1. Reversion of officiating Sub-Inspector to Head Constable due to vacancy shortage — Challenge based on recruitment quotas and seniority under Service Rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 338
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
8th December, 1960
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
State of Andhra, Appellant
Versus
Gaddam Venkatappayya, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 506 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. Gupta Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. T. V. R. Tatachari, Advocate for Respondent.
Advocates:
D.GUTPA, K.N.RAJAGOPAL SASTRI, T.V.R.TATACHARI
D.GUTPA, K.N.RAJAGOPAL SASTRI, T.V.R.TATACHARI
The phrase "up to, not more than" in service rules establishes a maximum ceiling, not a minimum quota. Direct recruits and promotees remain distinct categories until confirmation, and seniority-based reversion can be bypassed in cases of exceptional administrative inconvenience.
Headnote:(A) Service Rules - Rule 3, 4 and 5 - Recruitment and Reversion - Interpretation of "up to, not more than 30%" - Maximum ceiling vs. minimum quota - Whether direct recruits and promotees form a unified category before confirmation - Reversion of approved probationers - Exceptional administrative inconvenience - The phrase "up to, not more than" fixes the maximum percentage of promotees in a category, leaving it to the appointing authorities to adopt any percentage below this figure. (Para 9)
(B) Service Seniority - Direct recruits and promotees constitute distinct categories until they are absorbed as full members of the service; therefore, seniority for confirmation and reversion is determined separately within each group. (Paras 10, 12)
(C) Reversion - Departure from the order of juniority in discharging probationers is permissible if it avoids exceptional administrative inconvenience. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
An officiating Sub-Inspector, who was an approved probationer, was reverted to the rank of Head Constable due to a lack of vacancies. The respondent challenged the reversion, contending that a minimum quota of 30% for promotees was violated and that the reversion ignored the seniority of approved probationers compared to direct recruits. The government justified the action based on administrative exigencies and assurances given to direct recruits.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the 30% limit was a maximum ceiling, not a minimum. It held that direct recruits and promotees are separate classes until confirmation. Furthermore, the reversion was justified under the rule allowing departure from seniority in cases of exceptional administrative inconvenience.
Issues: Whether the 30% quota for promotees was a minimum or maximum; whether direct recruits and promotees form a unified category before confirmation; and whether the reversion was valid under the service rules despite the seniority of the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The phrase "up to, not more than" establishes a maximum limit. Since direct recruits and promotees are distinct categories until absorption, seniority is separate. Reversion is permissible regardless of seniority if "exceptional administrative inconvenience" exists, which was established by the facts of the case.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether recruitment quotas establish a minimum guarantee for promotees — Whether seniority for confirmation and reversion applies to a unified force or separate categories. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Interpretation of "up to, not more than" as a ceiling — Distinction between recruitment categories prior to confirmation — Validity of reversion for administrative convenience. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Service rules specifying a maximum percentage for promotees establish a ceiling, not a minimum; administrative inconvenience justifies departure from seniority-based reversion. (Para 9 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Writ Petition dismissed. (Para 16 )
6. How should the phrase "up to, not more than" be interpreted in service recruitment rules?
Such phrasing establishes a maximum ceiling for a specific category of appointees rather than a minimum guarantee, allowing the appointing authority to adopt any percentage below that figure. (Para 9 )
7. Are direct recruits and promotees treated as a unified category for seniority prior to confirmation?
No, direct recruits and promotees are treated as distinct categories for the purpose of confirmation and seniority until they are absorbed as full members of the service. (Para 10 , 12 )
8. Can the government depart from the prescribed order of seniority when discharging probationers?
Yes, the order of discharge based on juniority may be departed from in cases where following such order would involve exceptional administrative inconvenience. (Para 13 )
9. Is there a legal obligation to retain officiating officers in their posts when temporary positions are abolished?
No, there is no enforceable legal obligation for the government to retain officers in officiating posts when temporary posts are abolished, regardless of their status as approved probationers. (Para 14 )
Judgment
AYYANGAR, J. : This appeal by the State of Andhra is from the Judgment of the High Court. Andhra, dated July 21, 1955, on a certificate under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.
2. The respondent joined the Madras Police Force as a Constable on September 1, 1939. He became a permanent Head Constable in 1946 and was promoted to officiate as a Sub-Inspector on October 1, 1947, when his probation commenced. By order dated September 24, 1950, he was declared to have satisfactorily completed his period of probation and was brought to the "A list with effect from September 10, 1950. He was still merely officiating as a Sub-Inspector, the effect of his being placed in List "A being that he came into the category of an "approved probationer , i.e., fit for being confirmed as Sub-Inspector when substantive vacancies arose. On August 3, 1952, the district Superintendent of Police, Krishna, issued an order reverting the respondent to the rank of Head Constable with effect from August 14, 1952, i.e., to the post which he substantively held, for the reason that there was not a sufficient number of vacancies in the post of Sub-Inspectors for being filled by him. It may be mentioned that such reversion was not confined to the respondent alone but extended to a very large number of officiating Sub-Inspectors who were similarly promotees from the rank of Head Constables. The reverted officers petitioned to the Inspector-General of Police and in reply thereto and in further explanation and clarification of the reasons for the reversions the Inspector-General of Police, Madras, issued a memorandum on January 15, 1953, in the following terms:
"MEMORANDUM.
Sub : Officiating Sub-Inspector-Reverting as Head Constables - Seniority over direct recruits -Petitions.
As direct recruits are recruited against vacancies specially reserved for them and cannot be reverted for want of vacancies seniority between directly recruited Sub-Inspectors and promoted Sub-Inspectors should be determined separately. Their contention that they should not have been reverted in preference to direct recruits is not, therefore, correct. Their reversion as Head Constable is in order.
3. The respondent thereafter submitted a memorial of Government in which t he principal challenge was to the view of the Government that the directly recruited Sub-Inspectors formed a category distinct from the promotee-Sub-Inspectors was not being countenanced by the relevant rules relating to the constitution of the Police Establishment. Not having obtained any redress by reason of his memorial, the respondent filed before the High Court of Madras a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution (Writ Petition No. 524 of 1953) and prayed therein that the State of Madras may be directed by the issue of a writ of mandamus to refrain from enforcing the order reverting him as Head Constable but to consider his claim to be confirmed as Sub-Inspector on the basis of his seniority in the list of approved probationers. Balakrishna Iyer, J., who heard the petition allowed it and issued a direction to the State "to forbear from giving effect to the order of reversion if the petitioner by virtue of his seniority among promotees can be included in the 30 per cent, already referred to". We shall be dealing in detail with the nature and scope of the rule as to the 30 per cent referred to here, which formed the basis of the learned Judge s order in its proper place and will not interrupt the narration of the events which have led to the appeal now before us. The State preferred an appeal from this judgment which was transferred to the High Court of Andhra after that Court was formed. The learned Judges who heard the appeal differed from the learned Single Judge in his view as to the scope of the rule as to 30 per cent, but dismissed the appeal holding that the government in directing the reversion of the promotee-probationers had not observed strictly the relevant rule as to juniority prescribed in R. 5
