LexA. RAGHU, SON OF RAJAIAH versus GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 14 S.C.R. 897 A. RAGHU, SON OF RAJAIAH v .. GOVT. OF AN DH RA PRADESH & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 5862 of 2007) MARCH 26, 2015 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] A B Service Law- Seniority- lnter-se seniority- Cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Police, in the State of Andhra Pradesh - Bifurcation of candidates into two different trainee groups - C Effect of - Consequent upon a selection process, 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 D their training on 14.6.1992 assailed 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 candidates who had commenced E training on 14. 6. 1992 were reflected in the aforesaid seniority list- Issue pertaining to manner and method of determining seniority - Held: The selection process having been joint, and in furtherance of the same notification dated 22.1.1991 (issued by the Recruitment Board), the candidates deputed F - tci 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 - Those deputed for training in the two batches (of 15. 7.1991and14.6.1992), came to be so deputed, only G 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 '!S?t to be determined in 897 H 898 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R. A 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 B the State of Andhra Pradesh - That being the mandate of the rule, 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 C · obtained by them, at the final examination at the concerned police training college - This interpretation placed 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 o 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 - Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) S1,1,bordinate Service Rules - r. 15. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5862 of 2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2005 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W. P. No. 19328 F of2004. WITH C. A. No. 6002-6005 of 2007. Anoop G Chaudhari, P. P. Rao, Sr.Advs., P. Vinay Kumar, G R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, K. Shivraj Chaudhuri, V. Maheswar Reddy, Prabhakar Pamam, Swamendu Chatterjee, Anil Kumar Tandale, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Guntur Prabhakar, Advs. for the appearing parties. H A. RAGHU, SON OF RAJAIAH v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA 899 PRADESH The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A 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 8 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 C 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.