SYED ABDUL ALAM AND ORS. versus THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 15-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SYED ABDUL ALAM AND ORS. 
v. 
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
APRIL 15, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.j 
Se1vice Law : 
Andhra Pradesh State Police Subordinate Service Rules: Rules 2(b), 
2(c), Jl(c) and 15-Promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector-Selection on the 
C basis of merit and ability-Test conducted-Po/ice standing orders-Sub-
sequently amended prescribing senioiity-cum-fitness as the ciiteria-Direc-
tions of Tribunal-Direction to follow principle of "last come first go" for the 
purpose of reversion-A/so directed that those who had passed the test to be 
treated as qualified for being sent to training-Held, Tribunal's Directions to 
D be complied with-If any clarification is required, State Goverment is free to 
approach the Tribunal and seek necessary c/a1ification. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7511-13 
of 1996. 
E 
From the Judgment and order dated 19.12.95 of the Andhra Pradesh 
F 
G 
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 5733 and 503 of 1995. 
L.N. Rao and S.U.K. Sagar for the Appellants 
G. Prabhakar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave !,'!anted. 
Heard learned counsel on both sides. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Andhra 
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal made on December 19, 1995 in O.A. No. 
5733 of 1995 and 0.A. No. 505 of 1995 and also from order dated 
December 28, 1995 in 0.A. No. 7111 of 1995. The facts which are not in 
dispute are that the Andhra Pradesh State Police Subordinate Service 
H 
Rules operate for recruitment of the subordinate staff of the police depart-
326 
' 
S.A. ALAM v. GOVT. OF AP. 
327 
men!. Rule 2 (b) thereof cunlemplales selection on the basis of merit and A 
ability and seniority will be. considered only where merit and ability is 
approximately equal. In implementation thereof, it would appear that the 
Director General of Police and the subordinates seem to have conducted 
written tests of Head Constables to be promoted in 30% quota reserved 
for them, for promotion as Sub-Inspectors. Candidates including some of B 
the appellants came lo appear in the examination and they appear to have 
passed test. The Rules prescribed that they were required to be sent for 
training and on their passing the training they would be appointed on 
regular basis. In the meanwhile, the respondents have issued order in G.O. 
Ms. Nos. 585 dated October 17, 1991 amending the Police Standing orders 
prescribing seniority-cum-fitness as the criteria for promotion of Head C 
constables as Sub-Inspectors without corresponding amendment to the 
statutory rules. That came to be challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal 
while quashing the same, issued the directions as under : 
"1. Substitution of PSO 107 by G.0. Ms. No. 585, Home dated D 
7.10.1991 is held to be invalid: 
2. The list of Head Constables prepared in the year 1990 in various 
parts of the State in anticipation of G.O. Ms. No. 585 for send_ing 
them for training is held to be illegal and will not be operated any 
further. This.will not affect the persons, who have already success-
fully completed the tests after training by the end of April, 1994. 
3. The list of Head Constables prepared in 1992 for sending them 
to training in the various parts of the State is held to be illegal and 
will not be operated upon. 
E 
F, 
4. Only those Head Constables who have passed the initial test 
contemplated by 2(c) by the respective Zonal officers viz., Deputy 
Inspector Generals in accordance with the provisions of 2 (c) 
except the requir~ments of a common question paper for all ihe 
Head constables in the State, to be treated as qualified for being G 
sent for 'training and to the extent of Vaeancies for them, should 
be sent for training for regular appointments after training accord_. 
ing to rule 11( c) and 15. 
5. Inclusion in any lists other than the one mentioned in para 4 
will not confer any right like preference for being appointed or H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
continued as OSSis otherwise than in accordance with law or as 
mentioned in this .Judgment. 
6. No 
Head Constable working as OSSI will be replaced by 
another temporarily app0inted Head Constable as OSSI. For ef-
fecting reversion of OSSis for want of vacancies due to regular 
candidates being appointed or other valid grounds, the version uf 
OSSis will be in reverse order of seniority of Head Constables (in 
Dist
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.