High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more in the pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus and to declare the impugned Proceedings in Memq No.3343/$er-lllA212016, dated '10.11.2016 ol the 1st respondent denying the notional qeniorily on par with his junior in the rank of Head Constable and ARSI in relaxation of orders, Order No.71(11) (3and4) of APPIvI is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and also violation of Art. '14, 16 and 21 of Constitution oJ lndia and declare the Same as bad in law and set-aside the samq bnd consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for notional date of promotion as ARHC w.e.f., '10.10.2001 and as ARSI w.e.f., 11.05.2013 on par with his junior duly relaxing the rules as stated above and witfi all consequential benefits l.A. NO: 1OF 2017 WPMP. NO:12127 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tp SUSPEND the impugned Proceedings in Memo No,3343/Ser-lllA212016, da\ed 10.11.2016 of the 1st respondent and consider the case of the petitioner for notional date of ,lrf,rrotion as ARHC w.e.f., 10.10.200'1 ard ar; ARSI w.e.f., 1 1.05.2013 on p,ar witl, his junior duly relaxing the rules as stzrted al)ove pending disposal of the abcve vrrrit petition Counsel for the Pr:titic,ner: SRl. C RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Rr:sF,ondents: GP FOR HOME The Court mad€ the tbllowing: ORDER ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRTT PETITI oN No.9787 ol2(J7.7 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed under Afticle 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1't respondent in issuing proceedings in Memo No.3343/Ser- ll/A212076, dated 10.11.2016, rejecting the petitioner's claim.fgr notional seniority and promotion on par with his juniors, as illegal, arbitrary, 'iii. ' discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 2l of the Constitution of India, and to consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of notional seniority and promotion to the petitioner as ARHC w.e.f. 10.10.2001 and ARSI w.e.f. 11.05.2013, along with all consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Police Constable (AR) tn Mahaboobnagar on

21.11.1983 and was later transferred to the Motor Transport Wing of DAR, Mahaboobnagar in 1986. He 2 continuecl in the said Wing and was promcterl to the post of tlead Constable (ARHC) on 27.08 20(lt|' It is the ,lr evance of the petitioner that althottgh tte was tn 1983, his batchmates and junirrs who appc intetl rem;tirrec in the General Wing were corlsidr')r'ed for pronlotion much earlier i.e. in the year 2001 iti;elf, and also subs'equentlY Promoted AS (AR) Sub-lns:ectors (ARSiis;)

3. It is; the specific contention of the petiticner that the ieniirl of timely promotion and seniority wir:; solely on account of his transfer to the Motor '[ransport Wing, whic:h i:s a specialized Wing. The petitioner :ontends that thr: said denial is in violation of the r',:laxation provisiorrs, under Order No.71(11)(3&a) of the A'P' polir:e Nlanual (APPM), and that similarly situated pers;ortnr:l in the Motor Transport Wing ought 1:o have beerr extr:nded the benefit of notional senl<:rity and prornotittn.

4. The record discloses that the petition,,:r made sevr:ral rr:presentations to the competent au:ltorities, including the representation dated 18.02.2016 forwarded by 2nd respondent recommending consideration of the petitioner's case by relaxing the relevant rules. However, 1tt respondent rejected the petitioner's claim vide Memo dated 10.11.2016, without considering the merits of the claim or the recommendation forwarded by 2nd respondent.

5. Despite such recommendation and the petitioner's retirement looming on 37.12.20t6, no steps were taken by the respondents to redress the petitioner's grievance while in service. The rejection order was belatedly communicated on 17.07.2017, after the petitioner's retirement.

6. There is no counter-affidavit filed by the respondents.

7. The averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit remain unrebutted. There appears to be a clear case of arbitrary discrimination between similarly situated employees based on their posting to a 4 spec aliz€d Wing. The petitioner's claim is stlpp')rted by the rr:cc,rnmendation of 2nd respondent e nd the relaxation provision under the APPM'

8. --his lourt is of the considered view that tf e action of tlte 1't respondent in rejecting the c ainr of the petitione' for notional seniority and promol:ion is unsustairtable in law and violative of Articles 1':l and 16 of tl-re Cc rrstitution of India. The petitioner is errtitled to be consitl<:red for promotion as ARHC from f O f O'ZOOf and ARSI from 11.05.2013, on par with his - uniors, with all consequential benefits, includi'rg notional seniorit'y and arrears where applicable, in ac::ordance with latrr g. Ar:ccrCingly, the Writ Petition is alloned' The imp.rgned proceedings in Memo No.3l'43lSer- IUA2t2C16, dated 10.11.2016, are hereby se1: aside' The rel;pondents are directed to grant rtotional senlority and promotion to the petitioner to the post of ARI-IC rry.r:.f. 10.10.2001 and ARSI w.e.f. 11,05.2013 on l)ar lvith his juniors, by relaxing the relevant rules, 5 and extend all consequential benefits within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' witness the Hon'ble the Acting chief Justice suJoY PAUL, on this Thursday ,The Twentieth Day Of March Two Thousand And Twenty Five SD/-K.BHAVANI SWAMY ANT REGISTRAR A //TRUE COPY// i\ The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretarft Hyderabad-22. To, 1 ECTION OF FICER Buildings, Saifa bad,

2.TheDeputylnspectorGeneralofPolice,TelanganaState,HyderabadRange' Lakdikapool, Hyderabad

3.TheSuperintendentofPolice,Mahaboobnagar,MahaboobnagarDistrict. 4. One CC to SRI C RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies KKS BS \ t HIGH COURT' DATED:2014312025 .-:l1 { () t s14 I€ c

13..ur 2025 )\ )' i.' ! i: ORDER WP.No.978',7 ctf 2017 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CiOSTS /.,s