Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/29129/2023 of MALLARAPU SUBBAIAH Vs the state of Andhra Pradesh on 29 January 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 29129/2023 Between: 1. MALLARAPU SUBBAIAH, S/O. M. VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT
APHC010560572023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 29129/2023
Between:
1. MALLARAPU SUBBAIAH, S/O. M. VENKATAIAH, AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
OCC-
POLICE
CONSTABLE,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D.NO.20-6-17, KORLAKUNTA
MARUTI
NAGAR,
TIRUPATI,
TIRUPATI
DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
HOME
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH
3. DY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL
RANGE,
KURNOOL
TOWN,
KURNOOL
DISTRICT
,ANDHRA PRADESH
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
5. THE
SUPERINTENDENT
OF
POLICE,
KURNOOL
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V NITESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.29129 of 2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents in not extending the benefit of seniority protection on par with his batch mates of 2000 batch in Kadapa District in accordance to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P in W.P.No. 18737 of 2014 dated 20-7- 2022 even the petitioner is standing in the same line on par with the writ petitioners in W.P.No.18737 of 2014 by ignoring the principles of doctrine of parity even after bringing the said fact to the notice of the Respondents by way of representations dated 29-09-2023 and 30-9-2023, Consequently declare the same as bring illegal, arbitrary and violation of articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India. Consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefits of the order passed by the Hon'ble A.P. High Court in W.P.No.18737/2014 to the petitioner also as par with the other similarly placed persons….”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact when the petitioner along with other persons have made a representation for consideration of their services rendered in the former unit for seniority, the said representation was rejected by the authorities on 19.04.2011. Assailing the said orders, the other persons have approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.10383 of 2012. The said O.A. was allowed considering the transfers under Rule 35(A) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, „the Rules‟) on administrative grounds. As against the same, the respondents have filed W.P.No.18737 of 2014 and the said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein it was categorically held at paragraph No.9 as follows: “9. According to the learned counsel for the applicants- respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, the applicants fall under Clause (a) of Rule 35 of the rules, but according to the learned Government Pleader, the applicants fall under Clause (b) of Rule 35 of the Rules. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal clearly discloses that the Tribunal categorically recorded a finding that since respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were transferred in the background of G.O.Ms.No.610 dated 30.12.1985, they are entitled for the benefit, obviously, under Rule 35(a) of the Rules. It is also significant to note that in respect of one Sri C.D.Kiran Kumar, the State Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.248 dated 21.09.2010, rejected the request for computing his seniority from the date of initial appointment. A perusal of the said order shows that the said Sri C.D.Kiran Kumar stands on the same pedestal. But curiously, the State Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.2462 Home (SER.II) Department dated 22.12.2012, reconsidered the case of Sri C.Deva Kiran Kumar, S.I. of Zone-IV and extended the benefit of seniority to him. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, having extended the benefit to the said individual, this Court finds no justification on the part of the authorities in not extending the same benefit to the petitioners herein.” Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the State has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that based on the above directions of the Tribunal as well as the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents, more particularly to the 2nd respondent, and the same has been received on 30.09.2023. Despite receipt of the said representation, the respondents have not considered and not disposed of the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as the applicants in the above said O.A. and the petitioner herein are similarly situated, they were all transferred under the same proceedings on the administrative grounds in implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610, dated 30.12.1985. Hence, the said proceedings have to be construed under Rule 35(A) of the Rules not under Rule 35(B) of the Rules.
5. Reply to the said contentions, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents based on the averments made in the counter has stated that the above orders pertain to some other persons and that no orders have been received in the office of the 4th respondent extending the said benefit, more particularly protecting the seniority of the petitioner in the writ petition. In fact, the seniority list of Police Constables was published and finalized every year. Hence, after 17 years, if the petitioner makes a representation, the settled seniority cannot be unsettled by considering the representation made by the petitioner. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and also the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the above referred judgment as well as the transfer orders dated 05.01.2006 placed along with the writ petition, it is clear that the said transfer orders were made to accommodate the applicants in O.A.No.10383 of 2012 and the petitioner herein, who is also similarly situated, as per G.O.Ms.No.610, dated 30.12.1985. When that being the position, as declared by this Court in the above referred judgment, the transfer orders of the petitioner are to be construed under Rule 35(A) of the Rules not under 35(B) of the Rules. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 30.09.2023 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three
(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 30.01.2026 Ivd
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.29129 of 2023
Dated: 30.01.2026
Ivd