S.SREEDHAR REDDY Vs GOVT.OF A.P. .
Bench: J. CHELAMESWAR,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Case number: C.A. No.-000795-000795 / 2017
Diary number: 36924 / 2013
Advocates: VENKATESWARA RAO ANUMOLU Vs
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
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