Page 1

1

“REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5862 OF 2007

A. Raghu, son of Rajaiah … Appellant versus

Govt. of Andhra Prdesh & others … Respondents

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6002-6005 OF 2007  

Vasam Surender, son of Veeraswamy & others … Appellants

versus Govt. of Andhra Prdesh & others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. It is not a matter of dispute, that the conditions of service including the  

manner and method of determining seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of  

Police, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, are regulated by the Andhra Pradesh  

Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as, the Service  

Rules),  notified  on  26.8.1959,  read  with  the  Special  Rules  notified  on  

14.12.1990.  Learned counsel for the rival parties are agreed, that the issue of  

seniority (which is the pointed issue of dispute between the rival parties in the  

present appeals), is to be determined under rule 15 of the said rules, which is  

extracted hereunder:-

“15. "Seniority:-- (a) The seniority of a person in the class or category  or  grade  shall,  unless  he  has  been  reduced  to  lower  rank  as  a

Page 2

2

punishment be determined by the date of his first appointment to such  class or category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person  does  not  count  towards  his  probation  under  the  General  Rules  his  seniority  shall  be  determined  by  the  date  of  commencement  of  his  service which counts towards probation:

Provided  that  in  the  case  of  Sub-Inspectors,  Sub-Inspectors  of  Police (Intelligence) and Reserve Sub-Inspectors, the seniority inter se  shall be fixed on completion of training in the Police Training College or  with the Andhra Pradesh Special Police, as the case may be, instead of  at  the  time  of  selection  in  accordance  with  the  list  which  shall  be  arranged in order of merit, which shall be determined in accordance with  the aggregate of marks obtained by each probationer--

(i) in respect of his record in the Police Training College or with  the Andhra Pradesh Special Police, as the case may be; and

(ii) at the final examination.

In determining such order of merit, no account shall be taken of  marks awarded to a probationer in any subject in which he has failed.  But  such seniority  shall  be liable  to  revision  by the Deputy  Inspector  General  of  Police  concerned  if  he  considers  it  necessary,  before  completion of probation.

This sub-rule shall not affect the seniority of any members of the  service which may have been fixed expressly or by implication before the  19th November, 1941 or any orders as to seniority which may have been  passed by competent authority before the 19th November, 1941.

Provided that  in the case of  directly recruited Sub-Inspectors of  Police (Intelligence) the inter se seniority shall be fixed on completion of  training  the  Police Training  College/Andhra  Pradesh  Police  Academy,  instead of at the time of selection, in accordance with the list which shall  be arranged in order of merit, which shall be determined in accordance  with the aggregate of marks obtained by each probationer in the tests  and examinations prescribed for them in the training modules conducted  at these Institutions.

The  seniority  of  the  Sub-Inspectors  of  Police  (Intelligence)  appointed  by  transfer  from among  Sub-Inspectors  of  Police  (Civil)  or  equivalent ranks of this service carrying the same scale of pay shall not  be treated as first appointment but shall be determined with reference to  the date of  his seniority  in the Class or Category from which he was  transferred.

Page 3

3

Provided  also  that  the  inter  se  seniority  of  the  Sub-Inspectors  selected from among the Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Armed Reserve and  Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions by transfer shall be fixed in the  order of merit for each Range (Zone) separately based on the aggregate  marks obtained by them in the final  examination  conducted at  Police  Training College at the end of six months training. In determining such  order of merit, the marks secured in the failed subjects need not be taken  into account.

(b) The  appointing  authority  may,  at  the  time  of  passing  an  order  appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a class or category fix  for any reason the order of preference among them; and where such  order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it.

(c) The transfer of a person from one class or category of the service  to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall  not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority  and  the  seniority  of  person  so  transferred  shall  be  determined  with  reference to the date of his first appointment to class or category from  which he was transferred. Where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying  this sub-rule, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority.

(d) Where a member of the service in any class, category or grade is  reduced to a lower class, category or grade, he shall be placed at the top  of the ladder unless the authority ordering such reduction directs that he  shall take rank in such lower class, category or grade next below any  special member thereof.

(e) The seniority of qualified special policemen appointed by transfer  as constables in this service shall be determined by the date of their first  appointment in this service for purposes of confirmation in vacancies in  this service.

(f) The seniority of the Prohibition staff absorbed in this service shall  be  determined  on  the  basis  of  their  pay  fixed  with  reference  to  Fundamental Rules 22 and 31, in the service:-

Provided that the inter-se seniority of these at the same stage of  the time scales of pay of the service will be determined by the dates on  which they began to draw pay at that stage; and

Provided  further  that  no  member  of  the  Excise  and  Prohibition  Department will, on appointment to this service, be senior to any member  of the service who has put in the same or more period of service than  himself.

Page 4

4

In the case of members of such ranks in the Excise and Prohibition  Department, the scales of pay of which correspond to the scales of pay  of  the ranks of  this  service,  the date of  their  first  appointment  in  the  Excise and Prohibition Department shall determine the seniority.”

Insofar as the above rule is concerned, the further admitted position is, that the  

inter se seniority between the rival parties is liable to be determined in terms of  

the first proviso to rule 15(a) extracted above.

2. Before venturing into the determination of the inter se seniority between  

the rival parties, it  is necessary in the first instance, to delineate the factual  

position.   We shall  accordingly  hereinafter,  in  the first  instance,  narrate  the  

factual position, as it emerges from the pleadings, as also, from the different  

orders appended to the instant batch of civil appeals.

3.  The Police Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh decided to fill up  

existing posts of  Sub-Inspector  of  Police by way of  direct  recruitment.   The  

Andhra Pradesh State Level Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as, the  

Recruitment Board) undertook the aforesaid exercise by issuing a notification  

dated 22.1.1991.  As per the said notification, 470 posts of Sub-Inspector, in 7  

different  zones were sought  to be filled up.   The process of  selection from  

amongst eligible candidates, was to be based on a physical test followed by a  

written  test  and  an  interview.   Having  concluded  the  aforesaid  selection  

process, lists of provisionally selected candidates were prepared on the basis  

of their inter se merit in the selection process, for each of the 7 zones.  While  

disposing  of  the  present  controversy,  we  have  chosen  to  pass  a  common  

order, wherein we shall take into consideration the vacancies sought to be filled

Page 5

5

up for Zone V (Warangal range).  In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention  

here,  that  the office of  the Director  General  & Inspector  General  of  Police,  

Andhra  Pradesh,  Hyderabad,  issued  a  communication  dated  

11.4.1991/7.5.1991 indicating the names of provisionally selected candidates  

for  Zone  V  (Warangal  range).   A  list  of  candidates  was  attached  to  the  

aforesaid communication, depicting the provisional list of selected candidates  

for the above range.  This list comprised of 38 names from the open category,  

5 names from the backward class ‘A’ category, 7 names from the backward  

class ‘B’ category, 1 name from the backward class ‘C’ category, 5 names from  

the  backward  class  ‘D’  category,  11  names  from  the  scheduled  castes  

category, 4 names from the scheduled tribes category, 2 names from the ex-

servicemen category, 6 names from among the police executives, 1 name from  

the ministerial service, and 1 name from amongst the sportsmen.

4. On 12.7.1991,  the afore-stated candidates were directed to report  for  

training.  Only 58 of the selected candidates, however, reported for training.  

The rest of the candidates did not join for a variety of reasons.  It is not a matter  

of dispute, that there are two police training colleges in the State of Andhra  

Pradesh, and accordingly, the afore-stated selected candidates were deputed  

for training to the said two training colleges.  The order dated 12.7.1991 vide  

which the short-listed candidates were deputed for training reveals,  that the  

candidates were placed on probation from the date of joining the police training  

college(s).  The training would continue for a period of nine months followed by

Page 6

6

practical training for one year and three months, including holding independent  

charge of a police station for not less than nine months.  The said training was  

to commence from 16.7.1991.

5. All  the  58  selected  candidates  except  one  Munuswamy,  successfully  

completed  their  training.   Insofar  as  Munuswamy is  concerned,  he  did  not  

participate  in  the  examination  at  the  end  of  the  training,  due  to  personal  

reasons.  Munuswamy was allowed to enroll himself for training along with a  

batch of candidates who were deputed for training on 14.6.1992.  Munuswamy  

also completed his training with the said subsequent batch of candidates, in  

1993.

6. It  is  relevant  to  mention,  that  in  the  statutory  provision  regulating  

appointments against the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Police, 50% of the posts  

are earmarked to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, 30% of the posts are  

to be filled up by promotion from Head Constables, 7% from amongst police  

executives (hereinafter  referred to as,  PE) out  of  the Constables  and Head  

Constables, 4% from police ministerial staff (hereinafter referred to, as PM), 2%  

from sportspersons (hereinafter referred to as, SP), not more than 5% by way  

of transfer from Reserve Sub-Inspectors (from Armed Reserve/Andhra Pradesh  

Special Police) and 2% by way of appointment under special circumstances, on  

compassionate grounds.

7. Original  Application  no.  29957  of  1991  came  to  be  filed  before  the  

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to

Page 7

7

as, the Administrative Tribunal), questioning the validity of the determination of  

the  different  quotas  of  recruitment  in  the  aforementioned  notification  dated  

22.1.1991.   While  determining  the  above  controversy,  the  Administrative  

Tribunal  arrived at  the conclusion,  that  except  the quota of  promotion from  

Head  Constables  (30%),  by  transfer  of  Reserve  Sub-Inspectors  of  Police  

(Armed Reserve/Andhra Pradesh Special Police) (5%) and appointments under  

special  circumstances  on  compassionate  grounds  (2%),  the  remaining  3%  

quota has to be filled up by direct  recruitment.   The Administrative Tribunal  

thereupon concluded, that the direct recruitment quota, had been incorrectly  

determined for  all  the 7  zones,  for  which the selection  had been made (in  

furtherance  of  the  notification  dated  22.1.1991).   Accordingly,  the  

Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 30.7.1991, directed the authorities  

to  recalculate  the  vacancies  under  the  PE,  PM and  SP  quotas  for  all  the  

ranges,  and  to  make  appointments  in  furtherance  of  the  selection  process  

initiated through the notification dated 22.1.1991.

8. In obedience to the aforesaid directions, after recalculating the vacancies  

for  PE,  PM and  SP quotas,  additional  names  of  candidates  were  sent  for  

training.   These  candidates  commenced  their  training  on  14.6.1992.   They  

completed  their  training  in  1993.   It  is  pertinent  to  record  here,  that  the  

candidate  whose  training  was  deferred,  namely,  Munuswamy,  and  the  

candidates whose names were short-listed for  training in furtherance of  the  

directions  issued by the  Administrative  Tribunal  vide order  dated  30.7.1991

Page 8

8

(passed in Original Application no. 29957 of 1991), commenced the course of  

training simultaneously on 14.6.1992.

9. We have recorded hereinabove,  that  out  of  the names of  candidates  

provisionally selected for Zone V (Warangal  range),  only 58 candidates had  

reported  for  training.   The  State  Government  took  a  conscious  decision  to  

depute  for  purpose  of  training,  further  candidates  equal  to  the  number  of  

candidates who did not join training.  As such, 10 more candidates who had  

participated in the process of selection, initiated through the notification dated  

22.1.1991, and were placed immediately below the selected candidates as per  

the first list  (deputed for training vide letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991),  were  

sent for training.  These candidates were also sent for training to the two police  

training colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  These additional candidates  

also commenced training on 14.6.1992, i.e., in the same batch along with the  

aforementioned Munuswamy, as also, the candidates who came to be deputed  

in furtherance of the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Original  

Application no. 29957 of 1991.

10. The  competent  authority,  namely,  the  Deputy  Inspector  General  of  

Police, Warangal, vide a memorandum dated 17.1.1996, issued a seniority list  

of Sub-Inspectors of Police, Zone V (Warangal range).  The said seniority list  

included the names of the original 58 Sub-Inspectors of Police (out of the 80  

selected for the said Zone), who had completed their training in June, 1992.  It  

is also necessary to reflect the negative position, namely, the abovementioned

Page 9

9

seniority list did not include the name of Munuswamy, who did not complete the  

training along with the 58 candidates who had joined training in furtherance of  

their  provisional  selection  vide  letter  dated  11.4.1991/7.5.1991.   The above  

seniority list also did not include the names of those selected and appointed in  

furtherance  of  the  notification  dated  22.1.1991,  consequent  upon  the  

determination of the Administrative Tribunal, that the quota of vacancies from  

PE, PM and SP, had wrongly been determined.  The abovesaid seniority list,  

did  not  include the  names  of  those candidates,  who had  been  selected  in  

furtherance of the notification dated 22.1.1991, for the sole reason, that some  

of the candidates who had been selected (and appointed), had failed to join the  

police training college(s) (in furtherance of their provisional selection, vide letter  

dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991).

11. It  is  apparent  from  the  factual  position  noticed  hereinabove,  that  

consequent  upon  the  selection  process  conducted  in  furtherance  of  the  

notification dated 22.1.1991, the selected candidates were deputed for training  

in  two  batches.   The  training  of  the  first  batch  commenced  on  15.7.1991,  

whereas, the training of the second batch commenced on 14.6.1992.  Some of  

those candidates, who commenced their training on 14.6.1992, approached the  

Administrative  Tribunal,  by  filing  Original  Application  no.  5165  of  2002,  

assailing  the  action  of  the  authorities  in  not  including their  names  in  the  

seniority list dated 17.1.1996, wherein only the names of 58 candidates, who  

had joined training on 15.7.1991 were reflected.  In fact, names of none of the

Page 10

10

candidates who had commenced training on 14.6.1992 were reflected in the  

aforesaid  seniority  list.   The  Administrative  Tribunal  disposed  of  Original  

Application no.  5165 of  2002 vide an order  dated 11.6.2002.   The ultimate  

directions issued in the aforesaid order are being extracted hereunder:-

“In view of the matter,  the applicants are directed to make a detailed  representation to the Director General and Inspector General of Police  putting forth their complete case, and the Director General and Inspector  General  of  Police  is  directed  to  dispose  of  the  representation  of  the  applicants preferably, before making promotions to the posts of Inspector  of Police in Zone-IV.”

In  obedience  to  the  directions  issued  by  the  Administrative  Tribunal  on  

11.6.2002,  those  candidates,  who had been selected  consequent  upon  the  

issuance of the notification dated 22.1.1991, but had commenced their training  

at  the  police  training  college(s)  on  14.6.1992,  submitted  a  detailed  

representation wherein  they asserted,  that  their  names ought  to have been  

interspersed with the candidates who had commenced their training with effect  

from 15.7.1991.  The above claim was premised on rule 15 (extracted at the  

beginning of the instant judgment).  The Director General & Inspector General  

of  Police,  on receipt  of  the representation,  sought  the following clarification  

from the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide letter  

dated 21.1.2003:-

“Whether the seniority of SIs (Civil) though selected on the notification for  1991 batch but appointed and underwent Basic Training during 1992 can  be fixed alongwith 1991 batch of SIs (Civil) as they were selected as per  the notification issued in the year 1991.”

A perusal of the clarification sought reveals, that the real intent behind seeking  

the aforesaid clarification was, whether the candidates selected in furtherance

Page 11

11

of the notification dated 22.1.1991, were to be treated as candidates belonging  

to a single batch, or whether, they were to be treated as two batches, on the  

basis  of  the  different  dates  of  commencing  training  (the  first  batch  on  

15.7.1991, and the second batch on 14.6.1992).  Simply stated, the question  

posed was whether the selected candidates (in furtherance of the notification  

dated 22.1.1991) were to be treated as a single batch for the year 1991. Or  

alternatively, they were to be treated as two batches, one of the year 1991 (i.e.,  

in respect of candidates deputed for training on 15.7.1991) and the second of  

the year 1992 (i.e., in respect of candidates deputed for training on 14.6.1992).  

The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a memorandum dated 17.3.2003,  

in  compliance  of  the  order  dated  11.6.2002  (passed  by  the  Administrative  

Tribunal while disposing of Original Application no. 5165 of 2002), and in reply  

to  the  letter  dated  21.1.2003  (issued  by  the  Director  General  &  Inspector  

General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, seeking clarification with reference to the  

inter  se  seniority  of  the  parties  in  dispute).   Vide  its  memorandum  dated  

17.3.2003, the State Government accepted delay at its hands, in not deputing  

the selected candidates from the PE, PM and SP quotas for training, due to a  

wrong calculation of the vacancies.  Having accepted delay at its own hands,  

the State Government was of the view, that the candidates sent for training  

belatedly (who had commenced their training at the concerned police training  

college with effect from 14.6.1992), were entitled to seniority along with those  

deputed for training on 15.7.1991.  This, according to the State Government,  

would have to be achieved by interspersing the candidates deputed for  the

Page 12

12

training courses on 15.7.1991 and 14.6.1992, by taking into consideration the  

aggregate marks obtained by them, at the end of their training at the police  

training  college(s).   It  is,  therefore  apparent,  that  the  State  Government  

accepted the contention of the candidates deputed for training on 14.6.1992  

(namely,  the applicants who had approached the Administrative Tribunal  by  

filing Original Application no. 5165 of 2002).  This position was adopted by the  

State Government on account of the fact, that the candidates were selected  

through a common process (initiated by the Recruitment Board vide notification  

dated 22.1.1991).

12. The claim of the candidates, whose names were included in the list of  

provisionally selected candidates, issued on 11.4.1991/7.5.1991 was, that they  

were higher in the merit list, vis-à-vis candidates who were deputed for training  

on  14.6.1992,  and  as  such,  those  deputed  for  training  vide  letter  dated  

11.4.1991/7.5.1991 should be treated as a batch separate and distinct, from  

the batch of candidates who were deputed for training on 14.6.1992.  The 58  

candidates,  whose  names  were  included  in  the  letter  dated  

11.4.1991/7.5.1991, and who were exclusively placed in the seniority list dated  

17.1.1996, filed detailed objections to the determination rendered by the State  

Government  vide  its  order/memorandum  dated  17.3.2003.   The  State  

Government vide its order dated 26.12.2003, rejected the objections filed by  

the candidates deputed for training on 15.7.1991.  In sum and substance, the  

claim of the candidates, who were deputed for training on 15.7.1991, that they

Page 13

13

should  be  placed  en-masse  above  the  candidates  deputed  for  training  on  

14.6.1992, in the seniority list,  came to be rejected.  Accordingly vide order  

dated  13.9.2004,  the  State  Government  issued a memorandum concluding,  

that  the  candidates  deputed  for  training  on  14.6.1992  were  entitled  to  be  

interspersed in the seniority list, along with the candidates who were deputed  

for  training  on  15.7.1991.   In  sum  and  substance,  the  State  Government  

concluded,  that  those  selected  in  continuation  of  the  notification  dated  

22.1.1991,  by  the  Recruitment  Board,  were  entitled  to  be  depicted  in  a  

combined/common  seniority  list,  prepared  in  consonance  with  rule  15  

reproduced above.   

13. The different orders passed by the State Government referred to in the  

foregoing  two  paragraphs,  whereby  it  had  concluded,  that  the  candidates  

deputed for  training on 15.7.1991 were liable to be infused for  purposes of  

seniority, with candidates deputed for training on 14.6.1992, were assailed by  

the  former, through  a  bunch  of  original  applications  filed  before  the  

Administrative Tribunal.  The afore-stated batch of original applications came to  

be dismissed by the Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 24.9.2004.  The  

applicants before the Administrative Tribunal, therefore, approached the High  

Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as,  

the High Court), by filing a series of writ petitions.  The writ petitions came to be  

dismissed  by  the  High  Court  by  a  common  order  dated  8.2.2005.   The  

determination by the High Court in upholding the orders passed by the State

Page 14

14

Government,  as also,  the orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal,  are  

subject matter of challenge in the instant batch of appeals.  Since the issue,  

which is subject matter of challenge is common, we propose to dispose of the  

same  by  a  common  order  in  the  same  fashion,  as  the  controversy  was  

determined originally by the Administrative Tribunal, and subsequently, by the  

High Court.

14. The solitary issue that arises for consideration at our hands is, whether  

the  candidates  selected  in  furtherance  of  the  notification  dated  22.1.1991,  

issued  by  the  Recruitment  Board,  constitute one  batch.  Or  whether,  they  

constitute two batches of candidates, based on the separate dates, when they  

were  deputed  for  training.  The  contention  advanced  at  the  hands  of  the  

learned counsel  for  the appellants  before  this  Court  was,  that  the selected  

candidates are liable to be treated as two batches of  candidates.   The first  

batch, according to the appellants,  was the batch of candidates deputed for  

training  on 15.7.1991.   And the second batch,  according  to  the appellants,  

would comprise of candidates who were deputed for training on 14.6.1992.

15. As against the challenge raised at the hands of the appellants, through  

their  learned counsel,  it  was the submission  of  the learned counsel  for  the  

respondents, that only one selection process was conducted in furtherance of  

the notification dated 22.1.1991, by the Recruitment Board.  Out of the same  

selection  list,  candidates  were  deputed  for  training  firstly  on  15.7.1991 and  

thereafter,  on  14.6.1992.   It  was  the  submission  of  the  learned  counsel

Page 15

15

representing the private respondents,  and supported by the learned counsel  

representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, that bifurcation of candidates into  

two different trainee groups, would not result in their being described as two  

batches of candidates.  The submission was, that all these candidates having  

been selected for appointment, in furtherance of a common selection process  

conducted by the Recruitment Board, they were liable to be treated as a single  

batch of candidates.

16. We will  venture  to  determine  the  controversy  in  hand,  by  adopting  a  

three-step consideration process.  We shall thereupon record our conclusion.

Consideration, One:

We shall, in the first instance, examine the seniority position only with respect  

to Munuswamy.  The name of Munuswamy was included in the list of selected  

candidates  issued  by  the  Director  General  &  Inspector  General  of  Police,  

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991.  It is not a  

matter  of  dispute,  that the aforesaid Munuswamy was originally  deputed for  

training at  the police training college on 15.7.1991.   Munuswamy,  however,  

could not complete his training on account of the fact, that he did not participate  

in  the  examination  conducted  at  the  end  of  the  training,  due  to  personal  

reasons.   The aforesaid  Munuswamy was allowed to  complete  his  training,  

along with the batch of candidates deputed for training in the succeeding batch,  

on  14.6.1992.   The  above  factual  position,  which  was  duly  taken  into  

consideration by the Administrative Tribunal, and by the High Court, was not

Page 16

16

disputed during the course of hearing before us.  The question which arises for  

our consideration is, whether Munuswamy would be entitled to be included in  

the  seniority  list,  along  with  the  batch  of  candidates,  with  whom  he  was  

originally  deputed for training on 15.7.1991, or with the batch of candidates  

who were  deputed  for  training  thereafter,  on  14.6.1992.   Having  given our  

thoughtful consideration, and keeping in mind the basic principle underlying the  

relevant proviso to rule 15 (extracted at the beginning of this judgment), we are  

of  the  considered  view,  that  the mandate  for  the  determination  of  seniority  

under the aforesaid proviso is to the following effect. Firstly, inter se seniority of  

Sub-Inspectors of Police is not to be determined in accordance with the merit  

list drawn up, “at the time of their selection”.  And secondly, inter se seniority of  

Sub-Inspectors of Police has to be determined on the basis of “the aggregate  

of  marks  obtained  by  each  probationer”,  “at  the  final  examination”  on  the  

conclusion of  their  training,  at  the police training college(s).   Insofar  as the  

aforesaid Munuswamy is concerned, it is not open to the candidates deputed  

for training in the first instance to contend, that though Munuswamy’s name  

was  included  in  the  list  of  provisionally  selected  candidates  issued  on  

11.4.1991/7.5.1991,  his  seniority  ought  to  be  determined  along  with  the  

candidates  deputed  for  training  later.   It  is  apparent,  that  insofar  as  the  

Munuswamy is concerned, since his name was included amongst the names of  

candidates provisionally selected as Sub-Inspectors of Police vide letter dated  

11.4.1991/7.5.1991,  those  deputed  for  training  vide  the  same  letter  (dated  

11.4.1991/7.5.1991) can not be permitted to contend, that his seniority cannot

Page 17

17

be determined alongwith them.  The above mentioned course, suggested by  

the learned counsel for the appellants, is not open, because the same would  

give primacy to something beyond the purview of the proviso to the rule in  

question. We have no doubt in our mind, that Munuswamy, must figure in the  

seniority list along with those deputed for training on 15.7.1991, for the simple  

reason, that his name existed in the list of names (including the appellants),  

deputed for training vide letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991.  There can, therefore  

be  no  doubt  whatsoever,  that  insofar  as  Munuswamy  is  concerned,  even  

though  he  completed  his  training  in  the  course  which  commenced  from  

14.6.1992, his position in the inter se seniority list was bound to be reflected  

alongwith  those  with  whom  he  was  deputed  for  training,  according  to  the  

aggregate of marks obtained by him, on the completion of his training at the  

police training college, in terms of rule 15.

Consideration, Two:

Insofar as this step is concerned, we shall exclusively take into consideration  

the  manner  of  determination  of  seniority  of  candidates  appointed  as  Sub-

Inspectors of Police, against the vacancies belonging to the PE, PM and SP  

quotas, consequent upon the directions issued by the Administrative Tribunal,  

dated 30.7.1991 (while disposing of Original Application no. 29957 of 1991).  In  

this behalf, it is relevant to mention, that the vacancies falling to each of the  

aforesaid quotas, was found to have been incorrectly determined by the State  

Government, while making appointments in furtherance of the notification dated

Page 18

18

22.1.1991.   The  Administrative  Tribunal  accordingly,  directed  the  State  

Government,  to  re-calculate  the  strength  of  the  said  quotas,  and  to  make  

appointments.   It  is  not  a  matter  of  dispute,  that  consequent  upon  the  

determination of the Administrative Tribunal, the quotas with reference to the  

aforesaid cadres, which had wrongly been determined, for each of the zones,  

were re-calculated.  The State Government on re-calculation of the vacancy  

position, with reference to the PE, PM and SP quotas, appointed candidates  

from  the  aforesaid  quotas,  out  of  the  selection  process  conducted  by  the  

Recruitment  Board,  in  furtherance  of  the  notification  dated  22.1.1991.  

Thereupon,  they  were  deputed  for  training  on  14.6.1992.   It  is,  therefore  

apparent,  that  had  the  quotas  been  correctly  determined  by  the  State  

Government, these candidates would have been originally appointed along with  

others, when the letter dated 11.4.1991/7.5.1991 was issued by the Director  

General & Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.  In the  

above eventuality, they would have been deputed for training in the very first  

instance on 15.7.1991.   For no fault  of  theirs,  despite their  selection in the  

same  recruitment  process,  which  was  conducted  in  furtherance  of  the  

notification dated 22.1.1991, they were deputed for training on 14.6.1992.  The  

delay in deputing the candidates belonging to PE, PM and SP quotas, squarely  

falls  on  the  appointing  authority,  and  not  on  the  candidates  who  were  

subsequently deputed for training from the PE, PM and SP quotas.  For exactly  

the same reason, as had been depicted under “Consideration, One” above, we  

are of the view, that those deputed for training against  the PE, PM and SP

Page 19

19

quotas on 14.6.1992, being not in any manner responsible for their not having  

been deputed along with the originally selected candidates on 15.7.1991, are  

liable  to  a  fixation  in  the  seniority  list,  in  exactly  the  same  manner  as  

Munuswamy.  This is liable to be done in terms of the mandate of the relevant  

proviso  to  rule  15  aforementioned,  by  interspersing  them along  with  those  

included in the original seniority list, by determining their position on the basis  

of  the  aggregate  marks  obtained  by  them,  in  the  final  examination,  at  the  

conclusion of their training at the police training college(s).

Consideration, Three:

In “Consideration, One” and “Consideration, Two” above, we have concluded,  

that  even  though  the  appointees  in  question  were  deputed  for  training  on  

14.6.1992, their seniority had to be determined alongwith the candidates who  

had  been  deputed  for  training  on  15.7.1991.   We shall  now endeavour  to  

consider the manner of fixing inter se seniority of the candidates, who were  

selected in the process of selection conducted in furtherance of the notification  

dated 22.1.1991, by the Recruitment Board, but had not been appointed on  

account  of  the  fact,  that  they  did  not  fall  within  the  number  of  vacancies  

advertised.  It is however relevant to notice, that after the issuance of the letter  

dated  11.4.1991/7.5.1991,  whereby  provisionally  selected  candidates  were  

deputed for training to fill  up the advertised vacancies for the posts of Sub-

Inspector  of  Police  in  all  the  7  zones,  it  came  to  be  realized,  that  all  the  

provisionally selected candidates did not join the police training college(s) for

Page 20

20

the said training.  So far as Zone V (Warangal range) is concerned, only 58  

candidates joined training.  At that very moment, it was open to the appointing  

authority to depute further candidates for training, out of those whose names  

fell immediately below the names of candidates deputed for training vide letter  

dated  11.4.1991/7.5.1991,  against  the  balance  vacancies.   The  competent  

authority,  however,  delayed in deputing  the names of  these candidates.   It  

eventually  deputed  these  candidates  for  training  on  14.6.1992.   From  the  

factual position depicted hereinabove, it is not possible for us to accept, that  

the  candidates,  who  were  deputed  for  training  on  15.7.1991,  and  those  

deputed for training on 14.6.1992 to fulfill the deficiency, can be described as  

two  different  batches.   The  selection  process  having  been  joint,  and  in  

furtherance  of  the  same  notification  dated  22.1.1991  (issued  by  the  

Recruitment  Board),  it  is  inevitable  for  us  to  conclude,  that  the  candidates  

deputed to the two different courses of training (on 15.7.1991 and 14.6.1992)  

were essentially candidates belonging to a singular batch, who were selected  

through a common process of selection.  In fact, the instant inference, insofar  

as the issue of inter se seniority is concerned, is inevitable, as the dates on  

which the candidates were deputed for training, are inconsequential, so far as  

rule 15 is concerned.  Rule 15 leaves no room for any doubt, that even the  

merit  position in the selection process is not to be taken into consideration,  

while determining the inter se seniority of candidates selected from a common  

process of selection.  If we were to accept the contention advanced on behalf  

of the appellants, that those deputed in the first batch should be placed above

Page 21

21

all those deputed in the second batch, we would necessarily be placing the  

selected candidates in two groups, based on their merit position in the selection  

process.   Those deputed  for  training  in  the  two batches  (of  15.7.1991 and  

14.6.1992),  came to  be  so deputed,  only  because of  their  respective  merit  

position in the selection process.  This determination would be in clear breach  

of  the  proviso  to  rule  15,  which  postulates,  that  inter  se  seniority  of  Sub-

Inspectors of Police, is not to be determined in accordance with the merit list  

drawn up “at the time of their selection”. The seniority of candidates, who are  

selected from a common process of selection, is to be determined on the basis  

of  the  final  aggregate  marks  obtained  by  them,  during  the  course  of  their  

training, at the police training college(s) in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  That  

being  the  mandate  of  the  rule,  we  are  of  the  considered  view,  that  for  

candidates who had participated in a common process of selection, irrespective  

of the dates on which they were deputed for training, their inter se seniority is  

liable to be determined, on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by  

them, at the final examination at the concerned police training college.  This  

interpretation  placed  by  us  on  rule  15  of  the  Service  Rules,  satisfies  the  

underlying  principle  given  effect  to  in  the  rule,  namely,  that  the  candidates  

appointed against the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police, were to be arranged in  

the  seniority  list,  not  on  the basis  of  the marks obtained in  the  process  of  

selection,  but  according  to  the  aggregate  marks  obtained  by  them,  at  the  

culmination of the training processes.   Additionally,  the instant interpretation  

would result  in a uniform determination of the three separate considerations

Page 22

22

dealt with by us.  It would be absurd to apply one principle to Munuswamy,  

another  principle  to  those  selected  and  appointed  in  furtherance  of  the  

directions  issued  by  the  Administrative  Tribunal  on  30.7.1991  (in  Original  

Application  no.  29957  of  1991),  and  a  separate  principle  for  determining  

seniority of candidates who were deputed for training later, because some of  

the selected (and appointed) candidates did not join training.  This process of  

deputing candidates for training, could have been adopted within a few days, of  

the candidates not assuming training, at the police training college(s) despite  

being required to do so.  The concerned authorities delayed the matter,  for  

about  a year.   Neither  is  it  possible  for  us to find fault  with the concerned  

individuals deputed for training belatedly, nor is it possible for us to interpret a  

simple and straightforward rule of seniority differently, just because, candidates  

were deputed to the training course belatedly.

17. The  view  expressed  by  us  upholds  the  order  passed  by  the  State  

Government,  and  also  affirms,  the  legal  position  expressed  by  the  

Administrative Tribunal in its common order dated 24.9.2004, as well as, in the  

impugned order dated 8.2.2005 passed by the High Court.

18. Insofar  as  the  conclusions  in  the  “Consideration,  Three”  recorded  

hereinabove  are  concerned,  it  would  be  relevant  to  mention  here,  that  the  

learned counsel for the appellants, namely, the candidates who were deputed  

for training on 15.7.1991, had also vehemently contended, that the first proviso  

to rule 15(a) would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

Page 23

23

present case, because the first proviso contemplates a joint training process,  

where those selected and appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police, are graded on  

the basis of their performance during a joint/common training process at the  

police  training  college.   It  was  submitted,  that  it  would  be  unfair  and  

unreasonable to determine inter se seniority of candidates, on the basis of two  

different training processes, the first which had commenced on 15.7.1991, and  

the second which had commenced on 14.6.1992.

19. The  submission  noticed  in  the  foregoing  paragraph,  seems  to  be  

attractive on first blush.  Learned counsel for the respondent-State however  

pointed  out,  that  those  selected  provisionally  (vide  letter  dated  

11.4.1991/7.5.1991),  and  who were  deputed  for  training  on  15.7.1991,  had  

been sent to undergo training, to two different police training colleges, in the  

State of  Andhra Pradesh.   If  the submission advanced at  the hands of  the  

learned counsel for the appellants was to be accepted, according to learned  

counsel  for  the  State  Government,  even  the  seniority  position  of  the  58  

candidates,  who had joined training  on  15.7.1991,  having  been selected  in  

Zone-V  (Warangal  range),  could  not  be  validly  determined,  for  the  simple  

reason,  that  they  had  undertaken  training  at  two  different  police  training  

colleges.  According to learned State counsel, candidates who were deputed  

for training subsequently, on 14.6.1992, were also deputed to the same two  

police training colleges, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the curricula for the  

police training colleges, and the standard prescribed being the same, just as

Page 24

24

the manner in which the candidates deputed for training to the two different  

police training colleges, could be compared with one another on the basis of  

the aggregate marks obtained by them, for fixing their position in the seniority  

list, so also, those deputed for training on different dates (on 15.7.1991 and  

14.6.1992) could likewise be compared with one another on the basis of the  

aggregate  marks  obtained  by  them,  in  the  final  examination  of  their  police  

training.  We find merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel  

representing the State of  Andhra Pradesh.   For the above reason,  it  is  not  

possible for us, to accept the above noticed contention, advanced at the hands  

of the learned counsel for the appellants.

20. During the course of hearing, some judgments were cited at the Bar, to  

support the cause of the appellants, and that of the private respondents.  The  

judgments cited pertain to the particular rule of seniority,  which was subject  

matter  of  consideration.   None of  the seniority  rules  which were taken into  

consideration is akin to rule 15 which is to be applied for determining the inter  

se seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police, in the present case.  Since the validity  

of  rule  15  aforementioned,  is  not  a  subject  matter  of  challenge,  we  have  

ventured to interpret  the same, in consonance with the mandate and intent  

thereof.  We would not like to burden this judgment, with the judgments cited at  

the Bar, by the rival parties.

21. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit  in the instant  

civil appeals.  The same are accordingly dismissed.

Page 25

25

……………………………J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

……………………………J. (S.A. Bobde)

New Delhi; March 26, 2015.  

Page 26

26

ITEM NO.1C               COURT NO.4               SECTION XIIA                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A          

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s).  5862/2007 A. RAGHU, SON OF RAJAIAH                           Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.                              Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 6002-6005/2007 [HEARD  BY  HON'BLE  JAGDISH  SINGH  KHEHAR  AND  HON'BLE  S.A.BOBDE,JJ.] Date : 26/03/2015 These appeals were called on for judgment  

  today. For Appellant(s) Mr. P. Vinay Kumar,Adv.                                     Mr. K. Shivraj Choudhuri,AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.

Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,AOR                     Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,AOR                 

Hon'ble  Mr.Justice  Jagdish  Singh  Khehar  pronounced  the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble  Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde.

For the reasons recorded in the Reportable judgment,  which is placed on the file, the appeals are dismissed.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Renu Diwan)        Court Master       Court Master