V. Gangu, S/o. Late v. Hatya Naik, Aged

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stqted in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2, instructing the 3rd Respondent to revert the petition vide impugned Memorandum in RC No.327|E112015, dt.24-06-2017 as lllegal, Arbitrary, High Handed and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondents not to revert the Petitioner from the post of ARSI (Black Smith) and direct the respondents to regularize the service of the Petitioner in the category of ARSI wet 22-6-2003 dehorse the orders issued in the D.No.961/2006 (C.No.1594lA1l2OO5 dt. 11-09- 2006 of the 4th Respondent and consider for the next promotion to the post of RSI wlth all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 28962OF 2017 ) 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 not to revert the petitioner from the post of ARSI(Black Smith) by suspending the Operation of lmpugned Memorandum vide RC No.327lE112015, dated'. 24-06-201 7 issued by the 2nd Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 the respondents to implement the Memo vide Re No. 12281A2-EstV20'l 5-18 dt27-11- 2018 of the 3rd respondent and Memo vide C No 1805/41/2018 dl 17-12-2018 issued by the 4th respondent forth with without reference to the pendency of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WMP. NO: 4239 0F 2017) Between:

1. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Govt. (Home) Department, Telangana State Secretariat Hyderabad

2. The Director General of Police Telangana State,, Saifabad Hyderabad 3. lnspector General of Police, Telangana State Special Police Battalion Sourya Bhavan, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

4. Commandant, lV Battalion Telangana State Special, Police Marnnoor, Warangal, Warangal Dist. AND V. Gangu, S/o. Late V. Hatya Naik, Aged 51 years, Occ: ARSI (TSSP), Mamnoor Lines, Warangal, T.S. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTAA/RIT PETITONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pteased to vacate the interim order granted on 17.07.2017 in W.P.M.P. No. 28962/20.1 7 in W.P.No. 2344212017. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: M/S A. SAWASREE, AGp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I ') THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.23442 of 2017 ORDER: ' Heard Mr.Ch.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. A.Satvasree, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable in VII Battalion (Bn. for brevity)(ApSp) Telangana Special Police (TSp for brevity) at Dichpally in Nizamabad on 13.12.19a4. He was tralsferred on administrative grounds to tV Bn, TSp, Mamnoor Lines, Waranaga-l in the year 1999 from General Duty group to Specialized group as PC Black Smith. He reported to the same on 1O.O6.1999. When a post of ARSI Black Smith arose in the yeax 2OOl, petitioner was the only person eligible in ARSI Black Smith wing and the petitioner \{,as promoted on temporar5r basis to the post of ARSI (Black Smith) on 18.03.2001 by the DIG, APSP Bns. Hyderabad and the petitioner is holding the same post since 18.03.2001. After promotion petitioner was deputed for training in the course of basic Class III of Technical l<-l '\i 2 N8(J w.P. o-23ir42 of2017 Proficiency at KIRKEE, B.E.G( Bombay Engineering Group Center) Pune in 2OO1 in the category of ARSI.

3. In the year 2OO4, the Commandant IV Bn. APSP issued officer order regularizing petitioner's service and brought him to the B-List from 22.06.2003, as the petitioner completed 4 years of service in the cadre of PC(Black Smith) on 22.06.2003. In the year 2O04, Commandant IV Bn. APSP issued officer order dated 13.07.2004 cieclaring the petitioner's probation in the category of ARSI w.e.f 2LO6.2OO4 A.N. and brought him into the category of A list.

4. While things stood thus, the Commandant IV Bn. APSP issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his probation should not be cancelled reasoning that none of his batch mates/juniors who are working in General Duty line were promoted as ARSI on par with the petitioner trl 2a.02.2006 and. since the eligibility for the post of ARSI (General) and ARSI (Black Smith - Specialised) are cornpletely different. Further, a lrnal order dated 11.09.2006 in D.O.No.96l of 2006 canceliing earlier orders dated 21.06.2004 was issued by Commandant IV Bn. APSP, however allowed the petitioner to contimre to work as ARSI till his juniors in General Duty Lines are promoted as 3 fl8(J W.P. flo.23442 of 20I7 ARSIs on regular basis. However, he was sanctioned special grade increment on completion of B years and 12 years of service in the category of ARSI (Black Smith). Further the petitioner has submitted represerrtation to Additionar DGp rs SP Bns. requesting to restore his seniority in the category of ARSI from 22.06.2003 and to assign notional senioritv in the category of ARSI as \^ras done in a similar case i.e.,O.A.No.2O65 of 2O08 dated 31.01.20 11 which were implemented by the Additional DGP ApSp Bns. duly assigning notional date of Seniority in the category of ARSI by order dated 09.08.2O12. Further the petitioner has completed more than 16 years of service in the post of ARSI and has not reverted in those 16 years and the orders passed by the Commandant IV Bn.ApSp, Warangal are liable to be quashed in the light of the decided case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the order passed by the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.p.No.1696 1 of 2012, wherein the operative portion of the said order reads as under: "On reading the above memo we are convinced that the Commandant was satisfied that thc applicant had sufficient knowledge and experience I 4 N8(J W.P. t|o.23442 oI2017 -- \ 'l to hold the post presumably because he was well trained in the job of Black Smith pC. This situation cannot be reverted by the ADGp while considering the grievance of the applicant with regard to his inclusion or non_inchrsion in the seniority. Secondly, we also feel constrained to observe that when he was already given regularisation with effect from 20.O9. tSS+i the same could not have been withdrawn by the ADGP without putting the applicant on notiJe. We are convinced that the impugned order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error warranting interference. The Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. "

6. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in counter affidavit specifically submitted that the case of the petitioner will be reviewed strictly in accordance with the Service Rules issued in ApSp Manual, APPM and Special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.69 Home(pol_D) Department, dated O7.O4.1997 and that he will be placed at al appropriate place in the seniority list of HCs on par with his batchmates/juniors and he u,ill be assigned notiona_l seniority as HC/ARSI on par with the batchmates/juniors as per the Rules-

7. Having considered the respective submissions, it may be noted that the seryices of the petitioner were already regularized and brought on to,B, list as ARSI with effect from

22.06.2003 and brought on to 'A' list as ARSI with effect from 2l .06.2OO4 and the same could not have been cancelled by the Office of the Commaldant IV Bn. APSp vide D.O.No.961 of 2OO6. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion to direct the respondents to review the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with Service Rules and to place him at an appropriate place in the Seniority list of HCs and to assign notional seniority as HC/ARSI on par with his batchmates/juniors as per the Rules. B. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders regularizing the services of the petitioner in accordance with law, in the category of ARSI w.e.f. 22.06.2003, within a periocl of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, if the petitioner is eligible for promotion, his case may be considered on par with his batchmates/juniors as per r-ules, in the notional seniority as HC/ARSI. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Principal Secretary to Govt. (Home) Departme , Telangana State Secretariat The State of Telangana, Hyderabad The Director General of Police Telangana State,, Saifabad Hyderabad lnspector General of Police, Telangana State Special Police Battalion Sourya Bhavan, Yousufguda, Hyderabad Commandant, lV Battalion Telangana State Special, Police IUa!'nncor, Warangal, Warangal Dist. One CC to Sri CH. Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies To, 2 J 4 4 6

7. TJ --/lla- ---. - _-ll HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ) ORDER WP.No.23442 of 2017 /., J U a- :,,? t fr T HE .j i:.1 ,f o 2E ffiE NE 2 C).\ {+ cHr-c DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2 6\8 l'e(