The Kerala High Court has ruled that an executive order integrating the Armed Reserve and the Armed Police Battalion into the Kerala Civil Police cadre does not supersede the statutory effect of the Kerala Police Subordinate Service Rules (Special Rules) and its 2017 amendment.
The ruling was issued in response to a plea challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s decision, which had dismissed the claims of police constables regarding their seniority calculation. The constables argued that their seniority should be based on their initial appointment date rather than their transfer to the Armed Reserve in 2010.
Case Background
The petitioners were police constables who joined the Armed Police Battalion (APBn) between 1993 and 2004. Although they were eligible for a transfer to the Armed Reserve after a few years of service, they initially did not opt for it. However, after repeated representations, they were transferred to the Armed Reserve through an order dated May 11, 2010.
Meanwhile, several of their juniors had already joined the Armed Reserve, and later, on December 10, 2010, the government issued an order integrating the Armed Reserve with the District Local Police, effective from April 1, 2010. This created a unified cadre known as the Kerala Civil Police. The petitioners, however, were dissatisfied with the seniority list prepared by the Police Department, as it did not consider their initial appointment date.
The petitioners challenged the seniority list before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, arguing that their seniority should be determined as per Rule 3(2) of the Kerala Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1980 (Special Rules). According to this rule:
"The seniority of a police constable appointed to a District Armed Reserve from an Armed Police Battalion shall be determined from the first effective advice of the Public Service Commission to the post of Police Constable in Armed Police Battalion."
However, the Tribunal rejected this claim, ruling that, following the government’s integration order, the petitioners’ transfer to the Armed Reserve on May 11, 2010, was effectively a transfer to the newly formed Kerala Civil Police. The Tribunal held that their seniority should be determined based on the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules (KS&SSR) rather than the Special Rules.
High Court Findings
A division bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar found the Tribunal’s reasoning flawed. The court emphasized:
“The Tribunal further assumed that because the Armed Reserve was not existing then, sub-rule(2) of Rule 3 of the Special Rules was not applicable to the petitioners. In actuality, the petitioners became part of the Armed Reserve the moment when Annexure A2 order dated 11.05.2010 became effective.”
The High Court observed that by the time the government issued the integration order, the petitioners had already been serving in the Armed Reserve for nearly seven months. The court ruled:
“On or after 11.05.2010, when the petitioners were appointed to a District Armed Reserve from an Armed Police Battalion, a vested right accrued to them for being considered as seniors to all those who became part of the Armed Reserve with their date of initial advice/ appointment subsequent to that of the petitioners, even if they joined there prior to the petitioners.”
The Court stressed that an executive order issued to integrate the Armed Reserve and Armed Police Battalion into the Kerala Civil Police cannot override Rule 3(2) of the Special Rules.
“An executive order issued mainly for a different purpose cannot override the statutory effect of sub-rule(2) of Rule 3.”
Thus, the High Court concluded that the petitioners’ seniority should be determined based on their initial appointment in the Armed Police Battalion, as per the Special Rules, rather than the date of their transfer to the Armed Reserve.
While the court clarified the law applicable to seniority determination, it stated that if promotions had already been granted based on a selection process considering comparative merit, the department could take appropriate action in line with the settled law. The court added:
“While fixing the seniority in accordance with the statutory rules, the department has to consider the grievances of all those persons who are likely to be affected.”
Read also: Kerala HC Questions Police Power Under S.35(3) BNSS: Sub-Inspector Reprimanded for Summoning Lawyer
The Court also clarified that individuals who had relinquished their right to be appointed in the Armed Reserve in writing and later requested appointment would not be entitled to seniority over those who had joined earlier. In such cases, Rule 38 of KS&SSR would apply, and they would lose the seniority granted under Rule 3(2) of the Special Rules.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates V. M. Krishnakumar, P. S. Sidharthan
Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Sunilkumar Kuriakose (GP), Pooja Sunil
Case No: OP (KAT) 68 of 2024
Case Title: Sunithkumar S. and Others v State of Kerala and Others
