AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this petition, the petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari for quashing seniority list dated 31.03.2015 and seek a further command to re-draw the seniority list of Forest Protection Guards of Jammu province on the basis of Jammu and Kashmir Forest Protection Rules, 2012 after considering the inter se merit of the candidates who had undergone training vide orders dated 30.10.1998 and 15.10.1999 by considering them as candidates belonging to the same batch.
The material facts are as under:
J&K Service Selection Recruitment Board (SSRB) issued Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1996 dated 24.12.1996 seeking applications for the posts of Forest Guards/Forest Protection Guards. Petitioners being eligible applied and got selected. It is pertinent to mention the break-up of the posts which were advertised for various districts in the Jammu province for the posts of Forest Protection Guards:
S. No.
Name of the District
Number of posts.
1.
Jammu
79
2.
Kathua
52
3
Udhampur
104
4.
Rajouri
52
5.
Poonch
27
Although the vacancies advertised by virtue of the aforementioned advertisement notice pertained to various districts in Jammu province, yet the process of selection was common. Based upon the merit list so prepared and depending upon the merit of candidates, who had applied for posts in regard to their respective districts, appointments were made. All the petitioners are then stated to have been appointed and joined on the same date i.e. 16.03.1998.
Another important fact that needs to be noticed is that on the date of the appointment of the petitioners as Forest Protection Guards, there were no rules governing their service. Subsequently, however, in the year 2001, vide SRO. 264 of 2012 dated 09.08.2012, the J&K Forest (Protection) Force Rules, 2012 (for short, the Rules of 2012) came to be promulgated. By virtue of SRO 422 dated 15.03.2017, the J&K State Forest Protection Force (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2017 (for short, the Rules of 2017) were promulgated. Rule 10 of the Rules of 2017 envisages maintaining of seniority list and prescribed as under:
"10. Maintenance of seniority lists:- (1) Seniority of the Members of the Service (Executive Staff) shall be regulated in order or merit obtained at the examination held at the end of training period before being posted against working posts. The members shall be deputed for compulsory training strictly as per the seniority/merit obtained during the selection:
Provided that in case a member has failed to qualify the compulsory training in two attempts, he shall loose his seniority position to the member below him who has qualified the said training.
(2) Seniority of the members of Service (Ministerial) shall be regulated as per Rule 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956.
(3) Head of Department shall maintain an up-to-date and final seniority list of members of the service."
In terms of rule 13, all rules corresponding to the Rules of 2017 and in force immediately before the commencement of these rules were repealed.
Since the controversy involved in this petition revolves around the fixation of seniority, therefore, it becomes to reproduce rule 38 of the Rules of 2012 which envisages as under:
"38. Seniority of directly recruited candidates (Enrolled members) The seniority of enrolled candidates directly recruited shall be determined as under:
(1) Candidates who are sent for initial training to a training school shall rank in seniority in the relevant grade, according to the order of merit obtained at the examination held at the end of training period before being posted against working posts and those who pass examination in the second attempt shall rank junior to those who passed in the first attempt but shall rank senior to those who pass in the next or subsequent batches and where candidates secure equal marks, the seniority shall be determined by the date of birth-the elder candidate being senior;
(2) In case of candidates who are not required to undergo any training the seniority shall be determined on the basis of their order of selection.
(3) When two are more candidates are of equal merit at one and the same examination or selection, their relative seniority shall be determined by the date of birth-the elder candidate being the senior;
(4) When a candidate whose seniority has been fixed under the above rules cannot join duty within three months from the receipt of order of appointment, his seniority among the candidates selected at the same examination or selection shall be reckoned from a date to be determined by the appointing authority.
(5) Candidates selected for appointment at an earlier selection shall be senior to those selected later irrespective of the date of joining."
The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that their placement in the seniority list impugned has been determined contrary to the spirit of Rule 38.
It was urged the objections to the tentative seniority list had been rejected summarily. It was contended that all the candidates selected pursuant to advertisement notice No. 3/1996 were required to be sent for training simultaneously, which, however, did not happen. It was urged that the Joint Director, Forest Protection Force, Jammu vide his order dated 30.10.1998 deputed along with the Forest Protection Guards, even the Forest Protection Inspectors, for six months police Training in the Police Academy at Phillour, Punjab.
It was urged that there were as many as 191 Forest Guards so deputed for the said course. The candidates so sent were from Districts of Jammu, Kathua, Udhampur, Rajouri and Poonch.
The names of the petitioners, however, did not figure in the first batch of candidates deputed for training. Their names figured in the second list issued by the Joint Director, Forest Protection Force vide its communication dated 15.10.1999 whereby as many as 54 Forest Protection Guards including the petitioners were so sent.
It is necessary to note the material part of the communication dated 15.10.1999 which envisages thus:
"The following FPF Guards of Jammu region could not get training in first batch of Police Training at PPA, Phillour (Punjab). Since the second batch is going to be trained from 1st Nov'99 at PPA, Phillour (Punjab), so necessary order may be issued in this regard please:"
As against the total number of vacancies so advertised, only 191 selected candidates were sent for police training from the aforementioned districts. The district-wise distribution of candidates sent for training has also been reproduced in body of the writ petition which is as under:
S. No.
Name of the District
Total No. of candidates selected
Serial No. of candidates sent for training to Phillour
Serial No. of candidates sent for training to Dumi, Akhnoor
Remarks
Kathua
51
1 to 36
37 to 42
The rest of the candidates, who were selected pursuant to
43 to 49
Udhampur
104
1 to 30
31 to 35
advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1996 were sent for training vide order dated 15.10.1999 including the petitioners.
Jammu
52
1 to 18
19 to 21
22 to 34
Rajouri
52
41
Nil
Poonch
27
12
Nil
Petitioners are stated to have successfully undergone the training course which lasted over about 6½ months and the merit obtained by each of the candidates during the course of training has duly been reflected in the seniority list impugned. Grievance of the petitioners is that all those candidates selected along with the petitioners who were sent earlier in point of time for training to Phillour (Punjab) and other training Colleges had en masse been shown senior to the petitioners irrespective of the merit obtained by the petitioners during the course of training. It is in these circumstances highlighted that by showing the entire batch of candidates deputed for training earlier then the petitioners as senior, provisions of the rule 38 of the Rules of 2012 have been violated. It was also urged that the official respondents were under an obligation to frame a common seniority list of the entire batch, who were selected pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1996 after analyzing their respective merit obtained in the training course and that the bifurcation of the petitioners batch wise was illegal.
With a view to highlight the comparative merit position obtained during the training, learned counsel for the petitioners has prepared the following chart to show that those shown senior to the petitioners had obtained lesser merit in the training programme:
S.
Name of the
Marks obtained
S. No. in the
Remarks
No.
Petitioner/
in the initial
seniority issued
Respondent
training
vide Order No.
344-DFPF of 2015
dated: 31-03-
2015 by
Respondent No.2
1
Shamsher Singh
708.50 out of 1115
1
Respondent
2
Kulbhushan
704.50 out of 1115
2
Respondent
Chander
3
Chain Singh
702.50 out of 1115
3
Respondent
4
Vikram Mahajan
699.50 out of 1115
4
Respondent
5
Anil Kumar
698.00 out of 1115
5
Respondent
6
Krishan Chand
697.50 out of 1115
6
Respondent
7
Mohd Mashooq
697.50 out of 1115
7
Respondent
Khan
8
Subhash
696.00 out of 1115
8
Respondent
Chander
9
Surinder Kumar
694.00 out of 1115
9
Respondent
10
Satish Kumar
693.50 out of 1115
10
Respondent
11
Deepak Singh
692.00 out of 1115
11
Respondent
Sambyal
12
Sandeep
690.00 out of 1115
12
Respondent
Khajuria
13
Ravi Shankar
689.50 out of 1115
13
Respondent
14
Subhash
688.50 out of 1115
14
Respondent
Chander
15
Sikander
702.00 out of
164
Petitioner
Hussain
1140
16
Balram Singh
686.50 out of 1115
15
Respondent
17
Vinod Kumar
686.00 out of 1115
16
Respondent
18
Rajinder Singh
685.00 out of 1115
17
Respondent
19
Rajiv
683.50 out of 1115
18
Respondent
20
Sanjay Kumar
682.50 out of 1115
19
Respondent
21
Des Raj
682.00 out of 1115
20
Respondent
22
Parveen Kumar
682.00 out of 1115
21
Respondent
23
Brij Bhushan
682.00 out of 1115
22
Respondent
24
Rajesh Kumar
681.00 out of 1115
23
Respondent
Luthra
25
Rakesh Singh
681.00 out of 1115
24
Respondent
26
Kartar Chand
681.00 out of 1115
25
Respondent
27
Deepak Singh
680.00 out of 1115
26
Respondent
28
Janak Raj
678.50 out of 1115
27
Respondent
29
Bikramjeet
678.00 out of 1115
28
Respondent
Singh
30
Naresh Kumar
678.00 out of 1115
29
Respondent
31
Yash Pal
693.00 out of
166
Petitioner
Sharma
1140
32
Rattan Lal
677.50 out of 1115
30
Respondent
33
Rakesh Kumar
692.00 out of
167
Petitioner
1140
34
Ravi Kumar
676.50 out of 1115
31
Respondent
35
Durgesh
676.00 out of 1115
32
Respondent
Chander
36
Raj Kumar
675.00 out of 1115
33
Respondent
37
Janam Jeet
675.00 out of 1115
34
Respondent
38
Hans Raj
674.50 out of 1115
35
Respondent
39
Pardeep Singh
674.50 out of 1115
36
Respondent
40
Gurpal singh
674.00 out of 1115
37
Respondent
41
Surveshwar
674.00 out of 1115
38
Respondent
42
Vijay Kumar
674.00 out of 1115
39
Respondent
43
Raj Kumar
672.00 out of 1115
40
Respondent
44
Deepak Singh
671.50 out of 1115
41
Respondent
45
Chain Singh
670.50 out of 1115
42
Respondent
46
Subhash
670.50 out of 1115
43
Respondent
Chander
47
Dhavinder
670.50 out of 1115
44
Respondent
Singh
48
Arun Kumar
669.50 out of 1115
45
Respondent
49
Rameshwer
669.50 out of 1115
46
Respondent
Verma
50
Suresh Kumar
669.00 out of 1115
47
Respondent
51
Romesh Kumar
668.50 out of 1115
48
Respondent
52
Mohammad
668.50 out of 1115
49
Respondent
Rehman
53
Ravi Kant
683.50 out of
168
Petitioner
Sharma
1140
54
Shakti Singh
668.00 out of 1115
50
Respondent
55
Ram Singh
668.00 out of 1115
51
Respondent
Manhas
56
Rakesh Khajuria
668.00 out of 1115
52
Respondent
57
Anil Kumar
682.50 out of
169
Petitioner
Khajuria
1140
58
Vijay Kumar
682.50 out of
170
Petitioner
1140
59
Sukhdev Singh
667.00 out of 1115
53
Respondent
60
Ravinder
666.50 out of 1115
54
Respondent
Sharma
61
Rakesh Sharma
666.50 out of 1115
55
Respondent
62
Ajay Kumar
666.50 out of 1115
56
Respondent
63
Atiq-ul-Rehman
665.50 out of 1115
57
Respondent
64
Sahil Sharma
680.50 out of
171
Petitioner
1140
65
Rajesh Chib
665.50 out of 1115
58
Respondent
66
Satish Sharma
664.50 out of 1115
59
Respondent
67
Narayan Dutt
664.00 out of 1115
60
Respondent
68
Vijay Singh
663.50 out of 1115
61
Respondent
69
Shashpal Singh
663.50 out of 1115
62
Respondent
70
Ilam Din
663.00 out of 1115
63
Respondent
71
Mulkh Raj
677.50 out of
173
Petitioner
Khajuria
1140
72
Vijay Kumar
662.50 out of 1115
64
Respondent
Sharma
73
Puran Chand
662.00 out of 1115
65
Respondent
74
Ajay Sharma
661.50 out of 1115
66
Respondent
75
Abdul Qayoom
661.00 out of 1115
67
Respondent
76
Sham Lal
660.00 out of 1115
68
Respondent
77
Mohammad
659.50 out of 1115
69
Respondent
Latif
78
Sandeep Kumar
658.50 out of 1115
70
Respondent
Sharma
79
Aman Deep
658.50 out of 1115
71
Respondent
Bamotra
80
Kartar Chand
657.50 out of 1115
72
Respondent
81
Amjad Iqbal
657.50 out of 1115
73
Respondent
82
Daljit Singh
657.50 out of 1115
74
Respondent
83
Abdul Hamid
657.00 out of 1115
75
Respondent
84
Sham Singh
656.50 out of 1115
76
Respondent
Jasrotia
85
Ravinder Bali
656.50 out of 1115
77
Respondent
86
Daler Singh
656.50 out of 1115
78
Respondent
87
Pardeep Kumar
656.00 out of 1115
79
Respondent
88
Vinod Kumar
655.50 out of 1115
80
Respondent
89
Naresh Kumar
655.00 out of 1115
81
Respondent
90
Manoj Kumar
654.50 out of 1115
82
Respondent
91
Daljeet Singh
654.50 out of 1115
83
Respondent
92
Sanjeev Kumar
654.50 out of 1115
84
Respondent
Sharma
93
Sanjeet Padha
669.00 out of
178
Petitioner
1140
94
Waqar Ahmed
653.50 out of 1115
85
Respondent
95
Sanjay Kumar
653.00 out of 1115
86
Respondent
96
Suram Chand
653.00 out of 1115
87
Respondent
97
Mukhtar Ahmed
653.00 out of 1115
88
Respondent
98
Dayal Singh
653.00 out of 1115
89
Respondent
99
Arun Kumar
652.00 out of 1115
90
Respondent
100
Rajesh Kumar
666.50 out of
180
Petitioner
Gupta
1140
101
Romesh
666.50 out of
181
Petitioner
Kumar
1140
102
Mohd Manzoor
666.00 out of
183
Petitioner
1140
103
Ashok Kumar
651.00 out of 1115
91
Respondent
104
Som Lal
651.00 out of 1115
92
Respondent
105
Gopal Dass
649.50 out of 1115
93
Respondent
106
Mohammad
649.00 out of 1115
94
Respondent
Farooq
107
Khajoor Singh
648.50 out of 1115
95
Respondent
108
Sham Lal
648.00 out of 1115
96
Respondent
109
Rakesh Bhalla
648.00 out of 1115
97
Respondent
110
Varinder Kumar
648.00 out of 1115
98
Respondent
111
Munir Hussain
647.50 out of 1115
99
Respondent
112
Sunil Kumar
647.50 out of 1115
100
Respondent
113
Shamas-ud-Din
647.00 out of 1115
101
Respondent
114
Gandharb Singh
647.00 out of 1115
102
Respondent
115
Noor-ur-
647.00 out of 1115
103
Respondent
Rehman
116
Darshan Kumar
646.50 out of 1115
104
Respondent
117
Suresh Kumar
646.50 out of 1115
105
Respondent
118
Kamal Nain
645.50 out of 1115
106
Respondent
119
Mohinder
659.50 out of
185
Petitioner
Kumar
1140
120
Ashok Kumar
659.50 out of
186
Petitioner
1140
121
Parraiz Hussain
644.00 out of 1115
107
Respondent
122
Mohammad
643.50 out of 1115
108
Respondent
Mohsin
123
Ajit Kumar
643.00 out of 1115
109
Respondent
124
Chandan Bhalla
643.00 out of 1115
110
Respondent
125
Mohammad
642.50 out of 1115
111
Respondent
Iqbal
126
Mohinder Singh
642.00 out of 1115
112
Respondent
127
Showkat Ali
641.50 out of 1115
113
Respondent
128
Anil Sharma
641.00 out of 1115
114
Respondent
129
Devinder Kumar
640.50 out of 1115
115
Respondent
130
Rayaz Ahmad
640.00 out of 1115
116
Respondent
131
Narotam
653.50 out of
190
Petitioner
Kumar
1140
132
Narinder Kumar
638.00 out of 1115
117
Respondent
133
Shafiq Ahmad
638.00 out of 1115
118
Respondent
134
Ram Paul
636.50 out of 1115
119
Respondent
135
Avtar Singh
636.50 out of 1115
120
Respondent
136
Shakoor Ahmad
636.00 out of 1115
121
Respondent
137
Birender Singh
634.00 out of 1115
122
Respondent
Jasrotia
138
Iqbal Ahmad
633.50 out of 1115
123
Respondent
139
Jalal Din
632.50 out of 1115
124
Respondent
140
Wajahat
632.50 out of 1115
125
Respondent
Hussain
141
Mohammad
632.50 out of 1115
126
Respondent
Munshi
142
Riaz Ahmad
632.50 out of 1115
127
Respondent
142
Ashok Kumar
632.00 out of 1115
128
Respondent
144
Javaid Ahmad
630.50 out of 1115
129
Respondent
145
Joginder Singh
630.50 out of 1115
130
Respondent
146
Som Raj
629.50 out of 1115
131
Respondent
147
Narinder Singh
628.00 out of 1115
132
Respondent
148
Ajit Singh
627.00 out of 1115
133
Respondent
149
Mohammad
627.00 out of 1115
134
Respondent
Qaider
150
Ranjit Singh
626.00 out of 1115
135
Respondent
151
Mohd Ashraf
640 out of 1140
197
Petitioner
152
Mohammad
624.50 out of 1115
136
Respondent
Razak
153
Liyaqat Hussain
324.50 out of 1115
137
Respondent
154
Bashir Ahmad
624.00 out of 1115
138
Respondent
155
RajeshKumar
622.50 out of 1115
139
Respondent
156
Mahroof Ahmad
621.50 out of 1115
140
Respondent
Khan
157
Mohammad
617.50 out of 1115
141
Respondent
Younis
158
Shakil Ahmad
617.50 out of 1115
142
Respondent
159
Ranbir Singh
612.50 out of 1115
143
Respondent
160
Naseer Ahmad
612.50 out of 1115
144
Respondent
161
Noor Hussain
612.50 out of 1115
145
Respondent
162
Mohammad
610.50 out of 1115
146
Respondent
Aslam
163
Abdul Rashid
610.00 out of 1115
147
Respondent
164
Mohammad Dil
609.00 out of 1115
148
Respondent
Pazeer
165
Shabir Ahmad
608.00 out of 1115
149
Respondent
166
Mohammad
602.00 out of 1115
150
Respondent
Shaffi
167
Gyaneshwar
Passed in Second
151
Respondent
Singh
attempt
168
Javed Nazir
152
Respondent
169
Kuldip Singh
153
Respondent
170
Jai Paul
154
Respondent
171
Nazir Ahmed
155
Respondent
Qureshi
172
Rajesh Kumar
156
Respondent
173
Jamil Ahmad
157
Respondent
174
Farman Ali
158
Respondent
175
Uttam Kumar
159
Respondent
176
Lakhvinder
160
Respondent
Singh
177
Suran Singh
161
Respondent
178
Chander Shekar
162
Respondent
179
Mohammad
163
Respondent
Farooq
Learned counsel next contended that failure on the part of the respondents to depute the petitioners for training along with those who had been so deputed in the year 1998 could not at all be attributed to the petitioners and the same should not have come in the way of the petitioners for being shown at their appropriate places in the seniority list based upon their merit position obtained during the training course.
Reliance was placed upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of A. Raghu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. connected with Vasam Surender and ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors., 2015 (14) SCC 221 to emphasize the point that seniority of candidates, who were selected from a common process of selection is to be determined on the basis of the final aggregate marks obtained by them during the course of their training irrespective of the dates on which they are deputed for training.
Per contra, Mr. Rahul Pant, learned counsel appearing for the some of the private respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the petitioners had not challenged Rule 38 of the Rules of 2012. It was further contended that rule 38 of the Rules of 2012 itself envisages seniority to be maintained batch wise and, therefore, since the petitioners were deputed for undergoing training in a subsequent batch in the year 1999, they were bound to figure below the respondents in the seniority list who were deputed earlier in the year 1998.
Reliance was also placed upon the Rules of 2017 framed in accordance with the powers vested with the Governor by virtue of proviso to Section 124 of the Constitution of the Jammu & Kashmir to highlight that members of the force were to be deputed for compulsory training strictly as per the seniority/merit obtained during the selection. It was also urged that members from various districts were, in fact, deputed in accordance with the merit and, therefore, the batch wise seniority framed by the Government could not be said to be illegal and untenable.
Mr. H. A. Saddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the State, in fact, reiterated the aforementioned arguments. It was also stated that in an earlier round of litigation this Bench had upheld the Rules of 2012 and, in fact, issued a direction that seniority be framed strictly in terms thereof. Reliance was placed in this regard to a judgment of this Bench in SWP No. 1895/ 2012 connected with SWP No. 2416/2012 titled Rajesh Chib and ors. v. State of J&K and ors. which was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPASW No. 149/2014. It was thus urged that it was not open to the petitioners to question the seniority list so framed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, pursuant to notification No. 03/1996 a select list was prepared for Forest Protection Guards for various Districts inter alia for the Jammu province. It appears that the merit was determined district wise for purposes of making appointment at the district level. The appointments of the petitioners as also the private respondents were made in the year 1998. However, the first batch of candidates that were sent for training to Phillour and other colleges consisted of approximately 163 candidates. List of 163 candidates was not prepared on the basis of an overall list based upon their merit in the selection process but the candidates were drawn from various districts perhaps in accordance with the merit position obtained by them in their respective districts.
In the select list that was prepared for various districts, learned counsel for the parties agree that no merit was disclosed as was prepared by the Service Selection Recruitment Board. Yet the case of the petitioners is that since their names figured higher in the select list prepared for district Kathua as also district Udhampur, then some of the candidates who are deputed in the first batch, it must be presumed that they were more meritorious then some of the respondents, who had been deputed in the first batch. Whether the deputation occurred on the basis of merit even with regard to the candidates in the same district has not been specifically projected by the learned counsel appearing for the State. It was urged that a presumption was attached that the list obtained from the SSRB was prepared in accordance with the merit as was the requirement under rules.
Notwithstanding the above, one thing is clear that there was no overall merit list prepared of all the candidates selected in various Districts in connection with advertisement notice No. 3 of 1996 and that candidates were deputed for undergoing training from various Districts at random.
A necessary consequence of this would be that a candidate who was more meritorious say in the District of Jammu could have been ignored for purposes of such a deputation as compared to a candidate from a neighboring district Udhampur or Kathua. Therefore, merit was certainly compromised for purposes of sending such candidates for training.
It was precisely to plug such a loophole that in the year 2017, the Rules of 2017 were promulgated. Rule 10 strictly mandated that members would be deputed for compulsory training strictly as per seniority/merit obtained during the selection process. If an overall merit list was prepared in the year 1998, then even if the candidates were sent batch wise, it would not have affected their seniority. The merit of candidates inter se within a particular batch would then be determined on the basis of the result in the training programme.
However, in the present case, the situation is not so. Since there was no effort made to prepare an overall merit list of candidates from all the districts in the Jammu province, a candidate, who was otherwise eligible to be sent for training in the first batch, was for reasons beyond his control and subject to the whims and fancies of the authorities deputed later. This was not notwithstanding his better merit qua candidates like some of the respondents who were inferior in merit.
A lot of emphasis had been laid by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State as well as the private respondents that rule 38 of the rules of 2012 envisages preparation of seniority list batch wise.
All that, rule 38 envisages is that those candidates who fail to pass the training course examination in the first attempt would rank junior to those who have passed the said exam in the first attempt and further that they would rank senior to those who pass in the next or subsequent batches. The phrase "next or subsequent batches" has relevance for the purposes of determining the seniority of those candidates who failed to pass the examination in the first attempt, but who would rank senior to those who pass in the next or subsequent batches.
Rule 38, however, does not envisage preparation of seniority list, based only upon the batches ignoring the overall merit of the candidates obtained by them in the process of selection. If seniority was to be determined only on the basis of having been deputed in a particular batch, then there would be no need for the State to promulgate the Rules of 2017 which specifically envisaged deputation as per merit obtained by the candidates during the process of selection.
I am also supported in principle by the Apex Court Judgment in A. Raghu's case (supra) which was cited by Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj. This was a case where one Munnu Swami, who was selected as a Sub Inspector, was originally deputed for police training in the year 1991, but could not complete his training on account of the fact that he did not participate in the examination conducted at the end of the training on account of some personal reasons. He was allowed to complete his training along with the batch of the candidates deputed for training in the succeeding batch on 14.06.1992.
According to proviso to Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules, in that case, the inter se seniority of Sub Inspector was to be fixed on completion of the training of the police in the police training College in accordance with merit obtained in the examination conducted during the training course. The Apex Court held that Munnu Swami's seniority had to be reckoned along with the candidates of the 1991 batch for the simple reason his name existed in the list of the names for the said batch. What was held in paragraph 16 can beneficially be reproduced hereunder:
"16. .............. From the factual position depicted hereinabove, it is not possible for us to accept, that the candidates, who were deputed for training on 15.7.1991, and those deputed for training on 14.6.1992 to fulfill the deficiency, can be described as two different batches. The selection process having been joint, and in furtherance of the same notification dated 22.1.1991 (issued by the Recruitment Board), it is inevitable for us to conclude, that the candidates deputed to the two different courses of training (on 15.7.1991 and 14.6.1992) were essentially candidates belonging to a singular batch, who were selected through a common process of selection. In fact, the instant inference, insofar as the issue of inter se seniority is concerned, is inevitable, as the dates on which the candidates were deputed for training, are inconsequential, so far as rule 15 is concerned....."
In the present case also, since the process of selection in which the petitioners and the private respondents were selected was one and the dates of appointments of the petitioners was also one, for all practical purposes, they must be considered to be belonging to the same batch. With a view to give full effect of rule 38 of the Rules of 2012, the overall seniority list has to be framed based upon the merit obtained by the candidates in the training programme. Any other interpretation would lead to violating rule 38 of the Rules of 2012 in the present case besides violating rule 10 of the Rules of the 2017.
Be that as it may, this petition is allowed. Impugned seniority list dated 31.03.2015 is quashed. The official respondents shall proceed to frame the seniority list afresh treating the candidates, who had been deputed in the year 1998-99 as belonging to the same batch. The merit list shall be prepared on the basis of merit obtained by the candidates which include the petitioners and the private respondents strictly in accordance with merit obtained by them during the course of training.