K. RAJAIAH versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 19-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. RAJAIAH 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
AUGUST 19, 1987 
~ 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUD', JJ.) 
---. 
Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules-Rule 15(c)-
Effect of-In the matter of seniority claim in respect of appointment of a 
Reserve Sub-Inpsector of Police as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil)-
Whether by transfer under Rule 15 (c) or as a direct recruit. 
-
c 
On December 30, 1968, the appellant, then an under-graduate, 
~ 
was appointed to the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police. During 
his service in that post, he passed the B.A. Examination in April, 1971, 
whereafter he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) 
pursuant to an advertisement in the newspaper. He was selected and 
D appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector on December 14, 1976, on proba-
~ 
tion for two years along with thirty seven others, and was confirmed in 
the post on November 29, 1978. 
The appellant made a representation to the Government that the 
period of his service as Reserve Sob-Inspector of Police should be taken 
E into account in computing his seniority in the new post of Sub-Inspector 
. -". 
of Police (Civil). The Government by its order dated June 11, 1982, -
took the view that the entire period of service of the appellant as 
Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police should be counted under Rule 15( c) of 
the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules, and directed 
inter alia that the appellant would be accorded seniority from the date 
F of his first appointment to the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, 
that is, from December 30, 1968, and further that the order would not 
become a precedent for others. 
Aggrieved by the above-said Government order, a number of 
Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) moved the Andhra Pradesh Adminis-
-...( 
G trative Tribunal under paragraph 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Administra-
live Tribunal Order, 1975, challenging the validity of the said Govern-
ment Order. The Tribunal passed an order, striking down the Govern-
ment order in question and directing (i) that the appellant would be 
accorded seniority from the date when he joined the post of the Sub-
Inspector, of Police (Civil), treating him as a direct recruit, and (ii) that 
H the promotional benefits given to the appellant would be regulated on 
1010 
~ 
~ 
,, 
-
--1 
""'i 
..... 
~ 
r 
K. RAJAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. 
1011 
and from the date he joined the said post of Sub-Inspector of Police 
A 
(Civil). The appellant appealed to this Court by special leave against the 
order of the Tribunal above-said. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: The principal question that was involved in the case was 
B 
whether the appellant was appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of 
Police (Civil) as a direct recruit or was recruited in that post by 
transfer or was simply transferred to that post from the post of 
Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police following bis selection as a direct 
recruit. [IOI4B-C] 
The Tribunal took the view that the appointment of the appellant c 
to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) was not by way of transfer 
under Rule IS(c), nor was it by way of recruitment by transfer; it was 
pointed out by the Tribunal, and rightly, that Annexure-1 read with 
Rule 2(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules 
provided for two modes of appointment, viz., (I) by promotion, and D 
(2) by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from any other 
service. [IOI4F-H] 
The Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) and the Reserve Sub-
Inspectors of Police both belonged to the Andhra Pradesh Police Subor-
dinate Service. Recruitment by transfer could only be made from "any E 
other service". As both the said posts were under the same service, the 
question of recruitment in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) by 
transfer from the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police did not arise. 
Therefore, the only question left before the Court was whether the 
appellant's appointment was by way of direct recruitment or it was 
really a case of transfer from the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of F 
Police to that of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). [IOI4H, l015A-C] 
The appellant had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police 
(Civil) pursuant to an advertisement in the newspapers, issued by the 
Police Department, inviting applications for appointment to the said 
post by direct recruitment. The appellant had to undergo the entire G 
procedure (like, preliminary interview, wri

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