Holding

Rule 3(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1966 is valid and not violative of Article 16.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Rule 3(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1966, which grants credit for past service in Category III when an officer is appointed to Category II, thereby affecting seniority. Deputy Superintendents of Police who were directly recruited or transferred challenged the rule as discriminatory and violative of Article 16’s equality principle. The High Court Division Bench had declared the rule invalid, but the Supreme Court held that the rule was a matter of governmental policy, not arbitrary or irrational, and that giving credit for past service was permissible. The Court noted that Categories II and III have equal pay, similar qualifications, and that the rule treats appointments from Category III as a distinct method of recruitment, not a promotion. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the Division Bench’s decision and restoring the dismissal of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 3(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1966 is discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.
Whether credit for past service in Category III when appointed to Category II is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to the principle of equality.
Whether appointment from Category III to Category II constitutes a promotion or a transfer for seniority purposes.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 15, s. Article 16, s. Article 309

Subjects

EqualityArticle 16SenioritiesPolice Service RulesAdministrative LawDiscriminationPromotion vs TransferService Classification

Judgment

69 A
K. JAGANNADHA RAO
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS

July 23, 198 I B

[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.
c
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, D
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.
E
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
F
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.
G
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 H
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
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.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
B
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
c 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.
D 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; (ii) qualifications for direct recruits
to both categories are the same; (iii) promotion to either category is from the
E post of Inspector of Police which is a Subordinate Service and the Inspectors of
Police in their respective branches from whom promotions to the two categories
~
•
are made also enjoy the same scale of pay. The mere fact that there are some
differences regarding the duties of the Deputy Superintendents of Police of
category II and category III and their promotional avenues do not alter the
~position. [76E, 740, 73C-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1223 of
-
F 1977.

Appeal by special leave fMm the judgment and order dated
the 22nd April, 1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A.
No. 581 of 1971.
G
K.K. Venugopal and A. Subba Rao for the Appellant.

P. Ram Reddy, G.S. Narayana and G.N. Rao for Respondent
No. I.
H
H.S. Gururaj Rao and S. Markandeya for Respondents Nos. 2,
5, 8, 14 and 21.
K. JAGANNADHA RAO v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Gupta J.) 71

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
r
GUPTA J. The vires of rule 3(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Police
Service Rules, 1966 is in question in this appeal preferred by special
leave. The rule was challenged as invalid by respondent Nos. I
to 23 by filing a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. A
single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition, his decision B
was reversed by a Division Bench on appeal declaring "rule 3(d) is
discriminatory and violative of the principles of equality in Art. 16
of the Constitution of India."

Rule 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, framed in exercise of the powers c
conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India,
classifies the civil services of the State into (a) the State Services,
and (b) the Subordinate Services. The State services are the superior
class. The Andhra Pradesh Police Service is one of the State services.
The subordinate services include, among others, the Andhra Pradesh
Police Subordinate Service. The Andhra Pradesh Police Service
D
Rules, 1966, described as Special Rules for Andhra Pradesh Police
were also made in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso
to Art. 309 of the Constitution.· Rule 2 of the l 955 Police Service
Rules sets out the three categories of officers constituting the service,
namely : category I composed of Commandants, Andhra Pradesh
Special Police; category 2 which includes Deputy Superintendents
E
of Police and Assistant Commissioners of Police, other than those
in category 3 ; and category 3 comprising Deputy Superintendents
of Police in various capacities including Assistant Commandants,
Andhra Pradesh Special Police. Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh
Police Service Rules, 1966 lays down the method and conditions
F
for appointment to posts in the different categories. We are con-
cerned in this appeal with Deputy Superintendents of Police belong-
ing to categories 2 and 3 of the rules. Appointment as Depul y
Superintendent of Police in category 2 is made by (a) direct recruit-
ment, or (b) 'recruitment by transfer' from Andhra Pradesh Police
Subordinate Service, or (c) appointment from category 3 of this G
service with the concurrence of the Public Service Commission
provided that the number of such appointments does not exceed two
in a calendar year. Rule 3 (l 5) of the Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Services Rules, 1962, also framed under proviso to
Art. 309 of the constitution, defines the expression "recruited by H
transfer" ; from the definition it is clear that such recruitments are
really by way of promotion. It is further prescribed by the 1966
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] I S.C.R.

A rules that officers appointed as Deputy Superintendents of Police from
Category 3 to category 2 must pass certain tests and undergo further
training and probation. It is also required that they must complete
8 years of service as Deputy Superintendent of Police in category 3
and shail be below 40 years of age.

B The impugned rule 3(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Service
Rules, 1966 states : "The seniority of the Deputy Superintendents of
Police, Category-2 appointed from the posts of Deputy Snperintend-
ents of Police, Category-3 shall be fixed in that category giving them
credit for their entire service in the posts of the Deputy Superin-
tendents of Police, Category-3". Rules 3(d) thus gives a Deputy
0 Superintendent of Police appointed to category 2 from category 3
the benefit of past service in the State Service for the purpose of
seniority as against a member of the Subordinate Service appointed
Deputy Superintendent of Police in category 2 by promotion, or a
new recruit appointed to the same post directly.

D The writ petition out of which this appeal arises was made by
some of the Deputy Superintendents of Police in category 2 who
were either recruited directly or "recruited by transfer" to the said
posts before the 1966 Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules came
into force Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the writ petition are Deputy
Superintendents of Police appointed from category 3 to cakgory 2
E under the 1966 rules ; they were working as Assistant Commandants
in category 3 before appointment to Category 2. The appellant before
us was impleaded as the third respondent in the writ petition.

The validity of rule 3(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Service
Rules is questioned on the ground that the appointment of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police from category 3 to category 2 is really by
way of promotion and validly the seniority in category 2 of an
officer so promoted can be reckoned only from the date of his
appointment to that category. To support the contention that
such an appointn1ent is by way of promotion the following
features are pointed out from the 1966 rules : (ii) not more
r, than two persons can be appointed Deputy Superintendents of
Police from category 3 to category 2 every year; (ii) the officers
have to complete 8 years of service in category 3 before they can be
appointed to category 2 ; (iii) these officers have to undergo training
and probation fgr two years. According to the writ petitioners who
H are respondents Nos. 1 to 23 in this Court these features conclusively
prove that the appointment of a Deputy Superintendent of Police to
category 2 from category 3 is by way of promotion. These are also
K. JAGANNADHA RAO v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Gupta J.) 73

the features that weighed with the Division Bench of the High Court A
y in holding that rule 3(d) was invalid. This is what the Division Bench
observed:

"Having regard to the rule of eligibility and qualifica-
tions of service of eight years in the category-3, the tests
prescribed, the probation of two years ... the training... are B
all indicative and, in our view, decisive that category-3
personnel are not equivalent to category-2 personnel. We
are further of the view, category· 3 personnel attain the
same status only on appointment to category-2."

- There appears to be no dispute on the following points :-

(1) categories 2 and 3 carry equal pay ;
c

(2) qualifications for direct recruits to both categories are
the same; '
D
(3) promotion to either category is from the post of
Inspector of Police which is a subordinate service, and
the Tnspectors of Police in the respective branches from
whom promotions to the two categories are made also
enjoy the same scale of pay.
E
The duties of the Deputy Superintendents of Police of category
2 and category 3 are however of a different nature. The Deputy
Superintendents of Police of Category 2 are normally concerned with
the prevention, detection and investigation of crime and maintenance
of law and order. They constitute the principal police service of the
State. Assistant Commandants, Andhra Pradesh Special Police, are
F
also designated as Deputy Superintendents of Police in category 3.
They are primanly a striking force employed also for maintaining
law and order, but they are not concerned with the routine duties of
the principal police service. The promotional avenues for the
officers of the two categories are also not the same. Officers
belonging to category 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Service are
G
eligible to be promoted as Commandants, Home Guards, and
Assistant Superintendent of Police. They are also eligible to be
considered for appointment to the Indian Police Service. Officers of
category 3 are eligible to be promoted as Commandants, Home
Guards, but not as Assistant Superintendents of Police, nor are they
H
eligible to be considered for appointment to the Indian Police
Service. It appears from the couhter affidavit filed on behalf of the
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] I S.C.R.

A State of Andhra Pradesh in the High Court which is based on Govern-
ment Order No. 1513 dated November 28, 1961 that the limited
chances of promotion open before officers of category 3 gave rise to
discontent among them, and to prevent stagnation and avoid frust-
ration among officers belonging to that category, government decided
to throw open avenues of promotion of the officers of category 3
B which were available to the officer> belonging to category 2; however,
the opportunity made available was a limited one in the sense that
only to Deputy Superintendents of Police from category 3 were to
be appoiuted as Deputy Superintendents of Police, category 2, in a
year.

Rule 3 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1966
provides that Deputy Superintendents of Police in category 2 may be
-
appointed by (a) direct recruirment, or (b) recruitment by transfer
from Inspectors of Police, class I, in the Andhra Pradesh Police
Subordinate Service, which is really a promotion for them, or (c)
appointment from category 3 which is a State service. The validity
D of the rule 3 (a) has not been challenged. It is to be noted that rule
3 (a) itself treats appointment from category 3 as distinct from
either direct recruitment or promotion. It was contended on behalf
of the appellant that if appointment to category 2 from category 3
was not direct recruitment or promotion, it could only be by way of
transfer. The point was urged also in the High Court. On behalf
E of the appellant reference was made to fundamental rule 15 which
authorises the transfer of a government servant from one post to
another provided that the post to which he is transferred does not
carry less pay. Rule 33 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subor-
dinate Services Rules, 1962 says:

"The transfer of a person from one class or category
F
of a service to another class or categMy carrying the same
pay scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to
the latter for purposes of seniority; and the seniority of a
person so transferred shall be determined with reference to
the date of his first appointment to the class or category
from which he was transferred."
G
The rule adds:

Where any difficultly or doubt arises in applying this
Sub-rule, seniority shall be determined by the appointing
H authority."
K. JAGANNADHA RAO v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Gupta, J.) 75

Of course rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules not A
states specifically that appointments to category 2 from category 3
shall be considered as transfer making rule 33 (c) of the Andhra
Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules applicable. The
answer of the respondents is that such appointments could not be
treated as transfer because category 2 and category 3 are not of
equal status. There is however no rule saying that services in B
category 3 are inferior to those in category 2; hoth are State Services.
The learned single Judge of the High Court explains in his judgment
why the fact that the Deputy Superintendents of Police in category
3 have to pass tests and undergo training and probation for appoint-

-
ment to category 2 does not warrant the conclusion that such
appointment are by way of promotion: c
"Since the higher posts of Additional Superintendents
of Police, Posts in the Indian Police Service etc., involve
what may be called the ordinary police duties with which
the members of the Andhra Pradesh Special Police are not
likely to be familiar, the Government has further pres- D
cribed that officers appointed from category 3 to category 2
must pass certain tests and undergo further training and
probation. It is important to realise that the appointment
of some outstanding officers from category 3 to category 2
is designed to achieve the two fold object of providing
avenues of promotion for such outstanding officers and E
injecting new but proven blood, as it were, into category 2.
If this twin object is realised it becomes evident that
appointment to catego1y 2 from category 3 cannot be
considered to be a promotion."

In our view the explanation given by the single Judge is sound. We F
find[no basis f< r the claim that category 3 is inferior to category 2
in status.

We do not however think it necessary to decide w:iatever
appointments to category 2 from category 3 amount to transfer
attracting rule 33 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Sub~rdinate G
Services Rules. Under Rule 3 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Police
Service Rules, 1966 appointment from category 3 is one method of re-
cruitment to category 2 and the only question is whether giving credit
to such appointees for past service in another category in the State
Service is justified. We have mentioned above the points of simi-
H
larity in matters of recruitment and promotion to the two respective
categories. It has been noticed also that they carry the same scale of
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1982] I S.C.R.

A pay. Whether or not some credit should be given for past service in
such circumstances is a matter of policy resting with government.
We do not find anything arbitrary or absurd in what rule 3 (d)
prescribes, and that being so, the court cannot examine the matter
and come to its own cone! usion about what should be the length
of past service for which credit should be given. In Tamil Nadu
Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Service
Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and another.(') this Court consider-
ing a similar contention that the length of service taken into consider-
ation for fixing seniority had worked hardship on some of the
employees, took the view that in such matters the court can only
take an "overall view and should not attempt "a meticulous
c dissection" of the matter. Once the principle is found to be
rational'', it was observed, a few "instances of hardship cannot be a
ground to invalidate the order or the policy ... this is an area where,
absent arbitrariness and irrationality, the court has to adopt a hands-
off policy''. There is nothing irrational in giving the Deputy
Superintendents of Police appointed to category 2 from category 3
D credit for past services rendered by them in category 2 from 3 which
is also a State Service as category 2. The main ground on which
the length of the past service for which credit has been given is
questioned in this case is not that it was not rational but that
category 3 being inferior in status to category 2, no credit could at
all be given for past service in category 3. We found n:) basis to
E support the claim of superiority for category 2 and in the facts of
the case we do not think that the length of past service for which
credit has been given is improper.

Accordingly we allow this appeal, set aside the decision of

F
the Division Bench and restore that of the learned single Judge
dismissing the writ petition. The parties will bear their respective
costs.
-
S.R. Appe,11 allowed.

(I) [1980) I S.C.R. 1026.