Holding

The appellant was directly recruited to the post of Sub‑Inspector (Civil); his seniority is to be computed from the date of that appointment, not from his earlier service as Reserve Sub‑Inspector.

Summary

K. Rajaiah was appointed Reserve Sub‑Inspector of Police in 1968 and later applied for the post of Sub‑Inspector (Civil) through a direct‑recruitment advertisement, being selected and confirmed by 1978. He sought to have his earlier service counted for seniority, prompting the Government to issue an order under Rule 15(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules granting seniority from 1968. Several Sub‑Inspectors challenged this order before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which held that Rajaiah’s appointment was by direct recruitment and his seniority should start from the date of his Sub‑Inspector appointment. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal’s view, reasoning that both posts belong to the same service and recruitment by transfer is only permissible from a different service; moreover, the appellant underwent the full selection process for direct recruits, indicating no transfer. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that seniority must be computed from the date of his Sub‑Inspector appointment.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant’s appointment as Sub‑Inspector (Civil) was a transfer under Rule 15(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules or a direct recruitment.
Whether seniority for the appellant can be computed from his earlier service as Reserve Sub‑Inspector.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Ruless. Rule 15(c), s. Rule 2(a)

Subjects

senioritytransferdirect recruitmentpolice serviceRule 15(c)administrative tribunalappointmentpromotion

Judgment

K. RAJAIAH
A
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

AUGUST 19, 1987

[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUD', JJ.)
~
B

Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules-Rule 15(c)-
---.
Effect of-In the matter of seniority claim in respect of appointment of a

c
Reserve Sub-Inpsector of Police as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil)-
Whether by transfer under Rule 15 (c) or as a direct recruit. -
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
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]

--1 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
""'i 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.
r 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, written test, final interview,
production of certificates, etc) for selection of direct recruits. Also, he
was appointed on probation and after the satisfactory completion of bis
probationary period, he was confirmed in the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police (Civil). In view of the manner in which the appellant was
appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), it was difficult H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 3 S.C.R.

A to accept any contention that the appellant was transferred to that post.
When a Government servant is transferred from one post to another,
the question of his selection after a writien test and a viva voce test does
not arise. If the appellant had been transferred simpliciter, he would
not have been directed to appear at the written test and interview for
selection along with other candidates who had applied for the post of 1
B Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) pursuant to the advertisement in the
newspaper. The Court was, therefore, unable to accept the contention
that the appellant's was a case of transfer and not of direct recruitment.
It was true that the Government had the power to transfer under Rule
IS(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Police Service Roles, but such
a transfer could be made only in public interest, and there was no
C question of any public interest so far as the appellant was concerned.
The Government had directed in its order that order would not be
-
treated as a precedent; there was no necessity for this direction if the
appellant's appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil)
was by way of transfer in exercise of power under Rule IS(c). The
Government order impugned had not been made by the Government out
D of its own but on the representation of the appellant. [1015D-H, 1016A-B] r
The appellant contended that he did not submit any resignation
from the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police and that he was
allowed to draw last pay as Reserve Sub-Inspector even on his appoint-
ment as the Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), but merely because of
E the presence of these circumstances, it would not justify a finding that
the appelllant had been transferred, having regard to the manner in
which he came to be appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police
(Civil). [1016F-G]

The Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the appellant
F was directly recruited to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) and
that his seniority should be computed from the date of such appoint-
ment. This judgment, however, would not affect the present position of
the appellant and the emoluments being paid to him. [1017B-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 'i
G 10539 of 1983.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1983 of the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in Representation Petition.
Nos. 965, 1899 and 1950 of 1982.

H A. Subba Rao for the Appellant.
K. RAJAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. (MISRA, J.] !013

P.P. Rao, K. Ram Kumar, Vimal Dave, C. Markendeya and A
Gururaja Rao for the Respondents.

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:

.._ This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, holding that B
the appellant was appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police
(Civil) as a direct recruit and directing that he shall be accorded senio·
rity from the date when he joined the post on such appointment.

- On December 30, 1968, the appellant, who was then an under·
graduate, was appointed to the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of C
Police. During his service in that post, he passed the B.A. Examina·
tion of the Osmania University in April 1971. Pursuant to an advertise-
ment in the local newspaper inviting applications for the posts of Sub-
Inspector of Police (Civil), the appellant applied for the post and
appeared in the written test and viva voce test. He was selected and
appointed to the post on December 14, 1976 on probation for two D
years along with thirtyseven others. After the completion of his pro·
bationary period, he was confirmed in the post on November 29, 1978.

It appears that the Inspector General of Police did not accede to
the request of the appellant to take into account the period of his
\.. service as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in computing his seniority E
....._ in the new post of Sub·Inspector of Police (Civil). Thereafter, the
appellant made a representation to the Government. The Government
in its order being GOMS No. 344 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 that the appel· F
lant would be accorded seniority from the date of his first appointment
to the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, that is, from December
30, 1968, placing him below Shri Khaja Mohiuddin and above Shri
S.K. Ahmed in the list of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil). It was
\.. further directed that "this order shall, however, not become. a prece·
'!' dent for others." G

Being aggrieved by the said Government order, a number of
Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) filed three sets of applications to the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under paragraph 7 of the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order, 1975 challenging the
validity of the said Government order and praying for setting aside of H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.
~
A the same. The Tribunal by the impugned order struck down the said
Government order and directed that the appellant would be accorded
seniority from the date when he joined the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police (Civil) treating him as a direct recruit. Further, it was directed
that the promotional benefits given to the appellant would be regu-
lated on and from the date he .ioined the said post of Sub-Inspector of 1
B Police (Civil). Hence this appeal by special leave.
~
The principal question that is involved in this appeal is 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

c
was simply transferred to that post from the post of Reserve Sub-
Inspector of Police following his selection as a direct rec~uit.
-
~
In the impugned Government order, the Government took the
view that the appellant was transferred from the post of Reserve Sub-
Inspector of Police to that of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) under
Rule 15(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules.
D Rule 15(c) is as follows:- ~

"Rule 15(c). The transfer of a person from one class or
category of the service to another class or category carrying
the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first
appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority and the
E 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. Where any
difficulty or doubt arises in applying this sub-rule, seniority
shall be determined by the appointing authority."

F The Tribunal has taken the view that appointment of the appel-
lant to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) was not by way of
transfer under Rule 15(c), nor was it by way of recruitment by trans-
fer. It has been pointed out by the Tribunal, and that rightly, that
Annexure-1 read with Rule 2(a) of Andhra Pradesh Police Subordi-
nate Service Rules provides for two modes of appointment which are:-
G
( 1) by promotion, and

(2) by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from any
other service.

H It is not disputed that Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) and
K. RAJAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. (MISRA, J.J 1015

Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police both belong to Andhra Pradesh Police A
Subordinate Service. Recruitment. by transfer can only be made from
"any other service." As both the posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police
(Civil) and Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police are under the same
Service, the question of recruitment in the post of Sub-Inspector of
~ Police (Civil) by transfer from the post or Reserve Sub-Inspector of
Police does not arise. Mr. Subba Rao, learned Counsel appearing on B
behalf of the appellant, has not made any attempt to substantiate that
the appellant's appointment to the post of Sub·lnspector of Police
(Civil) was by way of recruitment by transfer. We are, therefore, left
with the question whether the appellant's appointment was by way of

- direct recruitment or it was really a case of transfer of the appellant
from the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police to that of Sub- C
Inspector of Police (Civil). While it is strenuously urged on behalf of
the appellant that he was transferred from the post of Reserve Sub-
Inspector of Police to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) under
Rule 15(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules, it
is submitted by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, that the appellant was directly recruited to the post of D
Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil).

It has been already noticed that the appellant 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 in the pay scale of E
'"' Rs. 15ll-300. The minimum academic qualification required for the
post was graduation. The vacancies to be filled up were 149 in number.
The appellant succeeded in the preliminary interview and he was
f directed to appear at· the written test. Thereafter, he was also called
upon to appear at the final interview before the Selection Board on
February 25, 1976 and was asked to bring with him original certifi- F
cates, evidence of his date of birth, school/college conduct certificate,
no objection certificate in original, if he was a Government Servant,
etc. In other words, the appellant had to nndergo the entire procedure
prescribed for selection of direct recruits. It has also been noticed
earlier that the appellant was appointed on probation for two years
)- and after the satisfactory completion of his probationary period, he G
was confirmed in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). In view of
the manner in which the appellant was appointed to the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police (Civil), it is difficult to accept any contention that
the appellant was transferred to that post. When a Government
servant in transferred from one post to another, the question of his
selection after a written and a viva voce test does not at all arise. If the H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.
-A.
appellant had been transferred simpliciter, the appellant would not
A
have been directed to appear at the written test and the interview for
the purpose of selection along with other candidates. who also
applied for the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) pursuant to the
said advertisement in the local newspaper. It is not disputed that the
said adver,tisement was published for filling up the posts of Sub-
-1
B Inspectors of Police (Civil) by direct recruitment. We are, therefore,
unable tCJ"accept the contention made on behalf of the appellant that it
was a case of transfer and not of direct recruitment. '-#

It is true that the Government has power to transfer under Rule
15(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Police Service Rules. The
question, however, it whether the Government intended to transfer
c the appellant from the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police to that ;.--
-
of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). It has been rightly pointed out that
such transfer can be made only in the public interest, but there was no
question of any public interest so far as the appellant was concerned.
Indeed, in the impugned Government order, it was directed that the
D same would not be treated as a precedent. If the appellant's appoint- ~
ment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) was by way of
transfer in exercise of the power under Rule 15(c), there was no neces·
sity for a direction that the order would not be treated as a precedent
for others. The impugned order was not made by the Government out
of its own, but on the representation of the appellant which was made
E after the appellant's request to take into account his period of service ~
at the Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in computing his seniority in .-
the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) was turned down by the
Inspector General of Police.
y
In support of the case for transfer, the appellant has strongly
F relied upon two facts, namely, (I) that he did not submit any resigna-
tion from the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police; and (2) that he
was allowed to draw last pay as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police even
on his appointment as the Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). These two
facts have also been relied upon by the Government in the impugned
order. These two circumstances are no doubt the criteria of a transfer,
G but merely because of the presence of these circumstances, it will not 'f
justify a finding that the appellant was transferred, as contended by
him, having regard to the manner in which the appellant was
appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). Although a
Government servant can be transferred from one post to another, but
when he chooses to get himself recruited to that another post after
H subjecting himself to all requirements and formalities of direct recruit-
K. RAJAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. [MISRA, J.] 1017

men! along with other independent candidates and is confirmed after A
satisfactory completion of the probationary period, his appointment as
a direct recruit cannot be substituted by an order of transfer to the
prejudice of the other direct recruits in the matter of computation of
seniority. It may be that the appellant had not resigned from the post
,_of Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, and that the Government allowed
B
· him the last pay drawn as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police on his
'v appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), that would not, in our
r opinion, wipe out the appointment of the appellant as a direct recruit.
The Tribunal, in our view, is perfectly justified in holding that the
appellant was directly recruited to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police
- (Civil), and that his seniority should be computed from the date of
such appointment. c
-{
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. There will,
however, be no order as to costs.

We, however, make it clear that this judgment will not affect the
D
·-JI present position of the appellant and the emoluments which are being
paid to him.

S.L. Appeal dismissed.