IMPORTANT POINT
When both the appellant and respondent were selected in the same selection and the appellant was more meritorious in terms of marks secured by him in the selection process and ranked above the respondent, the inter se ranking and consequent inter se seniority cannot be disturbed merely because there was some delay in joining.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962-Rule 33(b)-Seniority-Andhra Pradesh Service-Appointments for post of Road Transport Officer-In the appointment order 60 days time was granted to selected candidates to join the post on or before 12-7-1987-Appellant made a request to Government of Andhra Pradesh to extend the time-Government permitted appellant to join duty on or before 31-7-1987-Appellant joined on 21-7-1987-Appellant was shown as senior to respondent based on merit ranking-Both appellant and respondent as Deputy Transport Commissioner-In promoted post also appellant shown as senior to respondent-Respondent made representation regarding fixation of seniority-Respondent challenged seniority lists prepared in year 2000 on ground that appellant joined duties after the prescribed period of 60 days as indicated in appointment order-Respondent s plea that date of joining would govern seniority-High Court accepting respondent s plea directed that he is to be treated as senior-Whether extension of time for joining the post was without any authority of law-(No)-Whether High Court was justified in directing to treat respondent as senior-(No)-Tribunal was right in its view.
       Held : The GO. Ms. 822 dated 18-9-1967 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was dealing with the question of fixing the time limit for the candidates selected by the Commission to join when they were to be appointed by direct recruitment. Taking the factual position as prevailing then, it was indicated that the time limit to be normally 60 days. It was further stipulated therein that in case they did not join within stipulated time, their names could be removed from list of selected candidates. Service Commission was enabled to extend and give further time for joining before deleting the name of the candidate concerned from the select list for not joining in time. The power of extending time given to the Commission under the G.O. was not in relation to any statutory prescription, and cannot be also said to be in derogation of the powers of the State Government as the ultimate repository of all Executive power. On the other hand, the Government itself provided that the time could be extended if the Commission considered it necessary. This was merely an enabling power conferred by the Government only and the G.O. cannot be construed to be self destructive of the power of the Government, in the absence of any statutory rules as such, in this regard. The Commission appears to have been enabled to grant time to effectively monitor the operation of the main list as well as the waiting list (in order of merit) without any undue lapse of time, in case the selected candidates did not join within the indicated time period. It was an executive decision of the Government. When the Government itself extended the time, in case of the petitioner, on the basis of the reasonableness of the request it cannot be said that in the absence of any order passed by the Commission extending the time, the extension granted by the Government was without authority in law. (Para 10)
       For more than a decade, respondent No.1 did not question that position. After a very long period it was not open to respondent No.1 to turn around and say that the extension of time to the appellant was not in accordance with law. It is undisputed that both the appellant and respondent No.1 were selected in the same selection and the appellant was more meritorious in terms of marks secured by him in the selection process and ranked above the 1st respondent and the inter se ranking and consequent inter se seniority cannot be disturbed and rights flowing from such ranking cannot be denied merely because there was some delay in joining-all the more so when such delay was only of 8 days and also on account of getting relieved from the Central Government, for reasons beyond his control, which only seems to have weighed with the State Government to accord extension of time also. The High Court seems to have lost sight of the fact that it was not a case where reasons were absent in the order of the Government extending the joining time. On the contrary, the order itself indicates the reasons why the appellant had sought for extension. The Government taking note of the factual position highlighted therein had granted extension. High Court has erroneously held that no reasons were indicated. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Appellant questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by the impugned judgment held that respondent No. 1 was to be ranked senior to the appellant in the seniority list. The view taken by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal ) holding that the appellant was senior to respondent No.1 was upset.

3. Factual scenario which is also almost undisputed is as follow :

The Andhra Pradesh Service Commission (for short the Commission ) issued an advertisement inviting application from eligible candidates to be appointed to the post of Road Transport Officer (for short the RTO ). Appellant and Respondent No.1 and others responded to the advertisement. On 13.5.1987 appointment order was issued to the appellant and other selected candidates including respondent No. 1 after they were successful in the selection process conducted by the Commission. In the appointment order 60 days time was granted to the appellant as well as other selected candidates to join the post i.e. the selected candidate was to join the duty on or before 12.7.1987. At the relevant time, the appellant was employed with the Central Secretariat as Section Officer. Therefore, he made request to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to extend the time as per clause 3 for joining the duty in terms of appointment order. On 25.6.1987, the Government vide its memo dated 25.6.1987 extended the joining time and permitted the appellant to join duty on or before 31.7.1987. In reality the appellant joined on 21.7.1987. By Govt. memo No. 470 dated 10.10.1991 appellant s services in the post of PTO were regularized. Seniority lists were periodically prepared and circulated on 28.3.1989, 13.5.1993 and 27.5.1996 where the appellant was shown as senior to respondent No. 1. There was no challenge to the same by the 1st respondent, at any of the relevant points of time.

4. In 1997, both the appellant and respondent No.1 were promoted as Deputy Transport Commissioner and in the promoted post also, appellant was shown at Sl.No. 14 as against 1st respondent shown as Sl. No. 17. In the seniority list prepared on the basis of notional dates given in G.O.M.S.No. 153 dated 14.8.1997 was said to have been approved and communicated by Transport Commissioner in his proceedings dated 19.6.1995 also the appellant was shown as senior to respondent No.1. Respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal only at this stage making a grievance that his representation regarding fixation of seniority was not being disposed of. By order dated 17.5.2000 in OA No. 2369 of 2000 the Tribunal directed the concerned authorities to dispose of the representation said to have been made for relief. On 26.5.2000 a combind list of RTOs was published as noticed above, where the appellant was shown as senior at Sl. No.41 to respondent No.1 shown as Sl. No. 44. Subsequently on 31.5.2000 provisional seniority list of DTCs was published as indicated above. Respondent No. 1 assailed the seniority lists dated 26.5.2000 and 31.5.2000 before the Tribunal in OA No. 3381 of 2000. During pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, the Government issued GOMs No. 14 dated 29.1.2001 showing respondent No. 1 as senior to the appellant in the seniority list. In view of this memo, respondent No.1 wanted disposal of his application before the Tribunal as infructuous, but the Tribunal refused to accept the prayer observing that there was challenge to the correctness of the same in some connected matters.

5. The stand of respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal was that since the appellant had joined the duties after the prescribed period of 60 days indicated in the appointment order, he had to be ranked junior to respondent No.1 who had joined earlier. It was submitted that Government could not have extended the joining report and it was the Commission alone which is competent to do it. In any event, the effect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document