Hyderabad: Ruling that govt has the right to prioritise “administrative exigencies” over individual employee preferences, high court has dismissed an appeal by a group of assistant reserve sub-inspectors (ARSIs) challenging their allotment to a specific police cadre. A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin, affirmed a previous single judge order, stating that the state’s decision to allot personnel based on their current battalion is legally sound.The 13 appellants, originally appointed in 1995 to the 10th Battalion at Beechpally in Jogulamba Gadwal district, moved to different battalions in 2018 to secure promotions. Following the 2018 Presidential Order, the state had reorganised the Special Police into two contiguous zonal cadre (CZC-I and CZC-II). The officers sought allotment to CZC-II, covering their native Mahabubnagar district, but were allotted to CZC-I because their current units (2nd, 5th, and 6th Battalions) fall under that zone. They argued this ignored their seniority and officially submitted options.The appellants’ counsel contended the allotment order was issued out of time — beyond the 36-month window allowed by the Presidential Order for organising cadres. They alleged juniors remained in CZC-II while they were moved and cited precedent rulings from the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh high court to seek relief.Countering this, the special govt pleader argued that police battalions were state-level posts where officers were not recruited for specific districts, meaning they have no inherent right to local allotment. Furthermore, as the officers voluntarily moved to their current battalions in 2018 for promotions, they cannot demand to move back due to the new cadre system. The state maintained that moving officers based on personal preference would fragment battalions and hurt discipline.Dismissing the appeal, the bench clarified that the 36-month deadline applies only to organising cadre, not the allotment of personnel, and held that govt met the organisational deadline. The bench ruled that under the Presidential Order, preference was not a right and was granted only where feasible, as administrative needs and balanced composition take priority.The court agreed that since battalions work as cohesive units, allotting personnel based on territorial location was a reasonable administrative policy. Finally, the court noted the appellants failed to name or implead the juniors allegedly favoured, rendering the discrimination claim legally fatal.
