A.K.Mathur, J. - (1.) THESE appeals are directed against the order dated 4th October, 2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in batch of Writ Petitions filed by the State against the common order passed by Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Tribunal') in batch of original applications on 12th July, 2002 in OA No. 9461/2001 and others.
(2.) THE respondents herein were the petitioners before the Tribunal. THEy were all Inspectors of Police working at various places and in various wings in the police Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Most of them were working as Inspectors of Police in the city of Hyderabad. THEy approached the Tribunal with a prayer to declare insertion of Note-2 of Rule 3 and proviso to Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Rules of 1998') issued by G.O. Ms. No. 267, Home (Police-E) Department, dated 26th November, 2001 by amendment of Rule as arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. By this amendment a scheme was introduced for accelerated promotion for the outstanding work in the field of anti extremist operation. The Note 2 appended to Rule 3 reads as under: Note 2: The Government may consider the cases of deserving Inspectors of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil), for accelerated promotions to the next higher ranks in recognition of their outstanding work in the field of anti-extremist operation irrespective of their seniority as an incentive by following the relevant procedure as specified by the Government from time to time in this regard. And the Proviso to Rule 6 reads as under: Provided that in the case of the accelerated promotions, the minimum service as specified above shall not apply. By virtue of these amendments in Service Rules of 1998, some Officers got accelerated promotions on account of their performance in extremist areas. The tribunal after elaborate consideration of the matter acceded to the prayer of the petitioners (respondents herein) and declared Note 2 to Rule 3 of the Rules and Proviso to Rule 6 being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and struck it down. Aggrieved against this Order, a batch of writ petitions were filed before the High Court. The stand taken by the State before the Tribunal as well as before the High Court was that the State of Andhra Pradesh in order to tackle the menace of terrorism conceived this scheme as an incentive for the officers so that more and more officer could come forward to meet this menace to the society and therefore, as a measure of incentive this scheme was conceived by the State. It was pointed out that the scheme is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and it is a scheme for a special class/category of persons who do the daring job in containing the menace of terrorism by naxal groups. Therefore, it is not discriminatory. It was also pointed out that a scheme had been prepared whereby the cases of such persons were screened at two to three levels and the guideline was issued by Government Order Ms No. 280 on 17.9.2002. As per this guideline, the Unit Officers/ Superintendents of Police/Commissioners of Police shall assess the outstanding work done in the Anti-Extremist Operations by the Police Officers working under them. They shall recommend the cases to the Director General and Inspector General of Police for consideration through their immediate superior Officer. The Unit Officers/Superintendents of Police/ Commissioners of Police while forwarding the recommendations of deserving cases shall broadly be guided by the under mentioned conditions, viz., that the Police Officer shall have; i) been an approved Probationer; ii) performed outstanding work in the filed of Anti, Extrimist Operations, (here the quality of work turned out shall be taken as criteria); iii) uniformly satisfactory records; and iv) clean defaulter sheet for the last (6) years without any major Punishments through out the service. These are the guiding factors. The recommended cases shall be reviewed by the Superior Officers and shall be forwarded to the Director General and Inspector General of Police with his remarks. The Director General and Inspector General of Police shall send all such cases received from the various Unit Officers/Superintendents of Police/Commissioners of Police to the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Intelligence Department for scrutiny and his remarks. The Additional General of Police/Inspector General of Police of Intelligence department will in turn send such cases to the Special Intelligence Branch (SIB) of the Intelligence Department which exclusively monitors the Anti-Extremists Operations of the State for scrutiny and recommendations. Thereafter, the Inspector General/Deputy Inspector of Police of the Special Intelligence Branch will scrutinize all such cases thoroughly as to the quality of each such case and forward back the special remarks. The same shall be forwarded to the Director General and Inspector General of Police by the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Department with his remarks. All such cases shall be placed before a Departmental Committee which shall have the; JUDGEMENT_222_TLPRE0_2007Html1.htm
(3.) AFTER scrutiny by the High Level Committee the matter will be referred to State Government. It was also clearly mentioned that the aforesaid committee while forwarding the cases will keep in mind the guidelines mentioned above. The Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police may order accelerated promotion on the basis of such recommendation from the rank of Police Constable to Sub- Inspector of Police to the next higher rank. The cases of the Police Officer and above the rank of Inspector of Police shall be forwarded to the Government by the Director General and Inspector General of Police for consideration of Accelerated Promotions and that shall be considered by a High Level Committee constituted by the Government. That Committee shall be headed by (i) Chief Secretary to Government as Chairman, (ii) Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department as Member, (iii) Secretary to Government, Home Department as member, (iv) Secretary to Government (Services), General Administration Department as member and (v) Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as member. The Deputy Secretary or Joint Secretary or Additional Secretary who is dealing with the police subject in Home Department shall function as Secretary to this Committee. This Committee shall also be guided by the following eligibility conditions namely; the concerned Police Personnel shall have; i) performed outstanding work in the field of Anti-Extremist. ii) uniformly satisfactory record; and iii) a clean defaulter sheet for the last six years without any Major Punishments through out the service. This committee shall meet once in three months to review such cases. These guidelines were issued for the performance of accelerated promotions. It is also pointed out that despite these incentive, few officers were prepared to accept the highly risky and challenging job. The Police Personnel right from the Constable to IPS Officer were targeted by the naxals more than 480 laid down their lives including an I.P.S. Officer. It was also pointed out that after introduction of accelerated promotion scheme naxal activities have considerably decreased to the extent of 1/3rd from 1997-2001. Though the Tribunal as well as the High Court found that the amendment in Note 2 to Rule 3 as well as proviso to Rule 6 are held to be ultra vires as it has been observed by the High Court that it creates a class within class. The High Court held that the amendment did not satisfy the test of reasonable classification and it further observed that fortuitous circumstance cannot be made a basis for creating a separate class within the class. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion that the classification made upon such basis cannot be treated as a reasonable classification. It was also observed that fortuitous circumstances cannot be made the basis for creating class out of large number of persons similarly situated. It was also pointed out that just because some persons were lucky enough to get a posting in the naxal affected area , they got accelerated promotion but others who were not fortunate to get a posting in the naxal affected area, they were denied promotion. It was submitted that even the officers posted in same unit may not get posting in the Police-station where there is naxal affected area and others are lucky enough to get the posting, then they stand to gain and others who are not lucky enough to get posting in that area they will be denied the opportunity. Therefore, it is discriminatory as there is a class within class, similarly situated persons are treated dissimilarly i.e. equals are treated unequally. Therefore, this classification, according to the High Court is not reasonable classification and it is not founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes one group from the other.;