Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned promotions from Head Constables to Sub-Inspectors in the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service. The statutory rules provided that selection for promotion was based on merit and ability, with seniority considered only where merit and ability were approximately equal. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.585 dated October 17, 1991, amending the Police Standing Orders to prescribe seniority-cum-fitness as the criterion without amending the statutory rules. This was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the G.O. and issued six directions, including that lists of Head Constables prepared in 1990 and 1992 were illegal; only those who passed the initial test under Rule 2(c) in respective zones were qualified for training; and reversion of OSSIs should be in reverse order of seniority among those already working as OSSIs (direction No.6). Some candidates approached the High Court and obtained a direction to follow the principle of 'last come first go' for reversion, which conflicted with the Tribunal's direction. The Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.787 dated November 16, 1994, amending the rules retrospectively to seniority-cum-fitness. Appeals were filed in the Supreme Court by special leave against the Tribunal orders. The Supreme Court heard learned counsel on both sides. The Court noted that direction No.4 of the Tribunal had become final and therefore direction No.6 had to be complied with before making any recruitment. It held that when reversion was to be made, the respondents must follow the principle laid down in direction No.6, i.e., reverse order of seniority among OSSIs, not 'last come first go'. If any direction issued by the High Court required clarification, the respondents were free to approach the High Court for necessary clarification consistent with law. The appeals were accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Police Subordinate Service - Promotion Criteria - Andhra Pradesh State Police Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 2(b), Rule 2(c), Rule 11(c), Rule 15 - The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal quashed G.O.Ms.No.585 which substituted seniority-cum-fitness in place of merit and ability, and directed that only Head Constables who passed the initial test under Rule 2(c) in respective zones be treated as qualified for training and regular appointment - The Supreme Court held that direction No.4 of the Tribunal became final and must be implemented; the subsequent retrospective amendment by G.O.Ms.No.787 dated 16-11-1994 did not absolve the Government from following the final directions (Paras 1-3). B) Service Law - Reversion of Temporary Appointees - Principle of Reversion - Andhra Pradesh State Police Subordinate Service Rules - Direction No.6 of the Tribunal required reversion of OSSIs in reverse order of seniority among those already working as OSSIs, not on 'last come first go' basis - The Supreme Court held that direction No.6 must be complied with before making any recruitment, and if any High Court direction required clarification, the respondents were free to approach the High Court; appeals allowed with no costs (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reversion of temporary OSSIs should follow the principle of 'last come first go' as directed by the High Court or the principle of reverse order of seniority among OSSIs as laid down in direction No.6 of the Tribunal; whether the amended rules in G.O.Ms.No.787 dated 16-11-1994 with retrospective effect affect the rights of Head Constables already qualified under Rule 2(c)
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. The Supreme Court directed that direction No.6 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal must be complied with before making any recruitment; reversion of OSSIs, if any, must follow reverse order of seniority among Head Constables already working as OSSIs; if any High Court direction requires clarification, respondents are free to approach the High Court. No costs.
Law Points
- Merit and ability are primary criteria for promotion in subordinate police service
- seniority considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal
- amendments to Police Standing Orders must follow statutory rules
- reversion of temporary appointees must follow reverse order of seniority among those already working as OSSIs
- directions of Tribunal that have become final must be implemented before fresh recruitment
