Seniority Determined by Training Marks for Same Recruitment Batch: Andhra Pradesh HC

In a decisive ruling reinforcing the principles of service law, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that candidates selected through a common recruitment process must maintain their inter se seniority based on training marks, regardless of delays in their individual appointments or training commencement caused by erroneous litigation. The court rebuked the state's attempt to deny notional seniority to a candidate who was wrongly disqualified due to a prior acquittal, affirming that administrative or legal hurdles cannot fragment a unified recruitment batch.

Justice Kiranmayee Mandava presided over the matter, which challenged the rejection of a Sub-Inspector's claim for notional seniority. The petitioner, despite being selected in the 2006 recruitment drive, faced a cancelled selection due to a past criminal case in which he had already been acquitted. The Court had to determine whether a candidate, delayed by such wrongful disqualification, is entitled to seniority on par with his original recruitment batch based on aggregate training marks.

Key Takeaways

Unified Batch Principle Reinforced

Candidates from the same notification are part of a single recruitment batch; their seniority cannot be bifurcated simply because they were sent for training at different times due to litigation.

Training Marks Govern Inter Se Seniority

As per established rules for the police force, the aggregate marks obtained during the final examination at the training academy not the recruitment marks determine the ranking within a batch.

Prior Acquittals Cannot Bar Suitability

Once a court sets aside a disqualification based on a criminal case acquittal, the state cannot re-agitate the same 'suitability' grounds to deny consequential benefits like seniority.

Administrative Delays and Notional Seniority

If a delay in appointment is not attributable to the candidate but arises from erroneous state action, the candidate is entitled to notional seniority to prevent career-long prejudice.

Court Observation on Inter Se Seniority and Training

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The seniority of candidates, who are 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, at the police training college(s) in the State of Andhra Pradesh. That being the mandate of the rule, we are of the considered view, that for candidates who had participated in a common process of selection, irrespective of the dates on which they were deputed for training, their inter se seniority is liable to be determined, on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by them, at the final examination at the concerned police training college."

The Court has following directions:

"...the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to assign the notional seniority on par with 2007 batch of SIs. There shall be no order as to costs."

Ratio

Candidates selected through a common recruitment notification constitute a single batch for seniority purposes. Their inter se seniority must be determined based on the aggregate marks secured during training at the Police Training Academy, notwithstanding any difference in the actual dates of appointment or the commencement of training, especially when such delays are caused by the state's wrongful cancellation of selection.

Background

The petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under a 2006 notification. Although he disclosed a past criminal case (where he was already acquitted), the Police Recruitment Board cancelled his selection in 2007. The petitioner successfully challenged this before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the cancellation in 2009. Consequently, he was appointed in 2012 and completed training in 2013.

However, when the provisional seniority list was released in 2017, the petitioner was not placed with the 2007 batch (the successful candidates of the 2006 notification). The state argued under Rule 12(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and the A.P. Police Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Rules, 1999 that his 'character and antecedents' were unsatisfactory due to the criminal case, regardless of the acquittal. The state further contended that since he trained with a later batch, he could not claim seniority with the earlier batch.

The Court relied on the Apex Court's ruling in Vasam Surender Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others, which interpreted Rule 15 of the Service Rules to mandate seniority based on training marks for a common recruitment process. It also cited V. Satish Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home, and Government Of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Vs. K.Satyanarayana and Others. to emphasize that the issues decided in earlier litigation cannot be reopened to deny seniority. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO: 7794/2021
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:40936
Case Title: Chikurthi Kishore Kumar Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA
For the Respondent(s): GP FOR SERVICES I

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 17342