Page 1

REPORTABLE

        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

          CIVIL APPEAL No.  795  OF 2017        (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.35697/2013)

S. Sreedhar Reddy & Ors. …….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ……Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 796 OF 2017        (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.36680/2013)

K. Madhusudhan Rao & Ors. …….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ……Respondent(s)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 797-798  OF 2017        (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos.1134-1135/2014)

A.A.F. Vijay Kumar & Ors. …….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ……Respondent(s)

1

Page 2

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 800-801 OF 2017        (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos.7931-7932/2014)

Munduri Srihari Jagannath …….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ……Respondent(s)

AND CIVIL APPEAL No. 802 OF 2017

      (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.12804/2014)

 T. Purna Chander …….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ……Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Applications for impleadment are allowed.

2) Leave granted.

3) These  appeals  are  filed  against  the  common

final judgment and order dated 20.09.2013 passed

by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad

in  Writ  Petition  Nos.  5161  and  7297  of  2013

whereby the High Court allowed the writ petitions

2

Page 3

and set aside the order dated 01.02.2013 of the A.P.

Administrative  Tribunal,  Hyderabad  in  O.A.  No.

4283 of  2012 and batch,  in  consequence thereof,

quashed  memorandum  No.  83/E1/2001  dated

22.05.2012  of  the  Director  General  of  the  State

Disaster  Response  and  Firer  Services,  Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad.

4) Facts of the case need mention, in detail, infra

to  appreciate  the  controversy  involved  in  the

appeals.

5) The dispute in these appeals essentially relates

to  inter se seniority of the Station Fire Officers (for

short, “SFOs”).  

6) In  the  year  1993,  the  appellants  and  the

private  respondents  were  appointed  as  SFOs  by

direct recruitment, which is a multi-zonal post, after

passing the test conducted by the Andhra Pradesh

State  Level  Police  Recruitment  Board  (hereinafter

referred  to  as  “the  Board”).   By  virtue  of  that

3

Page 4

examination,  59  candidates  were  selected  in  the

Multi Zone-I and Multi Zone-II.   The said post is

covered  by  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Fire  Subordinate

Service Rules (for short, “the Rules”) issued under

G.O.  Ms.  No.  568,  Home (Prisons-A)  Department,

dated  24.11.1992.   According  to  Rule  12  of  the

Rules, an SFO appointed through direct recruitment

must pass three tests, namely, (i) Accounts Test for

Subordinate Officers Part-I; (ii) Andhra Pradesh Fire

Service  Manual;  and  (iii)  A  certificate  course  of

competence  in  wearing  and  instructions  on

Breathing Apparatus, within the period of probation

which, in turn, described in Rule 9 of the Rules.

7) The  first  and  second  tests  were  conducted

from  time  to  time  but  the  Government  did  not

conduct  the  third  test  for  years  together  for  one

reason or the other.   

8) According to the appellants,  they cleared the

first  and second tests and taking note  of  the fact

4

Page 5

that  the  third  test  was  not  conducted  by  the

Government  itself,  the  Fire  Services  Department

vide Rc. No. 83/E1/2001 dated 31.07.2003 issued a

provisional  Seniority  List  of  SFOs in Multi  Zone-I

and Multi Zone-II.  In this provisional Seniority List,

the  appellants  were  placed  below  the  private

respondents  based  on  select  list  ranking.   The

Department  called  for  the  objections  to  the  said

Seniority List.  The appellants objected to the said

Seniority List by filing representations.

9) The  Fire  Services  Department  vide  Rc.  No.

83/E1/2001  dated  15.11.2007  issued  revised

Seniority  List  of  SFOs  in  Multi  Zone-I  and  Multi

Zone-II.  In this Seniority List also, the appellants

were put below the private respondents.   

10) According to the appellants, the Government of

A.P.  vide  G.O.  Ms.  No.  454  of  2009  dated

06.11.2009  exempted  59  SFOs  of  1993  batch  of

direct recruits belonging to Multi Zone-I and Multi

5

Page 6

Zone-II  from  undergoing  the  third  test,  i.e.,

certificate  course  of  “competence  in  wearing  and

instructions  on  Breathing  Apparatus  test”  as

prescribed  in  Rule  12  of  the  Rules,  as  a  special

case,  as  the  training  in  Wearing  Breathing

Apparatus  Set  is  included  in  the  syllabus  of

Refresher Course and will meet the requirements of

certificate course and all the SFOs have successfully

undergone and passed the similar training during

the year 2006.   

11) The Fire Services Department vide Memo No.

8206/PRI.A/A2/2009-8  dated  27.01.2010  issued

certain  clarifications  regarding  the  completion  of

probation  of  SFOs  mentioning  that  the  penal

provisions  of  Rule  16(h)  of  the  A.P.  State  and

Subordinate  Service  Rules  1996  (for  short  “the

Subordinate  Rules”)  shall  not  be  applied  to  the

SFOs of 1993 batch but the same shall apply on the

employees, who failed to acquire the qualifications

6

Page 7

within the period of probation due to their lapse.  As

per this memorandum, the penal provision of Rule

16(h) of the Subordinate Rules shall be applicable to

the private respondents only.   

12) Though Seniority List was not finalized based

on the provisional Seniority List, the appellants and

the private respondents were promoted from SFOs

to  the  post  of  Assistant  District  Fire  Officers  on

14.10.2010.

13) The  Fire  Services  Department  vide  Rc.

No.83/E1/2001  dated  23.12.2011  issued  revised

provisional  Seniority  List  of  SFOs in Multi  Zone-I

and II.  In this list also, the appellants were placed

below the private respondents and again objections

were called for.

14) On 03.04.2012, the Fire Services Department

vide  memorandum  Rc.  No.  83/E1/2001,  after

quoting the legal opinion of the Government Pleader

for  Home  (Services),  A.P.  High  Court  received,

7

Page 8

mentioned that the decision was taken to decide the

dates  of  commencement  and  completion  of  initial

period of two years for passing the tests as the basis

for  the seniority.   It  was also mentioned that  the

penal  provisions of  Rule  16(h)  of  the  Subordinate

Rules should also be taken into consideration and

the final Seniority List would be prepared on that

basis.

15) The  Fire  Services  Department  vide  Rc.  No.

83/E1/2001  dated  22.05.2012  issued  final

Seniority List of SFOs in Multi Zone-I and II taking

the  dates  of  commencement  and  completion  of

initial  period of two years for passing the tests as

the basis for the seniority.  The penal provision of

Rule  16(h)  of  the  Subordinate  Rules  was  also

applied in preparing this final Seniority List.  In the

said  list,  the  appellants  were  placed  above  the

private respondents on the basis that they passed

the  prescribed  tests  (other  than  exempted  test)

8

Page 9

within the period of probation.

16) Aggrieved  by  the  final  Seniority  List  dated

22.05.2012, the private respondents filed O.A. No.

4283  of  2012  before  the  A.P.  Administrative

Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) for

quashing the memorandum No. 83/E1/2001 dated

22.05.2012.

17) The  Tribunal,  vide  its  judgment  and  order

dated  01.02.2013  in  O.A.  No.  4283  of  2012  and

connected matters dismissed all  the O.As filed by

the private respondents.

18) Aggrieved  by  the  said  judgment/order,  the

private  respondents  filed  petitions  being  W.P.Nos.

5161 and 7297 of 2013 before the High Court.   

19) The High Court, by impugned judgment dated

20.09.2013, allowed the writ petitions and set aside

the  judgment and order  dated 01.02.2013 passed

by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 4283 of 2012 and batch

consequently,  quashed  the  G.O./Seniority  List

9

Page 10

dated 22.05.2013.

20) On the basis of  the impugned judgment,  the

Director General, State Disaster Response and Fire

Services,  Hyderabad  (respondent  No.2  herein)

issued revised seniority list on 10.11.2013 whereby

the appellants were placed below the rank of private

respondents  herein.   Further  15  days’  time  was

given to raise objections.

21) Before  the  expiry  of  the  period  of  raising

objections, the appellants have filed these appeals

by  way  of  special  leave  before  this  Court  on

21.11.2013.   

22) This  Court  issued  notice  to  the  respondents

and  directed  that  until  further  orders,  the

appellants shall not be reverted.

23) Heard Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior

counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Gururaj Rao,

learned senior counsel  for  the private respondent,

Mr. G. Prabhakar, learned counsel, for the State of

1

Page 11

A.P.  and  Mr.  S.  Udaya  Kumar  Sagar,  learned

counsel for the State of Telangana.  

24) Mr.  B.  Adinarayana  Rao,  learned  Senior

Counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated the

submissions  which  were  urged  by  the  appellants

before  the  High  Court  while  opposing  the  writ

petitions  filed  by  the  private  respondents  against

the appellants.

25) In reply, learned counsel for the respondents

supported  the  impugned  order  and  prayed  for

dismissal  of  the  appeals  and,  in  consequence,

prayed for upholding of the order of the High Court,

which had set aside the order of the Tribunal and

quashed the memorandum dated 22.05.2012 and,

in consequence, the seniority list.

26)  Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in these appeals.  

27) In our considered opinion, the High Court was

1

Page 12

justified  in  its  reasoning  and  the  conclusion  in

allowing  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  private

respondents (original applicants before the Tribunal)

and  quashing  of  Memorandum  No.  83/E-1/2001

dated  22.05.2012  impugned  in  OA  before  the

Tribunal  out  of  which  the  aforementioned  writ

petitions arose.

28) It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  private

respondents  herein  (original  applicants  before  the

Tribunal) being the direct recruits had cleared two

tests as provided in Rule 12 (i) and (ii) of the Rules

though late but with the permission of  the State.  It

is also not in dispute that so far as the third test, as

provided  in  Rule  12  (iii)  was  concerned,  the

respondents and all others alike them in the same

cadre were exempted from passing vide G.O.Ms No.

454 of  2009 dated 6.11.2009 issued by the State

Government.  It  is  further  not  in  dispute  that  the

private  respondents  had  also  completed  their

1

Page 13

probation successfully.

29) In  the  light  of  these  undisputed  facts,  the

question  before  the  High  Court  was  whether  Rc.

No.83/E1/2001  dated  22.05.2012  which  created

two classes amongst SFOs for determination of their

inter se seniority, namely, one class which cleared

the two tests in time and other class which cleared

the  tests  late,  was  legally  justifiable  and,  if  so,

whether  it  was  in  conformity  with  the  Rules  for

giving effect to it for determination of their  inter se

seniority.  The two classes created by the impugned

GO dated 22.05.2012 for determination of  inter se

seniority  of  SFOs  had  resulted  in  disturbing  the

seniority list.  

30) We  have  perused  the  relevant  Rules,  which

have bearing over the controversy at hand, namely,

A.P. Fire Subordinate Service Rules and A.P. State

and Subordinate Service Rules.  In our view, these

Rules  do  not  empower  the  State  to  make  the

1

Page 14

classification as was sought be done by the State for

determining  the  inter  se seniority  of  SFOs in this

case.

31) In our opinion, taking into account the three

undisputed  facts  mentioned  above  and  the  Rules

governing the probation and the seniority, there was

neither  any  justifiable  basis  for  creation  of  such

classification nor it satisfied the requirement of the

Rules which governed determination of their inter se

seniority.   In  other  words,  firstly,  when  the

respondents  successfully  cleared  their  probation,

secondly, when the respondents cleared two tests,

thirdly,  when the  Government  itself  exempted the

respondents from appearing in the third test,  and

lastly, when the Rules did not provide for creation of

two classes between the employees working in one

Cadre  (SFO),  then  in  our  view,  there  was  no

justification on the part of the Government to have

issued G.O. dated 22.05.2012 for determination of

1

Page 15

inter se seniority by making classification.

32) Our  view  also  finds  support  from  the  view

recently  taken  by  this  bench  in  the  judgment

rendered in Civil Appeal No.9856-9860 of 2016  R.

Venkata Ramudu and Another Etc. vs.  State of

A.P. & Ors. decided on 27.09.2016.

33) We  are,  therefore,  not  impressed  by  the

submissions urged by the learned counsel  for the

appellants which, in our view, were rightly repelled

by the High Court while allowing the writ petitions

filed by the private respondents herein which rightly

quashed the GO dated 22.05.2012 being irrational,

unreasonable and contrary to the Rules.  We concur

with the findings of the High Court and find no good

ground to interfere in its reasoning.

1

Page 16

34) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  we  find  no

merit  in  these  appeals,  which  are  devoid  of  any

merit.   As  a  consequence,  the  appeals  are

dismissed.

                       ………...................................J.

  [J. CHELAMESWAR]

                             …...……..................................J.

 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; January 23, 2017

1