Supreme Court of India
SYED ABDUL ALAM AND ORS.versusTHE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 524
- Decided
- 15 April 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K RAMASWAMY
Holding
The Court held that the Government must adhere to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal’s directions, treating candidates who passed the merit‑based test as qualified for training and regular appointment, and must implement reversion of temporary OSSI posts in accordance with the "last‑come‑first‑go" seniority principle, rendering the seniority‑cum‑fitness amendment invalid.
Summary
The appellants, Head Constables, had passed a merit‑based written test for promotion to Sub‑Inspector under the Andhra Pradesh State Police Subordinate Service Rules, which require promotion on the basis of merit and ability. The Government later issued a G.O. (No. 585) amending the Police Standing Orders to prescribe seniority‑cum‑fitness as the sole criterion, without amending the statutory rules, and subsequently issued another amendment (G.O. No. 187) giving retrospective effect to this seniority rule. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal quashed the amendment and directed that candidates who passed the test be treated as qualified for training and regular appointment, and that reversion of temporary OSSI posts be carried out on a “last‑come‑first‑go” seniority basis. The State argued that it could follow its amendments, but the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s directions are binding and the seniority‑cum‑fitness amendment cannot override the merit‑based provisions of the Service Rules. Consequently, the Court ordered the Government to comply with the Tribunal’s directions regarding qualification, training, regularisation, and reversion, and dismissed the Government’s attempt to give retrospective effect to the seniority rule. The appeals were allowed and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the amendment of the Police Standing Orders prescribing seniority‑cum‑fitness for promotion is valid in view of the Service Rules that mandate promotion on merit and ability.
- Whether the Tribunal’s directions that candidates who passed the merit test be treated as qualified for training and regular appointment must be complied with.
- Whether the Government can give retrospective effect to the amendment of Rule 2(b)(i) to override the merit‑based promotion criteria.
- Whether the principle of "last‑come‑first‑go" applies to the reversion of temporary OSSI appointments.
Subjects
service lawpromotionmerit and abilityseniority‑cum‑fitnessreversiontemporary appointmentadministrative tribunalpolice recruitment
Judgment
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
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.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave !,'!anted.
Heard learned counsel on both sides.
G 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- E
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.
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
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A 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
B candidates being appointed or other valid grounds, the version uf
OSSis will be in reverse order of seniority of Head Constables (in
District-wise seniority) among those who were already working as
OSSis by the date of the interim order viz., 9.2.1993 which is
adopted by the Director General of Police in his Memo dated
c 25.2.1993. The Government will immediately take steps for making
regular appointments to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in
accordance with the rules both by direct recruitment and by
promotion. This should be initiated within three months from the
date of receipt of this order."
D It would appear that some of the candidates, who had approached
the High Court and seem to have obtained directions to follow the prin-
ciple of "last come first go" for the purpose of reversion. In the light of the
directions issued by the Tribunal, which were allowed to become final,
necessarily the respondents had to follow the above directions. Paragraph
E 4 clearly indicates that such of the candidates, who have been qualified by
passing the written examinations as per R nle 2 (c) in the respective Zones,
were required to be treated as qualified for training and after passing the
training, they were required to be regularised for appointment according
to Rule 11 (c) and Rule 15 of the said Rules. It would also appear that the
Government in the meanwhile, had amended the Rules in G.O. Ms. No.
F '/87 dated November 16, 1994 giving retrospective effect to the Rules. In
clause II of the amended Rules, it sought to regular Rule 2 (b) (i) as under:
11
Promotion to all non-gazetted posts in this service shall be
made in accordance with the seniority-cum-fitness, provided they
pass the tests, undergo training and fulfil all other, conditions
G
prescribed in the rules and on the instructions of the Andhra
Pradesh Police Manual.
Note: The aforesaid provision shall not be applied to a case where:
H (a) The promotion of a member has been withheld as a penalty;
S.A. ALAM v. GOV!'. OF A.P. 329
or A
(b) in such of the cases, where a member is given a special
proinotion in recognition of a conspicuous merit and ability11 •
In these cases, we are not concerned \Vith these contingencies. We
are concerned with reversion of the appellants from the posts of temporary B
OSSis. In view of the fact that direction No. 4 was allowed to become final,
necessarily direction No. 6 has to be complied with before making any
recruitment as contemplated in second part of direction No:6. It would be
open to the Government to follow the direction issued thereunder and
when any reversion is to be made, they should necessarily follow the
principle laid down therein. If any direction issued by the High Court is c
required to be clarified with, the respondents are free to approach the
High Court and seek necessary clarification which would be done consis-
tent with the law.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
D
G.N. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search