K. JAGANNADHA RAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 23-07-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
69 
A 
K. JAGANNADHA RAO 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS 
July 23, 198 I 
[A.C. GuPrA AND A.P SEN, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Police Ser11ice Rules, 1966, Rule 3 (d)-Validity o_f-Whether 
Rule 3(d) is discriminatory and violative of the principles of equality in Article 16 
of the Constitution of India. 
Rule 5 (t) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and 
Appeal) Rules, 1963 classifies the Civil Services of the State into (a) State Services, 
and (b) Subordinate Services. 
The Andhra Pradesh Police Service is one of the State services. Rule 2 of 
the Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1966 framed under Article 309 of the 
Constitution sets out three categories of officers constituting the State Service, 
nan1ely; category [ composed of commandants, Andhra Pradesh Special Police; 
category II which includes Deputy Superintendents of Police and Assistant 
Commissioners of Police other than in categeory III and category III comprising 
Deputy Superintendents of Police in various capacities including Assistant Com~ 
mandants, Andhra Pradesh Special Police. Rule 3 lays do\\·n the method and 
conditions for appointment to posts in the different categories. 
Appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category II is made by 
(a) direct recruitment, or (b) recruitment by transfer from Andhra Pradesh Police 
Subordinate Service, or (c) appointment from category Ill of this service with the 
concurrence of the Public Service Commission provided that the number of such 
appointments does not exceed two in a calendar year. Under Rule 3 (d), "the 
seniority of the Deputy Superintendents of Police, category Il appointed from 
the posts of Deputy Superintendents of the Police, category III shall be fixed in 
that category giving them credit for their entire service in the post of the Deputy 
Supe1intendents of Police." 
Rule 3 (d) thus gives a Deputy Superintendent of 
PoJice appointed to category II froin category III the benefit of past service in the 
State Service for the purpose of seniority as against the Subordinate Service 
appointed Deputy Superintendent of Police in category II by promotion or a new 
recruit appointed to the same post directly. 
Some of the Deputy Superintendents of Police in category Il who were either 
recruited directly or "rec1uited by transfer" to the said posts before the 1966 
Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules came into force challenged the validity of 
the vires of Rules 3 (d) on the ground that the appointment of a Deputy Superin-
tendent of Police from category III to category II is really by way of promotion 
and validly the seniority in category If of an officer so promoted can be re..::koned 
only from the date of his appointment to that category II. The writ petition was 
disn1issed by learned Single Judge. In appeal the Division Bench of the High 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1982) 1 S.C.R 
A· 
Court held Rule 3 (d) invalid, taking the view that category III personnel are 
not equivalent to category II personnel and that the former attains the same 
status only on appointment to category II. Hence this appeal by respondent No. 
3 in the writ petition who is a Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed from 
category III to category II under the 1966 rules. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Rule 3 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1966 
is valid. There is nothing arbitrary or absurd in what Rule 3(d) prescribes as 
[ regards the credit regarding the length of the past service for which credit is to be 
given for the purpose of seniority. Whether or not some credit should be given 
for past service in such circumstances is a matter of policy resting with Govern-
ment. That being so, in the absence uf anything arbitrary or absurd in the 
provision, the Court cannot examine the matter and come to its own conclusion 
about what should be the length of past service in which credit should be given. 
[75G-76B) 
Tamil Nadu Education Department Mi11isterial and General Subordinate 
Service Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and another. [1980) 1 S.C.R. 1026, 
followed. 
2. There is no basis to support a claim of superiority for category II in the 
facts of the case, 
Rule 3 (a) itself which has not been challenged, treats appoint-
ment from category III as distinct fron1 either direct recruitment or promotion. 
There is no dispute on the following points :-
(i) categories II and III carry equal pay; 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.