The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P' VENKATA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. L4547 0F 2020 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise. This Writ Petition filed seeking to set aside the

2. proceedings Cr. No. 2gS l2Ol9 lA2, dated 06-06-2020 issued by the 2"d Respondent fiiaL;tzing the seniority list of the absorbed Prohibition & Excise Constables on the basis of merit and also the consequential Proceedings of Respondent No'2 vide Proc' Cr' No. 229312OO4/A dated I7-O8-2O2O promoting Respondent No.5 ProhiLrition & Excise Constable as Prohibition & Excise Head Constable by way of promotion as arbitrary, illegal' discriminatory, mala fide and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and. 2l of the Constitution of India apart from not following the Principles of Natural Justice as weli as contrary to the A.P. Telangana State Subordinate Service Rules and consequently direct Respondents to forthwith consider promotion to the post of Prohibition and Excise Head Constable as per the seniority list based on the age criteria in the existing V C NClES. t l I l I 2

3. It the case of Petitioners that their initial appointment- as A.P.S.P. Constable was at different battalions i.e., Petitionr:r No. I & 3 to 5 at 8fr battalion and Petitioner No. 2 at 1st battalion at Nalgonda District on 1 5- 1O- 1995 and 27 -lO-1995 and later, they were deputed to work in Prohibition and Excise Department and was subsequently absorbed as Prohibition and Excise Constable uide proceedings dated 27 O5-2OO9. based on G.O.Ms. No. 1 103 Revenue (Exercise- 1) Department dated 17-Oa-2OO7. Petitioners submitted their willingness lbr absorption as a Prohibition and Excise Constable and after their deputation on the strength of the order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and after obtaining the options and the willingness from Petitioners that they would abide by tht seniorily lisl.

4. Pro',.isional linal seniority list was issued by Respondent No. 2 uide proceedings Cr. No. 29512019 lA2 dated 06-06 2O2O after considering the objections vide proceedings No. Cr. No.2293l2OO4/A dated lg-O8-2O2O by Respondent No. 2 for the period 30-09 2OO8 to 3l-12-2017 wherein Petitioners were shown at Sl. Nos. 30, 62,64, 66 and 67 and Respondent No.5 is shown at S1. No. 13. Based on the seniority list, Petitioners were promoted as Head Constables by proc. No. Cr. No. 29512019 lA2 dated lg-O2-2O2O issued by the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Nalgonda District' In view of the said issuance of revised seniority list, Petitioners' position in the seniority list had completely changed which action of Respondent No. 2 is without any jurisdiction' unauthorised and illegal which proceedings are impugned in the present writ petition. In view of the revised seniority list' petitioners who wereatSl.Nos.30,3lto65inthesenioritylistfortheperiod 30-09-2008 to 37-12-2017 are shifted to Sl'Nos' 30' 62' 64' 66 5 was shown at S1. No. 13 and the and 67 and ResPondent No' revised list is imPugned.

5. challenging the Petitioners had earlier filed a writ Petition No. Cr. No. Proc proceedings vide dated 28-O1-202O of ResPondent No. I 02l2otslcPEl82 ordering Respondent No. 2 to re-fix seniority iist on the basis of merit which is wholly without power or jurisdiction' Further' the said writ petition was pending and due to covid-l9' the same wasnotlistedbeforethebench,butthisCourtpassedordersin Writ Petition No. 93 15 of 2O2O of Khammam District and W.P.No. 9393 of 2O2O of Warangal District on 3O-O6-2020 and in these Two Writ Petitions, mentioning the problem of Covid- 19, a general direction was issued to other District Respondents 4 also. Though Petitioners submitted the order copies in W.P. No. 2823 of 2020, W.P.No. 9315 of 2O2O and W.P.No. 9393 of 2O2O to Respondent No.2 in the lst week of July 2O2O and requested not to promote any Prohibition & Excise Constable to the grade of Head Constable till the disposal of W.P. No. 8457 of 2O2O filed by Petitioners, Respondent No. 2 had ignored the orders and prepared the final list on 19-O8-2O2O. Petitioners had also stated that this Court in Writ Petitions No. 2823 of 2O2O and 24941 o{ 2019 passed the following order on 19 -O2-2O2O. " Prima-facie, from the hearing of learned counsels, it is noticed that three aspects require consideration. With reference to determination of inter se seniority at the time of initial selt:ctions of police constables in the Special Battalions, the selections rvere made based on the physical assessment of the candidates rvhich is not the normal method of recruitment; there was no merit list circulated to the Excise Department, when they were absorbed; the seniority lists are sought are sought to be rt:vised by a nerv formtrla, on a direction issued by the Commissioner of Excise on appeal. Whcreas the seniorit-y lists werefinalized at the level of Distrbts. The Commissroner passed orders to determine seniority based on the merit secur-ed by the candidates in the Battalions. The decision of Commissir>ner u,as not with prior notice or opportunit) to the persons whose placements were shown in the final senioritl. lists in the respective units of appointment. It appears that the candidates were drawn frorn different Special Police Battalions to single unit of appointm(:nt in Excise Department. There was no commolr merit list clubbing all Battalions, when the recruitment was made, more so,when the selections rvere based on physical effrciency, there could not have been a merit list assessing the merit of the candidates and the merit of 5 the candidates, even drawn in that manner in d'ifferent Battalions' can not be the criteria to determine inter se seniority" ' Having regard to the above' the matter requires consideration as to what woulcl be the procedure for determination of inter se seniority of who are absorbed into the Excise all those Police constables, Department AS THESE ISSUES REQUIRE CONSIDERATION, THE RESPONDENTS ARE DIRECTED NOT TO EFFECT PROMOTIONS' AT THIS STAGE FOR THE CADRE OF HEAD CONSTABLES' Counter to be hled in W P' No' 2a23 of 2O2O ' It is open to the Governmenttodealwiththeaboveaspectsinthecounteraflrdavit.ltis also open to the Government to flle additional counter affidavit in W'P' No. 24941 if 2O19 dealing with these aspects'' Further this Court passed Order in W'P'No' 9315 of 6. 2O2O of Khammam District and W'P' No' 9393 of 2O2O of Waralgai District not to effect any promotions frorn the cadre of Constable to the Head Constable' This Court sPecificailY districts also and problem in other mentioned about the directed ResPondents to effect any Promotions' Even is not intending to follow the above thereafter, ResPondent No'2 order and promoted the Constable to the post of Head Constable stating that he has no direction from this Court or Respondent No. t has not issued any proceedings not to effect the promotions. No Counter/ rebuttal is filed on behalf of the 7. Respondents. Thbreby, the pleadings of tJle Petitioners remained \ 6 unchallenged in the present writ petition. However, this court is taking judicial notice of the counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.4 filed in W.P.No.47l7 of 2O2O and other writ petitions, for proper adjudication of the present writ petition. Respondent No.2 admitted that after froalizing the seniority list of the atrsorbed A.P.S.P. Constables the Petitioners were promoted as Prohibition and Excise Head Constables subject to following conditions: - "t. The above promotion is purely temporar]'and shall not confer any right whatsoever including regularization of services etc., in the cadre of Prohibition and Excise Head Constable in future. 2. The above Promotion is subiect to outcome of O.A's/W.Ps pending before the Hon'ble APAT/High Court/Supreme Court. 3. Ttre.rbove promotion is also subject to hnalization of seniority list on part with the Commissioner of Prohibition ald Excise, A.P.., Hyderabad".

8. Respondent No.2 issued seniority list in the present casc and the same was communicated on 06-06-2020 and it is sel.tled seniority iist and Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, T.S., Hyderabad being the Head of the Department had issued orders to al1 the Nodal District Prohibition & Excise Officers, to rer.ise seniority list in terms of Merit. which is impugned in this writ petition. The said orders of Commissioner were passed based on the direction issued by this Court in W.P. ) 7 No. 31978 of 2018 and batch- Certain Prohibition & Excise Constables of Rangareddy and Nizambad Districts filed W'P' No' 6707 of 2018 dated: 28-02-2018 and W'P' No' 26855 of 2Ol9 seeking to prepare seniority list on Merit basis'_ln the common order passed by this court in W'P' No' 31978 of 2018' dated: i8-09-2O18 the direction given is that "Tlrc Commissioner sholl cause notice on all ttrc affected parties and on due consideration of the respectiue objections, sho,ll take appropiate decision as utarranted bg law and communicate the samd to the parties" ' The APSP Constables initially appointed as g . constables in APSP of Police Department were sent on deputation to prohibition and excise department in the year 1995 and continued as such for some years' Subsequently' it was felt that the APSP constables, who have put in more than three years of service in excise department, shall be repatriated to their parent department' But, Iater, the Government had taken decision to atrsorb 2151 APSP constables who were working on deputation in excise department by GOMs'No'1103 dated 17.08.2OO7,in the existing vacancies of excise constables duly following the provisions of the Presidential Order and other relevant rules which are in vogue' They were absorbed after obtaining unequivocal/ irrevocable option from the APSP --\ 8 constable to the effect that they are willing to take scale of pay of prohibition and excise constables. In view of the undertaking and wiilingness given by way of option, their services were absorbed in various District units of the prohibition and excise during 2OO9, in terms of GOMs.No.1103 dated l7 -O8 -2OO7 ' Though the said exercise was challenged by the interested persons the same were dismissed by the Tribunal by fiiing OA.No.3335 of 2OO4 and batch. The Tribunal upheld the orders issued in GOMs.No. 1103 dated 17-O8.2OO7, absorbing 2151 APSP constables in Prohibition& trxcise Department. When the orders passed by the Tribunal were challenged before this Court, this Court also upheld the orders issued in GOMs.No.1103 dated 17.Oa.2OO7, in its order dated 26.O3.2OO9 in WP.No.8573 of 2OO8 and batch.

10. The post of police constable in APSP is not a local cadre post, whereas the post of Prohibition and excise constable in the AP State excise service is in organized cadre, governed by the Presidential Order. As such, the post of APSP constabie is a State-wide post and unit of appointment is not restricted to either Battalion or any unit. It is apparent from the pleadings and record that when the merit list of APSP Battalion constgbles, who were deputed to the excise department is not 9 available as informed by the DG APSP Battalion' vide proceedings C.No.363/A6/ 2Ol2 dated 24'O2'2O12' there was no other option except to prepare a State list of APSP constables basing on the date of joining on deputation in prohibition and excise department. On completion of allotments' the appointment authorities felt that the only possible way for fixing the seniority list is to take date of joining on deputation in the excise department and date of birth of the candidates as per Rule 33 & 36 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate ServiceRules,lgg6|APSSSRules',forbrevity)'Accordingly'the Nodal Prohibition and Excise Superintendent have finalized the seniority of absorbed APSP constables as per Rules 33 & 36 of APSSSRulesandconsideredpromotionstothenexthigher cadre of prohibition and excise head constable in some Districts where there were vacancies' The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise who is I I . Respondent No. t had initiated steps to prepare the seniorit5r list of Excise Constables in the Excise Department trased on the merit list as per Rules 33 to 38 of the APSSS Rules with reference to merit list of selection of APSP Constables who are later absorbed as Prohibition and Excise Constables and wants to unsettle the settled seniority of Excise Constables issued by t0 the 2 Respondent in the seniority list dated 15.O6.2O15 which was prepared based on the date of joining on deputation in the Prohibition & Excise Department and date of birth. Basing on the list of APSP Constables absorbed as Prohibition and Excise Constables, combined seniorit5i list has been prepared by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise taking tl-re date of joining and age, if the date of joining is one and the same under Rules 33 to 36 of APSSS Rules. Basing on the list of absorbed APSP Constables, the Nodal Prohibition and Excise Superintendents concerned have prepared the seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Constables basing on the date of joining and date of birth and promotion to the categor)' of Prohibition and Excise Hcad Constables were considered. Now, that is sought to be disturbed by way of impugned proceedings.

12. The competent authority had issued a seniority list taking into account date ofjoining/date of birth as the criterion to determine the seniority among absorbed APSP Constables as all APSP Constables absorbed as Excise Constables in the Excise Department duly rejecting the objections filed. The post of Constable in the State Prohibition and Excise Department is orgar,iznd into a separate cadre as per the said provision. As per Para 3 (8) of the Presidential Order, Central Government is 1 empowered to notify any category to be excluded from organization of local cadre. In exercise of powers under Para 3 (B) of the Presidential Order, Government of India has issued notification on 18. 10. 1975 in G'S'R'N o '529 lD' excluding all categories of posts in the Special Police Battaiions from the purview of the Presidential Order, and in view of such notification, the post of Police Constable in APSP is not a local cadre post, whereas the post of Prohibition and Excise ConstableintheA.P.StateExciseserviceisinorganizedcadre, governed by the Presidential Order as such' the post of APSP ConstableisaState_widepostandtheunitofappointmentis not restricted to either Battalion or any unit' As per Ruie 8(1)(a) of the Presidential Order, 8O7o of the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment from the local area of the unit and on.ly 2Oo/o canberecruitedfromoutsidetheuniti.e.,District.TheDirector General, APSP Battalions vide C'No'363 I A6 l2OI2 dated 24.2.2012 informed that the merit list of APSP Constables who were deputed to Excise Department is not available' Therefore' there was no other option except to prepare a State list of APSP Constablesbasingondateofjoiningondeputationin ProhibitionandExciseDepartment.Accordingly,anexercise has been taken up for implementing the Presidential Order 1c t) n taking the number of locals absorbed in the District and proportional 2Ooh open quota to be filled from non-locals. Since the number of such Constables are more than the number that has given willingness, some Constables have to be compulsorily transferred to other Districts from where they are working at that time to maintain the minimum required proportion of Constables from local area i.e., 80To.Accordingly three options have been called for from such Constables for allotment to the Districts other than where they are working at that point of time. On receipt of options, they have been allotted to the District opted by them or local area or nearby District with reference to availability of vacancies keeping in view the Presidential Order. On completion of allotments, the appointing authorities lelt that the only possible way for fixing the seniorit5r list is to take date of joining and date of birth of the candidates under Rule 33 and 36 of APSSS Rules. Accordir-rgly, Nodal Prohibition and Excise Superintendents have finalized the seniority of absorbed APSP Constables under Rule 33 and 36 of APSSS Rules and considered promotions to the next higher cadre of Prohibition and Excise Head Constables in some Districts where theie are vacancies. Thereby the 1st Respondent had grossly erred in issuing the impugned proceedings. I I --) From the facts and the pleadings, this Court comes

13. to a clear conclusion that earlier, the seniority list was prepared as per the provisions of Rules 33 to 38 of the APSSS Rules which include determination of seniority based on the date of joining and age which method of determining seniority is in accordance with the provisions of the rules and is therefore valid and cannot be disturbed. In the present case, it appears that the seniority list 14. dated 06-06- 2O2O that was prepared as per the provisions of Rule 33 to 38 of the said rules, which include the determinaLion of seniority based on the date of joining and age' Further' the petitioners herein who are the affected parties were not arrayed as party respondents to the lis before this court in the earlier rouncl of litigation. As such, orders passed by this Court in W.P.No. 67OL of 20i8 and W'P'No 31978 of 2O18 are not binding on the petitioners' Since it appears that there was no selection held for the purpose of promotion or appointment to the posts in question, seniority was determined based on the date of joining of absorbed APSP constables' This Court finds thatintheabsenceofanyselectionlist,itisnotopentoprepare a new seniority- list based on the merit obtained in APSP Battalions as per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules' Therefore' the 14 n settled final seniority list prepared and conlirmed in earlier cannot be ir-rterfered with at this stage by the 1"t Respondent Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The power to prepare and publish seniority lists is vested with the appointing authority or any other authority empowered to do so bv the Government or any other competent authority. This Court finds that the l't Respondent does not have the power or authority to direct the Nodal Officers to prepare a fina1 seniority list based on the merit a s per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules, without any appeal being filed and without setting aside the said Iinal seniority lisls prepared in various Districts. This Court hence, comes to a conclusion that 15. seniority lists dated 06-06-2020 prepared is not as per the provisions of Rules 33 to 38 ofAPSSS Rules and is not based on the date of .joining and age as such is not valid and need to be interfered with. Further, this Court holds that the 1"t Respondent does not have the power or authority to direct the Nodal Ofilcers to prepare a final seniority list based on the merit as per Rule 33 ofthe APSSS Rules.

16. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 06-06-2020 ulde proceedings No. Cr.No.295 l2Ol9/A2 and also the consequential proceedings .? l5 uide Proc. No. 229312004/A dated lg-Oa-2O2O by the 2"d Respondent as the said proceedings are illegal and arbitrary' Consequently, respondents are directed to forthwith consider the cases of petitioners for promotion to the post of Prohibition & Excise Head Constables as per the seniority list based on the age criteria in the existing vacancies'

17. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications' if any shall stand closed- \. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T.V IJAY KUMAR DEPUTY R SECTION OFFICER To, \ State of Telangana' Abkari

1. The Commissloner of Pro hibition and Exci Bhavan . NamPallY Road, HYderabad 2 The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Nalgonda' Nalgonda District 3. The DePUtY Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise' Nalgonda, Nalgonda ^ L:L:ri^^ "'rl trxcise Department' state of District lo,l'i::"1:l='"'': '+ndlg:0S"3?,"'E'i#;,'o',#f 5. One CC to SRI P VENKATA SUBBA RAO' Advocate IOPUCI u +g3"3,""",::-g.,':;,lliS5+fi& Excise' High court ror the state or

7. Two CD CoPies [/P BS *# I I HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ,J 11 '\ t1ts 5 14 aa '( o o 17 ,ttjll 2m (' a) oF.- nr,I Crra a ORDER WP.No.14547 of 2O20 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 W