High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nalure of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia declaring the proceedings Cr No.02/2018/CPE/B2 dated 28lOBl2O19 issued by the 1st Respondent and Proceedings Cr. No 8188512012 dated 1610912019 and consequential proceedings Cr.No. 8.188512012 dated 26.10.2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide and u nconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia, apart from following the principles of natural justice as well as contrary to A.P. state and Subordinate service Rules and set aside the same and issue consequential directions, directing the Respondents to forthwith consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the Post of Prohibition and Excise Head Constable as per seniority list prepared by the 2nd Respondent by Proceedings Cr No.B/BBSlZ012 daled O4lO5l2O15 in the existing vacancies. (Prayer is amended as per C.O dt 2011112019 in l.A 4 of 2019) lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Proceedings Cr No.0212018/CpEr 82 dated 2810812019 issued by the 1st Respondent and proceedings Cr. No.B/8BSI2O12 dated 16/09/2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent, pending disposat of this writ petition. (' 3 lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith consider the cases of the Petitioners for promotion to the Post of Prohibition and Excise Head Constable as per seniority list issued by the 2nd Respondent by Proceedings Cr. No. BlBBSl2012 dated 04/05/2015 in the existing vacancies, pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Between: Working at Station House Officer , Chevella, RangaReddy District

1. P.Yellaiah S/o Mallaiah, , Aged about 47 Years, Occ. P and E Constable' 2. IVd. Aklar,n , S/o Md.Azam, , Aged about 46 Years, Occ. P and E Constable, 3. K.Kish6iah ,S/o Jangaiah, , Aged about 49 Years, Occ. P and E Constable, 4. Shaik Goose S/o Kawd Saheb, , Aged about 46 Years, Occ. P and E Working at Rhizamme Distillery, Ivledchal , Ranga Reddy_District Sri Venkateshwara Distillerv, Medak, Medak District. Constable, Working at Station House Officer , Quthbullapur' Ranga Reddy District

5. G.Sayanna,S/o G.Veeraiah, , Aged about 49 Years, Occ. P qnd E Constable, Working at R.K.Distillery, Medchal, Ranga Reddy,(Medchal) District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT Nos.10 TO 14 AND Bhavan, Nampally Road, Hyderabad

1. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, State of Telangana, Abkari 2. The Disirict piohibition Excise Cfficer, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy Dist. 3. The Deputy Commission of Prohibition and Excise Ranga Reddy Division, 5th Floor, Proiiibition and Excise Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad

4. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secrelary to Govt. Revenue (Excise) Dept., Secretariat Buildings. Hyderabad 500001 S. k. LanarOndn Reddy, Aged Years, Prohibition and Excise Constable Hyderabad,

6. K Chandra Shaker Goud, S/o. K Anplairal, Aged about 44 yearc, Occ. P and E Constable Working at Station Hotise Officer Excise Station Shamshabad, Ranoa Reddv District

7. B Rimesh, S/o B Cnary, Aged about 45 years Occ P and E Constable, Working at the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Enforcement, Ranga Reddy District

8. Md Fakruddin, S/dMd Jahangir, Aged about 45 years, Occ. P and E Constable Working at the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Enforcement, Ranga Reddy District

9. V. Karunakar, S/o V Yadbiah, Aged ab6ut 45 years, Occ. Prohibition and Excise Constable Station House Officer, Excise Station. Medchal Ranga Reddy District tv -' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS '10. M. Balaraj, S/o. M. Panciari Rao, Aged 48 years, Occ. proh. and Excise Constable, Nrl/s. Karnal Distilleries, Ranga Rerldy, Rl/o.35-29 South part, Sri Vidya Township, Saroornagar Ranga Reddy Dist-5OOO55 1 1 . C. Srinivas, Sr'o. Late C. Gandaiah, nged- +A years, Occ. proh.and Excise Cone able O/o. E.O. Jeedimetla, Ra ng-a Reddy, Rto.2-75 Himayat Sagor, Gandipet Mdl, Ranga Reddy Dist. S00 006.

12.Y. Kumar Yadav, S/o. Late Rajaiah, Aged 49 years, Occ. proh. and Excise Constable, M/s. Vivadholen Spirits lnc-., R. R. Dist, No. 4-123t8 Saibaba Nagar Colony, Kismatpur, Gandipet Mdl. 500096 '13. K. Ganesh, S/o Sri K. Yadilal, Aged 51 years, Occ. proh and Excise Constable DTI:, -i\.4alkajgiri, Ir/edchal-Rt/o 16-ti5, Suma Residency, Medipally Uppal, Medch:rl District - 500 098 '14.D Shyam Sunder. S/o. LAte Sri D. Mahadev, Aged 47 years, Occ. proh and - Nacharam R/o H.No.2-4- Excise Constable M/s. Liquors lndia, lDA, 12315011O4, S,,^r'aroopnogar Uppal, Medchal District- - 500 039 ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order in lA No 1 of 2019 in wp No 24941 of 2019 dated 1910212020 and dismiss the writ Petition and grant no relief to the petitioners. for the Respondents Nos.1 ro r: cp F6i SERV|CES I Counsel for the petitioners: SRI p.V.KRISHNAIAH !3unse! uounset tor the Respondents No.4: Gp FOR SERVICES_Ill counser for the Respondents No.6: snr n.v.rvrar_itranuurua nao Counset for the Respondents Nos.10 TO 14r SiiGI/ID'ASAGAR, SENIOR K.UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondents No.5: _ COUNSEL FOR M/s. The Court made the following: ORDER J , '.: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 2494L OF 2Ol9 ORDER: Heard Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for petitioners, Iearned Government Pleader for Services-l on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, learned Government Pleader for Services- III on behalf of Respondent No.4, Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.6 and Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned I counsel for Respondents 10 to 14.

2. This Writ Petition filed assailing thc Proceedings dated.28.O8.2O 19 issued by the l=t Respondent and Proceedings dated 16.09.2019 and consequential proceedings dated

26.10.2019 issued by the 2"d Respondent. A consequential direction is sought to Respondents to forthwith consider the cases of Petitioners for promotion to the Post of Prohibition and Excise Head Constable as per seniority list prepared by the 2"u Rcspondent by Proceedings dated 04.05.2015 in the cxisting vacancies. It the case of Petitioners that they were initially

3. appointed as A.P.S.P. Constable at 9ft battalion at Guntur District. Thereafter, they were deputed to work in Prohibition I -) and Excise Department and subsequently absorbed as Prohibition and Excise Constables based on G.O.Ms. No. 11O3 dated 17 -OA-2OO7 . Petitioners submitted their respective willingness for absorption as Prohibition and.Excise Constable and after their deputation on the strength of the order of the Commissioncr of Prohibition and Excise, and after obtaining options and willingness from Petitioners that they would abide by the seniority list. Petitioners were appropriately included in the senioriq, list for promotion to the post of Head Constable, based on t he cxisting seniority list, wherein the date of absorption zrnd age were adopted as the determining criteria. Original in structions issued by Respondent No. 1 uide proceedings dated 28.08.20O9 issued by the 1"t Respondent wherein the 1$ Respondent allowed appeal/representation made by the parg. Respondents against the final seniority list issued by the 2nd Respondent, by Proceedings dated 04.O5.2O15, directing the 2nd Respondent to revise seniorit5r list in the cadre of Excise Constabies of Ranga Reddy District on the so-called marks/merit Iist obtained by the APSP Constables at the time of recruitment as APSP Constables in 1985, even though there is no state-wide merit list of APSP Constables not only at the time of recruitment but also even prior to issuing the impugned proceedings by the l"t respondent and admittedly, the -) constables, who were appointed in battalions in 1985, were absorbed as Excise Constables in Excise Department on

28.05.2009 and determined their seniorit5r based on the age as criterion as all the APSP Constables absorbed in the 10 Excise Department on the same day, i.e., 28.05.2009 in the combined state of Andhra Pradesh and also seek to impugn the consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated i6.09.2019, directing Petitioners to submit thcir objections/explanations for the proposed revision of seniority based on merit/ marks as directed by the 1 .t Respondent by proceedings dated 28.08.2019 which are impugned in this writ petition. 4 Earlier, the APSP Battalion issued Notif-rcation for recruitment of APSP PC, State of Andhra Pradesh dated

06.O7.1994 to {ilI up the AP Special Armed Police Constabulary posts and notified 3,0O0 vacancies ofAPSP Constable posts in 9 battalions i.e., 32o,38O, 32o, 32O, 32O, 32O. 32O,32O and 380 respectively from 1 to 9 battalions, wherein it is categorically stated that for appointment to the post of APSP Police Constables, battalion is the unit of appointment. The selection made based on . the unit treating battalion as a separate ald distinct unit and therefore, the authorities ought to have made .+ selections for 9 battalions separately and prepared selection list i.e. list of selected candidates appointed in particular battalion for each battalion i.e. 9 battalions separately. Petitioners were selected and appointed as APSP battalions and similarly so many other APSP constables around 3,OOO were selected and appointed in different battalions i.e. I to 9 battalions and each battalion consisting of one 11 district or two districts as the case may be, as mentioned in the Notification dated. 06.O7.1994. The 2"d Respondent prepared final seniority list by Proceedings dated 04.05.2O 15 after issuing provisional seniority list, after obtaining objections from the affected parties. It is very pertinent to mention that the authorities prepared such a seniority list in all districts following the same criterion and principle, i.e. following age as criterion, inasmuch as all the excise constables absorbed afresh in the Excise Department on the same day of 28.O5.20O9, not only in the State of Telangana but also in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as the seniority Iists were prepared in certain districts prior to 02.06.2014. The party respondents filed certain appeals/ representations before the 1st Respondent challenging the aforesaid final senioritv list dated O4.O5.2015 and. sought a direction to revise seniority list based on marks/ merit assessed by the APSp battalions at the time of their selection in 1985, even though there is no such state-wide j merit list as the recruitments were made treating each battalion as a separate unit, which constitute entire United State of Andhra Pradesh.

5. From the counter, it is evident that this Court had passed an order in this Writ Petition to the effect that 'Prima- facie, from the hearing of learned counsel, it is noticed that three aspects require-consideration; with reference to determination of inter se seniority at the time of initial selection of police constables in the special Battalions, selections were made based on the physical assessment of the candidates which is not the normal method of recruitment; there was no merit list circulated to the Excise Department, when they were absorbed; seniority lists were earlier drawn up based on the entry into the Battalions, but those seniority lists are sought to be revised by a new formula, on a direction issued by the Commissioner of Excise on appeal. Whereas the seniority lists were Iinalized at the level of Districts. The Commissioner passed orders to determine seniority based on the merit secured by the Candidates in the Battalions. The decision of Commissioner was not with prior notice or opportunity to the persons whose placements were shown in the finai seniority lists in the respective units of appointment. It appears that the candidates -I 6 were drawn from different Special Police Battalions to single unit of appointment in Excise Department. There was no common melit list clubbing all Battalions, when the recruitment u'as made, more so, when the selections were based on physical efficiency, there could not have been a merit list assessing the merit of the candidates and the merit of the candidates, even drawn in that manner in different Battalions, cannot be the criteria to cletermine inter se seniority. Having regard to the above, the matter requires consideration as to what would be the procedure for determinaLion of inter se seniorilr of all those police constables, who are absorbed into Excise 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 filed in Writ Petition No.2823 of 2O2O. It is open to the Government to deal with the above aspects in the counter affidavit. It is also open to the Government to hle additional counter aflidavit dealing with these aspects. Post W.P.No.6989 of 2Ol9 along with these Writ Petitions on

04.03.2020.

6. Respondent No.2 filed counter to Writ Petition contending that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Telangana had communicated the merit list of A.P.S.P 7 Constables recruited during 1995 furnished by the I.G., Battalions (Recruiting Agencies) and instructed to re-fix the seniority in terms of the orders issued by this Court in Writ Petitions No.31978,67Oi of2018 and 26855 of2O19 and other Writ Petitions and also instructed all the nodal District Prohibition and Excise Oflicers to take care and to ensure that notices are issued to all the individuals affected by the process, calling for objections, if any. All the objections filed shall be iisted and disposed of as per rules by issuing a proper speaking order. 7 . As mentioned supra, lrom the counter of Respondent No.2, it is evident that government had issued G.O.Ms.No.11O3, dated 17.O8.2OO7 and instructions of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad dated

22.O5.2OO9, wherein the Constables deputed to Prohibition and Excise Department were absorbed as Prohibition and Excise constables subject to following conditions:- 1) Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 and other relevant rules which are in vogue; 2) They should be paid pay and allowances .and Scale of pay on par with Prohibition and Excise Constables; 3). They shall forego the benefits attached to 11 {1 the Constables in Police Department; 4). Their seniority shall be hxed commencing from the last candidate in the existing seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Constables. Hence, the petitioner contention is true.

8. It is an admitted fact that the Commissioner of Prohibition ;rnd Excise, Hyderabad in Cr.No.O2l2O18 /CPg l82 dated 21.01 .2020 instructed to prepare the seniorit5r list of Prohibition :rnd Excise Constable in continuation to the existing seniority list and communicate to the individuals i.e. absorbed A.P.S.P. Constable as per Andhra Pradesh Sub-Ordinate Service, Rules 1996 and after absorption and after implementation of Presidential Orders and as per the instructions of the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad, a seniority list was prepared by following the provisions of Rules 33 & 36 of A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and upon guidelines issued uid.e G.O.Ms.No.1 1O3, dated 17.8.2OO7 fina,lized and con-rmunicated on O8.O6.2O20 based on the merit list provided by the APSP Battalions, It is contended by Respondent No.2 that seniority list in the present case was communicated on 08.06.2020 and it is settled seniori[i list and Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, T.S., Hyderabad being the Head of the Department had 9 issued orders to all the Nodal District Prohibition & Excise Officers, to revise seniority list in terms of merit' The said orders of Commissioner were passed based on the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 31978 of 20i8 and batch' Certain Prohibition & Excise Constables of Rangareddy and Nizamabad Districts liled Writ Petition No. 67O 1 of 20 18 and Writ Petition No. 26855 of 2Ol9 to prepare seniority list on merit basis' In the common order passed in the above Writ Petitions' on 18.09.2018, it is directed that Commissioner shall cause notice on a1l the affected parties and on due consideration of the respective objections, shall take appropriate decision as warranted by law and communicate the same to the parties' g. It is the case of Petitioners that Notihcation for recruitment of Police Constable was issued by the A'P' State Level Recruitment Board dated 06'O7 1994' The Chairman of RecruitmentBoardislnspectorGeneralofPolice'Battalion' recruitment of Police Constables centraliy Hyderabad. The conducted bY the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, after selection, the merit marks lists of Police Constables those who are selected in the recruitment have been sent Battalion-wise to Range Deputy Inspector General of Police' A.P.S.P. Battalions, for appointment' Hence, no common I I l0 recrlritment merit list maintained in A.P.S.P. As per recruitment notification physical efficiency test (One star standard) only for minimum qualify. Those who are qualified physical efficiency test have to attend National Physical Efficiency Test of 3-Star standard test lor (75) marks. Those who are selected in 3-Star standard test, have to be called for interview at 1:2 ratio for (25) marks total (10O) marks. After the interview, a merit list would be prepared in descending order of merit and the required number of candidates would be selected from such list in the order of m<:rit under each group in each battalion dul_v following the rule of reservation. The requirement of local candidature for selection of Police Constable in A.P. Special Police Service is not necessary as the A.P.S.P. units are outside the pun'iew of Six- point formula Battalion, which is the unit for selcction to the post of Police Constables in A.P.S.P. After completion of process in 1995, (2200) AP Special Armed Police (A.p.S.p.) Consrables were deputed to State Excise Department (prohibition and Excise Dep:rrtment). Later, Govern ment uide G.O.Ms.No.l lO3, dated: 17.08.2OO7 issued orders for absorption of 2151 A.p.S.p. Constables (out of 22OO) who were working in prohibition and Excise Department on deputation and declared as surplus in A.P.S.P., subject to following the Andhra pradesh public .- Employment (Organization of Local Cadre and Regulation of It Direct Recruitment) Orders, 1975 and other relevant rules' after obtaining unequivocal/irrevocable option from them to the effect that they are willing to accept the scale of pay of Prohibition and Excise Constables and their seniority shali be fixed commencing from the last candidate in the existing seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Constables. In Ranga Reddy District' (122) A.P.S.P. Constables, who gave unequivocal/ irrevocable undertaking willing to accept the said conditions were absorbed as Prohibition and Excisc Constables, subject to implementation ofthePresidentialOrder.Itissubmittedthatafterabsorption' someoftheProhibitionandExciseConstableswererepatriated totheirnativeDistrictandsomeoftheProhibitionandExcise Constablesrepatriatedtothisdistrictfromotherdistrictsjoined in the district in implementation of the Presidential Order' After completion of absorption and repatriation, preparation of seniority list was taken up and Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, TS, Hyderabad addressed thc Inspector, Additional Director-General, APSP Battalions, Hyderabad to furnish merit/marks list of APSP Constables' The Additional Director- General of Police, APSP Battalions, Hyderabad uide Cr'No' 363/A612012, dated 24.02.2012 informed that merit list of APSP Constables, is not available with them' Hence' the Commissioner of Prohibilion and Excise, A'P', Hyderabad ui'de d I I - Cr.No.396/2012 /CPE, /H3, dated 07.04.20 12 instruct.cd all the Prohibition and Excise Superintendents in the State to prepare and finalize the seniority list by following the provisions of Rules 33 and 36 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and instrucl ions/guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No. 1 t 03, dated l7.Oa.2OO7, as such, seniority list was prepared based on the date of joining and age (i.e., whoever 18 aged will be senior), issued urde Cr.No. B/885 /2012, dated 04.05.2015. Aggrieved, some of the A.P.S.P. Constables approached the Conrmissioner of Prohibrtion and Excise, TS, Hyderabad and fiied Representa tion / Appeal with the plea that senioritlr shall be flalized based on the merit/marks list duly following the Rule of Reservation and hence, requested the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, TS, Hyderabad to obtain mcrit/marks lists from the Battalions concerned and to re-hx seniority as per merit. In the meanwhile, the aggrieved parties havc also filed Writ Petition No. 6701 of 2O 18, wherein this Court by order dated 28.02.2O18 directed to consider the Appeal hled by the absorbed A.P.S.P. constables to re-hx the seniority as per merit. Accordinglv, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, TS, Hyderabad zrddressed a letter to the Inspector General of Police, T.S.S.P. Hyclerabad to furnish Merit lists of ApSp Constables of 1995 batch and the Inspector General of Police, T.S.S.P. t.l Hyderabad, furnished the Merit list uide Lr,No.606/A2 l2OI7- 18, dated 15.02.2018 to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, TS, Hyderabad, and the Commissioner ol Prohibition and Excise has communicated the same to this ofirce uide . Cr.No. O2/2Ol8lCPElB2, dated 17.O5.2O18 and directed to revise and firlalize the seniority list of constables based on the merit/ marks list furnished by the Commandants of APSP Battalions. As per the instructions of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, TS, Hyderabad dated 16.O7.2018 and 2a.O8.2O19, seniority of Constables l\tas revised and a provisional seniorit5z list was prepared and communicated to Prohibition and Excise Constables on 16.09.2019 with a direction to submit the objections if any within 15 days from the date of receipt of the provisional seniority list. After receipt of the objections, the same were examined and the final seniority list was communicated on 26.10.2019 14.11.2019. Rule-32 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 reads as under: - "Head of the Department shall have the power to relax any rule or rules in these rules or in the special rules in favour of any person or class of persons or category of persons for being appointed to or of any person or class of persons who have served or are serving in any post or posts carrying a scale of pay less than that ofJunior Assistant in his department in so far as such cases relate to transfer, promotion or the service conditions governed by these rules or special rules in such I I I "J l4 manner as ma,V appear to him to be just and equitable in the public interest or rvhere he considers the application of such rule or rules would cause undue hardship to the person or persons concented."

10. Hence, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, TS, Hyderabad, being the head of the Department and Appellate Authority has got power to order revision of seniority. Hence, the contention of petitioners is not denied. Petitioners and their companions filed Writ Petition No. 3 1978 of 20 1 8 against Revision of Seniority list o[ Prohibition and Excise Constables (absorbed APSP Constables) and this Court by order, dated

18.9.2018 ordered as follows: - "....... The Commissioner shall cause notice on all the affected parties and on the due consideration of the respective objections, shati take approl)riate decision as warranted by Law and communicate the same to lhe parties. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allorved. Pording miscellaneous petitions shall stands closed".

11. In compliance with the above orders, the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Telangana State, Hyderabacl, in Cr.No.O2l20181 CPE/B2, dared 19.03.2O19 issued notice to all the 70 absorbed APSP Constables including petitioners in the district directing ttrem to file objections, if any within fiftcen days from the date of receipt of this notice failing which finai orders would be passed basing on the material available on record. On receipt of the above notice, petitioners lrled representation/ objection, dated 23.04.2019 before the -1" t5 Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, TS, Hyderabad with 21 objections requesting not to fix the seniority as per merit. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, taking into consideration the objection of petitioners, examined the matter and while disposing the objection petition, passed orders dated 2a.Oa.2}lg that seniority calr be given as per merit as per Rule- 33 of Telangana State and Sub-ordinate Service Rutes, 1996.

12. Rule 34 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 reads as under :- "Whereas integrated or common seniority list of a particular class, or category or grade in any service belonging to different units of appointment has to be prepared for the purpose of promotion or appointment by transfer, to a class or category having different units of appointment or for any other purpose, such ar] integrated or common seniority list shall be prepared with reference to the provision of sub- rule (a) of rule 33, provided that the seniority list of the persons inter-se belonging to the sane units shall not be disturbed. Explanation: The principle specilted in this rule shall be applicable even where a common integrated list is required to be prepared for categories in different services classes or categories."

13. Pursuant to the instructions of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, TS, Hyderabad, received from time to time and as per Rule, seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Constables (Absorbed APSP Constables) was prepared and communicated to them. This Court in Writ Petition No- 24941 of 2O19 and batch, dated 19.O2.2O2O directed not to affect l6 t promotions, at this stage, for the cadre of Head Constables. The said orders nere implemented and no promotions were given for the cadre oi Head Constable in this District and under Rule 32 of Telangana State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the 1"t respondent. i.e., the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, TS, Hyderabad is having power to relax any rules and every action taken by Respondents 1 to 2 is in pursuance of the orders of this Court and also that of higher authorities from time to tirne and in accordance with the rules and also under the powers vested with.

14. In the present case, it appears that the seniority list uide proceedings dated 04.05.20i5 was prepared as per the provisions of Rule 33 to 38 of the said rules, which include determination of seniority based on the date of joining and age. Further, pctitioners who are the affected parties were not arrayed as party respondents to the lis before this Court in the eariier round of litigation. As such, orders passed by this Court in Writ Petrtion No. 67O1 and 31978 of 2O18 are not binding on petitioners.

15. Since it appears that there was no selection held for the purpose of promotion or appointment to the posts in qr.restion, scniority was determined based on the date of joining

4...? l7 of absorbed APSP constables. This Court finds that in the absence of any selection list, it is not open to prepare a new seniority list based on the merit obtained in APSP Battalions as per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules. Therefore, the settled final - seniority list prepared and confirmed earlier cannot be interfered with at this stage by the l't Respondent Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The power to prepare and publish seniority iists is vested with the Appointing Authority or any other authority empowered to do so by the Government or any other competent authority. This Court finds that the lst Respondent does not have power or authority to direct Nodal Officers to prepare a hnal seniority list based on the merit as per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules, without any appeai being filed and without setting aside the said final senioriqr lists prepared in various Districts. This Court hereby comes to a conclusion that seniority lists by proceedings dated O4.O5.2O 15 prepared is against the provisions of Rule 33 to 38 of APSSS Rules based on the dates ofjoining and age is of valid and need to be interfered with. Furlher, this Court hereby held that the 1"t Respondent does not have the power or authority to direct the Nodal Oflicers to prepare a linal seniority list based on the merit as per Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules. As a consequence of the same, this Court sets aside the Proceedings dated j- I I l8 i 2A.Oa.2O7g issued by the lst Respondent and Proceedings dated 16.Og.2Ol9 and consequential proceedings dated 26'lO'2019 issued by the 2'd Respondent. It is therefore, directed that Respondents shall forthwith consider the caseg of Petitioners for promotion to the Post of Prohibition and Excise Head Constable as per ser-riority list prepared by the 2nd Respondent by Proceedings dated 04.05.2015 in the existing vacancies' 16 t7 Wirh this, the writ Petition is allou'ed' No costs' Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed SD/. K.SREERA MA MURTHY EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER v angana, Abkari vderabad ise Cfficer, Saroornag ar, Ranga ReddY Dist The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, State f Tel Bhavan , NamPall Road,H The District Proh ition Exc The DePutY Com mission of Prohibition and Excise Ranga ReddY D Floor, Prohrbition and Excise ComPlex, NamP allY, Hydera bad PrincipaI Secretary to Govt. Revenue (Excise) Dept., Secretariat Buildings' a 500001 Hvd erab aC, State of Tel Advocate IOPUC] IAH, for the Slate of Telangana, at One CC to SRI P.V KRI , High Court Two CCs to GP FO R SERVICES. Hvd iabacl. tou! Two CCs to GP FO R SERVICES-Ill, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hvd eraba,i, IouTl One CC to SRIR.V MALLIKARJU NA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to M/s. K.UDAYA SRI, Ad vocate [OPUC] SHNA ivision,Sth 1 l To

2. 3.

5. 6.

7. B o 1 PSK.

0.Two CD CoPies $ HIGH COURT DATED:2810s12025 ORDER WP.No.24941 ot 2019 €. ,,; ,i -) .) 1) ,/ .) r t1€ SIa 15 2OJIJII M 2 a t D€sn,n'rC,, r(- , I ALLOWING'I'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I I I W