Abhilasha Bisht v. Union of lndia

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI B.NARSIMHA SHARMA, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES-ll Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI B.RAJESHWAR REDDY, GP FOR STATE OF A.P. The Court made the following: ORDER n THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC EP.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.1138 2 0F 2025 , ORDER: (per Ho 'bte Sri Justice P.Sam Roshg) Heard Mr.J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner' Mr.B.Narsimha Sharma, Additional Solicitor General of India appearing tbr respondent Nos' 1 & 2' Ms M'shalini' learned Government Pleader for Services ll appearing for respondent No'3 and Mr.B.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Prade sh resPondent No'4' 2. The present is a writ petition which has been filed assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal), dated, 26.02.2C.25 in O'A' No' 1 7 1 of 2025' 3. Vide the impugned order' ttre learned Tribunal has rejected the interim relief/interim prayer sought by the petitioner pending the O'A' before the Triburial ' 4. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal by filing the O'A' challenging the rejection of the representation which the petitioner had made pursuant to the order passed by this High Court in W.P.No. 12205 of 2017 which stood decided along with the batch of writ petitions on O3'O 1 2024 ' It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the writ preferred by the Union of India i 'e' ' the ( \1 - W.P.No. 122Ct5' of 2O17 questioning the previous rrder of CAT in O.A. No. 148 1 ol 2014, decided on 29 .03.2016

5. It is als,r relevant to take note of the fact tha: the basic issue involved in tht: instant case is the alleged malafied interference with the alleged seniority list of the petitioner which has 1ed to the wrongful allocation of tlLe petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, because of thr: interim protection granted by the Tribr rnal as well as by the High Cotrrt from time to time, the petitioner has continued to work in the in the State of Telangana State till the imp'rgned order was passed under challenge before the Tribunal as also before this Court.

6. Frorn the bare perusal of the statutory posrtion as it reflects particularl.v going through the rule pertaining to th e fixation of the seniority of officers and also in respect of fixatior r of seniority of officers u,ho haLve transferred to another cader. It apl)ears that prima facie rvhat t.he rule requires is that even though tlrere would be a change in th,3 (:ader and the persons who incur chanlle in the transfer in their cader ;rt their own request and if in a particular batch there are more than )ne ofhcers getting transt-erred to a pa; ticular State the senioritv hasi t,o be maintained inter se betu,,een those transferred officers as is prescribed under Rule 1O of the IPS probation rules

1954. For reeLdl. reference, the same is reproduced herein under: r-) Ii

10. Seniority of Probatiorer:- 1O(1) The Central Government shall prepare a list of all probationers, who are appointed to the service on the result of the same competitive examination. The list shall be arranged in the order of merit which shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by each probationer. (i) at the competitive examination; (u) in respect of his record in the LaI Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration and in the Sardar Vallabhabhai Patcl National Police Academy; and (iii) at the final examination 28or at the special examination in the circumstances mentioned in rule 8, as the case may be; Provided that if two or more probationers have secured equirl number o[ marks in the aggregate, their order of merit sha]l bc the order of their dates of birth. 1O(2) The seniority interse of the probationers, who are assigned t}le same year of allotment, shall be determined in accordance with the list prepared under sub-ru1e (1) and probationers who are appointed on the basis of an earlier compeLitive examination shall be ranked above those appointed consequent to a later competitive examination. 7 . The documents attached to the writ petition would also reveal that infact the seniority of the petitioner infact was being maintained in terms of the Rule 6 of the IPS (Regulations of seniority) Rules 19BB and the said seniority list of the petitioner was maintained from the year 1997, wheri she stood transferred to the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh till bifurcation took place in the year 2014. Hou'ever, in the years 2Ol4 there seems to be an abrupt change in the seniority and seniority of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of the date of joining in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. For ready reference, RuIe 6 of the IPS (Regulations of seniority) Rules 1988, is reproduced herein under: r' i

6. Fixatiorr of the seniority of ofhcers transferred to aL: ot]ler Cadre: 6(1) If a direct recruit oflhcer is transferred frortr orte cadrc to another in public interest, his year of allotment shall remajn rtrt:halrged and his inter-se position among the rlirect recruits having the sarne yezrr of allotment in the carlre to rvhich hc i:; trinsferred sha-ll remain the same as deten ained in accordance with rule 1O of the Indian Police Sr:n'ice (Probation) Rules, 1954. 612l If a ptomotee ofllcr:r is translerrc,l from one cadre to alother in pubhc interest, his year of all,rtment shall remarn unchanged ald he sh:rll be iar.rked inrtr se with promotee ofhcers having the same y:ar of allotnent in the cadre to whicl'r he is transferred '*'ith referencr: t,) the date on the basis of which he u'as assrigned the 1'car ol allotment under these rules. 6(3) If arL ,rlficer is transferred from one cadre to anothcr at his ...1r".t, he shall be assigrred a position in the gradation list of thc cadre t.o which he is transferred below all the ofhc':rs of his categt,ry borne on that cadre who have the same y':al of allotment Provided that in the case of a direct recruit rfficer transferred from one cadre to another at his reqtles:, his seniorjtr in the list prepared under rule 10 of the Indinn Poli'ce Sen,icc (f'robation) Rules, 1954 shall remain unaffe ctr:d for thc purf,ose of the said list.

8. It is this change of seniority \tr'hich has lead to the allegedly wronglul allotmenr_ to the State of Andhra Pradesh. It appears that the impugned order in this before the o.A.No.17l of 2025 is l.he order that has been passerl by the Union of India and the order ol the Union of India happens to l)e on the basis of information provide(l by the State of Telanganra in rr:spect of grant of seniority of the petilioner inter se with the batch r;1 officers who had come to the State of Telangana on transfer.

9. In fact, in rLLt: instant case, there were three I.P.S. Officers who were transfcrred out rrl the ir original cadre to the erstrvhile St ate of Andhra Pradesh; itrL) pctiticner Smt. Abhilasha Bhist along rvith one Smt. Sowmya Mishra and Smt. Shika Goel in terms of Rule 6 of I.P.S. Regulatiorrs of Seniority Rules, 1988. The petitioner was the senior-most among the three.

10. The matter was taken up for hearing on a couple ol occasions earlier and this Bench has been pointedly. asking queries to the counsel representing the State of Telangala as to the basis on ,*lhich the seniority of the petitioner getting suddenly disturbed in the year 2Ol4 and we have been asking the State counsel to make available the relevant rule under which the seniority of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of the date of joining in the State on transfer. The counsel representing State of Telargana has not been able to provide any material or have got any instructions in this regard which further prima facie goes in favour of the petitioner herein.

11. This being the factual matrix as it stands, if we do not pass an interim order in favour of the petitioner inspite of the fact that the State of Telangana has not been able to provide one good reason and the rule position under which the seniority got disturbed the petitioner would be subjected to unnecessary harassment and inconvenience, if because of an alleged malafied or illegal chalge in seniority she stands allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.

12. We are therefore, inclined to provide interim protection to the petitioner so far as the interim protection that she was enjoying from 2Ol4 till date, as far as retention in the State of Telangana 1S I / concerned. As a consequence' we allow the instant writ petition and disposed of the sarr'e by granting interim protection to the petitioner in as much as the inrpugned order under challenge before the Central Administrative TrLbunal in O A'No' 171 of 2025 shall remaln suspended pending the O'A before the Tribunal and wrth a further interim direction that tet the petitioner be permitted to continue discharging her duttes in the State of Telangana' till the disposal of the O.A. We mal':e it ciear that any observations made by this Bench is only orr tlre basis c't pnma facie material that was made available to us and we have not dealt with the merits of the case' the Tribunal would be at libertl to decide the r:ase strictly on its ou n merits' in accordance rvith lzLtl'' 1 3. Accordingtrv, this writ petitions stands allowed' As a sequt:J , miscellaneous applications pendit-rg if any' shall stand closed. No c:osts' To.

3. ^i-6tr.t.\/. //rRUE coPY/' l) ^ E- t-^tt-.i^ SD/- V.HARI PRASAD \ PEPUTY REGISTRAR rJ- .."r,o* oirriEe=- P rlir:e I Division. '1 The Secretary' I\Iinlstry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya' P clice I Divisio , |f;y8::i:,H:B:ilnk", or Personner and rrainins (DoF'r)' New Derhi' Y[f"3l"Ji'tecretary, General Administration Department' secretariat' fil:",.3?#i i?.'&3,t#'t3l3;u, oo,'nistration Department' secretariat' Velaoaoudi, Guntur District' 3ffi 3f [:Slaslll5,'-nl'."':i'di,[:i""dlso-ucrroRGENERALoF iNibin]iiti'-i"rrt i"i in" siri" Two ccsio Gp FOR srnriiiet-ii'Hig'n court f6r the stale of Telansana at "iiJrl"gina ?It""333il",.'Ji , *orr.**AR REDDY, c?^rg5 srArr: oF A P ' High cliJrti"'r. tti., drrie or tetangana at Hyderabad [oUT] Two CD CoPies at.Hyderabad toPUC]

5. 6.

7. 8 I \ BSR M-- HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.11382 of 2025 /<x" ir: ST4f I] i |,lAY zfifi Z a t: 1, ft- '1, ,a I r: !r, * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS C/ 15