V. Naresh, S/o v. gJiniva.s

Counsel for the Pe,titioners: SRI AJAY KUMAR NERELLA Counsel for the RersJ:ondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made tl"e following: ORDER ,l HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.448 OF 2f)22 o DER: Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Nerella, tearned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2 Th Deti toners ADD the Cou see inq Dra era s under: "....to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature ol" Writ of MANDAM|S by declaring the impugned Memorandum issued by the 4th respondent wherein rejected the claim of the petitioners for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to police Constable vide Rc.No.A1-Estt/686/202I dated 06.12.202I, even though the respondent authorities were considered the claim of similarly situated persons for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to police Constable vide Rc.No.123lA1/2OtB-Lg, D.O. No.5357/2019, dated 30.03.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and accordingly set aside the same with a consequential direction to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for reversion from the category to HC to PC in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in W.p No.37146 of 2OL3 and 39280 of 2013 and orders issued in favor of similarly situated persons vide orders 2 SN,J \V.l'.rlo 448 2022 Rc.No.l..).3lAll2}l}-lg, D.O.No'5357/2019 (:ated 30.03.20i9 in the interest of justice and to pajs such other or:ler or orders as this Hon'ble Court ma / (leem fit and 1:r:per in the circumstance of the case'" S.Thecascofthepetitioners,inbrief,isthatthepr::titioners havebeerraprrointedasPoliceConstablesintheyear:'l01Band posted tc tle 1't Battalion, Hyderabad' As per the Telangana StatePoliceRJlescategoryT(b),thepetitionersareeigiblefor conversion f rrlm TS Special Police to Armed R'ese've (AR) Constables ,'rfter completion of 10 years of service' Subsequenl:ly the petitioners have been promot:ed to the post ofHeadCorS.:ablesintheyear202lbutlaterscrugltt'/oluntary reversiontC,-repostofCcnstableduetopersonal"lardships. However, ttre r request for reversion was rejected by the 3'd respondent,,'tcre the impugned order Rc'No' ALlEsi'.tle'86/2021, dated 06,12..1021, without assigning pioper reasons attd merely citingaclminstrativegroundsthoughthesinrila.|ySituated persons be orrging to the same Battalion were al owed for reversior \/,d(-' order dated 30.03.2019' Aggrieved b1' the said rejection orcer', the petitioners have approacherl this Court by filing the Prr?seflt writ Petition' / 3 SN,J W.P.No 448 2022

4. PERU ED THE RE ORD: (A) The releva nt oortion of the i mouoned Memoran um vide Rc.No.Al lEsftl6A6l2O2 o6 ), 1 , 1 nff o h F res nondent N o A atldroc. +ri +h a e he nt racted hereun "The following ( 13) Head Constables of this unit have submitted the represe4ntations and the same were forwarded by the concerned OsC of this unit vide reference 1" to 7tn and 11th to 13th cited. in whlch the individuals have requested to revert them to the rank of Police Constable. Ran k G. No. SI No (1) 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 72 13 (2) HC HC HC HC HC HC HC HC HC HC HC HC HC Na me (4) Sri Y. Guruvara Prasad Sri P. Govind Sri A. Linga Murthy (3) 55 227 549 2148 Sri V. Na resh 545 2466 745 275 408 127 Sri G. Soor Reddy Sri K. Manohar Sri B. Srinivas Sri G. Ravinder Reddy Sri A. Naveen Sri Manohar Goud 2322 Sri K. Prem Kumar 509 464 Sri R. Babu Sri G. Naga raju coy. (s) HQ HQ HQ HQ HQ B A C C HQ D L E 4 SN,J 'W P No 448 2022 .lrr t hls connection, vide references Bth to 0r' cited, the A(ld. Director General of Police, TSSP Bns have inst-uc:erl all the Commandants that, the appli:ation:' of the HCs of I'rr: respective units requesting to revert tl^enr as PC are to i:3 rejected on Administrative grounds; ard also to disposr: ,)' the applications of the HCs of thr:ilespective units a:::rdingly. l:,.'-her, vide reference 14th cited, it is illform(rd that, as Der R.rle 28 of Telangana State and Subordina -e Service Rules .1 !)96, any member of a service Inay n writing relinquistr any right or privilege to which he may tre':ntitled to su (:h re lin q u ish me nt once mad e will be fin a I a nd irre,:overable provided that no conditional relirlqui;hrnent of right fr,r a temporary period shall be permitted. :Lrrr-her, it is also informed vide reference 14rh cited thal-, ac{-crding to this rule, the employees are enti':led for relinquisirrent of post at the time issue of pro''l'lotiorr orders oniy. E ul whereas in the instant case they have errjo Teci .the post o'llCs for a considerable period and have not'v come forwar,j t'or reversion which they are not r:ntit ed to, Furthe -n-,ore, there is no Rule providing for re'rer-sior to the rank at [']e request of employees in Telangana Stilte and Suborclinate Service Rules 1996 or Special Rules 'or ISSP. 1r:l'ersion to a lower rank can only be rrrade by the disciplin;'rry authority as a measure penalty following Telangar ar Civil Service (Classification Control Aptre;rl Rules 199 1lr Ir obedience of the above instruct on;, the applicE ti()ns submitted by the above HCs of this ur'it were consid,lrr-.ri and rejected on Administrative GrounCs and dispos,l.l Dff, E:t.rther, all OsC are instructed not trl a:c(,pt any revers o't proposals from HCs till further order!; and 'lirected to seT/c) the copy of memo to the above said ndividuals under groper dated acknowledgements and report co nr plia t'c e Sd/-xxx Corn n.ta ndant lst Bn. TSSP, Fvd:rabad. To The abo,,r: Head Constables of this unit througlr trr: concernr,ci OsC of 1" 8n. TSSP, Hyderabad. -) Rc

30. D (B) The .423 relevant -19 IC 20 itioners herein is extra 2 5 SN,J w P.No 448 2022 the order vide d 35 4a r 19 t rtion ot D N dh reund er: "In accordance to the counseling to the individual as per TSSP HO Memo ref.3'd cited the following (09) HCs of the unit have stilt come up with their representations for their reversion as PC's due to the reasons mentioned against their names. the HCs are still probations in the cadre of HC having been promoted in the year 2018. S No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rank & G.No. Name Reason for reversion HC 383 P. Chiranjeevi HC 36 B.Naganna HO 14ain HQ HXC 252 HC 1t1.2 B. Srinivasulu M. Mahesh B HC 885 B. Ramesh HC 885 K. Mahesh Kumar HC 515 D. Naganna HC 969 T, Praveen HC 746 T. Tukaram GH5 c HQ Conversion to AR Conversron to AR Conversion to AR Family Problem Family Problem Conversion to AR ConveTsion tO AR Conversion to AR On reverSion PC posted to Coy HO Main Int HO B GHs c HQ . Their rePresentations are reverted to the rank of PC. considered and theY are The reverslon they are posted to the Same Coys' The OSC A, B, C and HQ coys are directed to take the above HCs in1n. .t."ngtll of pts from 01.04.2019' The OsC concerned will inform the date of their reposting as Sd/-... Commandant 6 SN,J \V..I'].\o 448 2022 o l-h (c) Division Bench of this court dated 24.032([{-Easscd-i[ 3928O of 2O1 3 in oa icu la r t7 L46 of 2O 13 an rder of the he mmon W.P.No.: n Dara No. Z-.is extractea nereun "7. Le:rred counsel for the first respondent in :h< Writ Petiti lns/applicants relied on a decision in G.Bo1'anr a'r' case (1 sLpril)wherein it is held thus: (para 7) "lt is relevant to note at this point that th:: petiti rner was not promoted to the post o1' lurrio - Assis.ilnt but was appointed by transfer. l'n f:ct, he <-r- Ltld not have been so promoted, as the i'ost of i)(rr:ess Server is not in the feeder category for pron-rotion to the post of Junior Assistant. In thir; vie r, c,f the matter, it is doubtful whether the ac t of t h (r petitioner in seeking reversion from the ptos t of .lr.rnior Assistant can be said to be one c'f reiincruishment of his right to be considered fcr prcrrction. However, this is how the respondr:nt; haVe :reated the matter and the petitioner 'lls1) abiCr:c by it. Therefore, for the purpose of thi; case, it shall be presumed that the petiticn€r rel n,:tuished his right for promotlon when h': soug rt reversion to the post of Process Server. ' f t'e above decision has no api:lication tc t"le fitcts of the prer;et] . case. But, on the ground of discrinrinaticn, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is n'rt irl cispute before thi; Couft that as per proceedings dated 2'1, t0 2005, some ol'lhe Head Constables were reverted and posted to worl: as F olice Constables in the District Armed Rt:se,rve in their re;pective Units. Therefore, there should no - tre any discrin i.aton from one person to another persor. llence, the mpur;ned order needs no interference by ths Court. However, the cases of applicants have to be r:ons,idr,:red if they fit rto 40olo quota. Therefore, we make it clear that after re,re -sion, the applicants cannot be immediately r;ent to 7 SN,J W.p.No 448 2022 the District Armed Reserve but their cases have to be considered for posting to District Armed Reserve if they come within the 40olo quota meant for police Constables of APSP." DISCUS ION AND coNc usr N:

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that petitioner,s request for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to police Constable was rejected by Respondent No.4 vide proceedings dated 06.12.2021, even though the respondent authorities had considered and accepted similar requests for reversion from the rank of Head constabre to porice constabre to simirarry situated individuals, vide order dated 30.03.2019. In C.No. ttl/Al/2OIg (D.No.14512019), as well as to the petitioners who had approached this Court by filing W.p. Nos. 37t46 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013. However, in the present case, the petitioner,s request for reversion from the post of Head constabre to porice Constable was rejected, with a mere intimation stating that the request could not be considered on administrative grounds, as per the instructions issued by the Head Office to Respondent No.4.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places reliance on the Common Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.p. Nos.37146 of 2OI3 t 8 SN,J W I'}.I1o 448 2022 and 39,18C ':)1 2013, and contends that the petiticner herein is also entitl(rd f'or the similar relief as extended to the petitioners in the pre:sr:rt writ petition, in the light of Lhe ol)servations made by t-r(. Division Bench of this Court'

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearlng on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the passing of orders under similar circun'lstances in 9W.P.No,36609 of 2C.24 and batch dated 28'02'2025' I reliance or'l the counter affidavit L.ea-red Assistant Government Pleader for lome; placing filed on trehalf of the No.B contends that the responde.rts, in particular, paragraph petitioner vvas appointed as Police Constable ln February' 2018 and crlm plsted only three years of service For ''eversion to Police Ccn,;table (AR) (Men), a minimum of 10 yea -s of service is requir€rd and the petitioner, in his representatic n r;ubmitted to the resp rr rlent office, requested reversion clue tr family and personal prroblems, and the petitioner had nct rnerntioned that he was seeking reversion for Armed Reserved conversion' Therefor:, :he petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed howev r!i nce for in th3 F,resent writ Petition' B ons, s the lEUl n co n er t r s (, e d t ref cti I SN,J W.P.No 448 2022

06.12.2 o2L and the said Impugned proceedings only indicate administrative grounds this Court opines that the same is an afterthought developed to improve the case of the respondents, and therefore, the said preas cannot be taken into consideration by this Court for adjudication of the present case.

9. A bare perusal of the record indicates that Respondent No.4 rejected the petitioner, request without assigning any specific reasons, merely stating that the request of the petitioner from Head constabre to porice constabre courd not be considered due to Head Office instructions issued by the Respondent No.4 on administrative grounds though the similar relief had been extended to similarly situated persons, who made a request for reversion from Head Constable to police constable as per the Common Order of the Division Bench of this Court and the observations thereunder dated 24.03.20L4 passed in W.P.Nos.37146 of 2013 and 39820 of 2013 and similar such relief had been extended to the petitioner in W.P.No.36609 of 2024 and batch, vide orders of this Court dated 28.02.2025.

10. Therefore, this Court opines that the request of the petitioner for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable has to be reconsidered by the 4th respondent in l0 SN,J W.P Nr .148 2022 +_ accordance lo law duly taking into con:;ideral:ion the observati,lns r.,f the Common Order of the Division Ben,:h of this Court dated 2+.03.2014 passed irr W.P. Nos.37146 of ,2013 and 39280 ol' 20 I.3 (referred to and extracted abrovt:) within a ieasonab e pre-1od by the 4th respondent herein.

11. rAKU{ INTO CONSIDE RATION: a) Thr: aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) Tht: submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner ,and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) Thr: fact that similar relief had been extended to the similarly situated individuals, who made a req uest for reversion from Head Constable to Police Constable by the respondent No.4 vide orders dated 3O.O3.2O19 and, d) ThG) observations made in the Common t)rder of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2OL4 pas;sed in W.P.No.37l46 of 2013 and 3982O of 20ri.3, e) The order dated 28.02.2025 passed in W.P. No. 36(iO9 of 2024 and batch. f) The fact as borne on record that the inrpugned menio vide Rc.No.AllEstt/686/2O21, dated 06.12,2O2L of the respondent No.4 adclressed to the petitioner is bereft of reasons. l1 SN,J W.P.No 448 2022 The writ petition is allowed. The impugned Memorandum vide Rc.No.AllEstt/68612O2\ dated O6.L2.2O2L issued by the respondent No.4 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the observations of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24-3-2OL4 passed in W.P. Nos. 37L46 of 2013 and 3982O of 2013 and also the fact as borne on record that similar relief had been extended to similarly situated persons vide proceedings of the 4th respondent Rc.No.123lAL/ 201-8-L9t D.O.No. 5357 / zOLg dated 3O.O3.2O19 (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate reasoned speaking orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. , Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed, t! I //TRUE COPYtt SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUry REGISTRAR ro, secrlor,t glrrcen tfiilti#;I.,e Department, reransana secretariar, rhe Stare : Jif{il|oiXX z. r ne utrector General ofpolice, State of Telanoa r t h e Ad d i tio n a t D i re c toi c eliiij, "^ lJ"^ 1,, ^ ^, "+fl lcs la, . l q r rd i k a p u t, H yd e ra b a d. .4 Jubrhirs, o"r,u,^,,,,1-[roo'1i;'doiiiiii;J.+9"*3t1,[1,t:lTHl#iS[3?3; i """"b.crll'Tfil:,,,i1',1Tiii3l"li,l.,'Ir**,!,168r", \\ ,__=-*_".*::1]---.'.*__1 Two CC to l tre (lP for Home, High Court forthe State of T'elangana, at HyderabarlIOl..l't I Two CD Copie:, b 7 TJ GJP HIGH COURT CC TODAY l ) I :, it, STAfg o ./]l:' t: \,,^ ",, t.', . t\ ..' 1l tiiN 20[ c)i\ .'t\ , aE i!nIctl DATED:021051?-025 \ ORDER WP.No.448 ctl2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C OSTS /o /5 I /