EmPhasis suPPlied)

18. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, when there is a long list of candidates against whom the case is being processed with, even if some of the candidates are impleaded, they witl be said to represent the interest of the rest of the candidates as well' Therefore, the ob.lection of the respondents that the petitioner has not impleaded all the promotees cannot be countenanced.

19. As regards Point No.4, which is regarding the vacancies created by virtue of C.O.Ms.No. 159 dated 22.09-2016 and G'O'Ms'No 62 d.ated 24.04.2017, i.e., 13 Civil and 3 others and 57 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) and 8 others, it is to be noted that both the G.O.s have been issued after the panel has been finalized in the year 2016-17. Hence, thcy must be carried forward to the panel year 2Ol7 -18. Further, as per Rule 4 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, a vacancy cannot be treated as a substantive vacancy until they are in existence for a continuous 42 PK, J w.P.No.10184 of 2O23 period of five years. Further, as per Rule 6, only the vacancies existing as of 1"t September of the preceding year a-re eligible to be included for the promotions of that particular panel year. Therefore, as rightly contencled by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the vacancies created under G.O.Ms.No. 159 dated 22.O9.20I6 and G.O.Ms.No.62 daLed 24.O4.2O17, could not have been retrospectively included in the 2016-17 panel year, and they were required to be carried forward to the panel year 2017-1g only.

20. In thc light ol the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned hnal seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of police vide G.O.Ms.N o.T4 dated. 29.12.2O22, has been prepared in utter violation of the statutory Rules and contrary to the law laid clown by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arvinder Singh . Therefore, the impugned final seniority list is tiable to Eains (supral be set asidc. 2 1. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugnerl final seniority list vide G.o.Ms.No.74, Homc (Services-I) Department, dated 29.r2.2o22, and. the respondents are directed to prepare a lresh seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of police, without including the vacancies created vide G.o.Ms.No. rsg dated o 43 PK' J W.P.No.10184 of 2023

22.Og.2016 and G'O'Ms'No'62 dated 24'O4'2O17' duly taking into consideration thc mandatc of rota rule issued in Note 1 of Rule 3 of the Telangana Police (Civil) Service Rules (G'O'Ms No' 137 dated 01.06.1998),andplacethepetitionerattheappropriateplace.The said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible' strictly in accordance with law' Miscellaneous applications' if any' pen<ting in this writ petition' sha-ll sland closed. No costs' N r SD/.T. EPU TIRUMA TY REG LA DEVI ISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER riat, State of Telangana To he Principal Secretary' Department of Home Se at HYd erabad

1.7 2. The Director General of Police, Telang 3. TwoC RSERVICES (HOME), High Court for the State of ana, HYderabad ouT) bad. ( IKANTH, ENKATA Advo NARAY cate [OPUCI ANA, Advo cate [OPUC] C's to G.P FO na at HYdera to SRI M.SR to SRI CH V Telanga 4. One CC 5. One CC 6. Two CD CoPtes SA BS Ifo t o ',+ I Setl1 TA r4: 2l unv 2925 !_ pa. T cO \{ HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.10184 of 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. a' aq€h W- 4(5\