Judgment

ORDER - These two contempt petitions are filed by the Deputy Executive Engineers who were appointed to the said posts directly during the period 31-12-1982 to 31-12-1987. According to the petitioners in Contempt Petition No. 294 of 1992, the respondent-Goverment has committed a breach of the directions given by this Court in its decision dated 24-2-1988 in K. Siva Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1988) 3 SCR 18 : (AIR 1988 SC 860). (Writ Petitions Nos. 17165-68 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as Siva Reddys case). The contention is that as per the directions given in that decision, the State Government was required to regulate and adjust the appointments made in the vacancies of Deputy Executive Engineers from 31-12-1982 to 31-12-1987 according to the quota of recruitment prescribed in the 1965 Rules, viz., 371/2 per cent direct recruits and 621/2 per cent promotees and give them deemed dates of seniority worked out on the basis of the said quota, right from the inception when the 1965 Rules came into operation. However, this extreme contention was not advanced by Shri Chidambaram appearing for the petitioners in Contempt Petition No. 63 of 1993. According to him, the Government had committed a breach of the directions given in Siva Reddys case since it had not adjusted the appointments and seniority of the direct recruits appointed between 31-12-1982 and 31-12-1987 by taking into consideration, the vacancies which were in existence as on 31-12-1982 as well, The Government had only taken into consideration the vacancies which arose between 1-1-1983 and 31-12-1987 for the purpose.

2. In order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to state briefly the factual context in which the direction in Siva Reddys case (AIR 1988 SC 860) came to be given. As is stated in the decision in that case itself, on 27-6-1967, Special Rules called Andhra Pradesh (Roads and Buildings) Engineering Service Rules were promulgated which were given retrospective effect from 1-4-1965. Rule 3(1) of the said Rules prescribed the method of recruitment to the category of Assistant Engineers (now called Deputy Executive Engineers). The modes of appointment were (1) by direct recruitment; (ii) by promotion of Junior Engineers and (iii) by recruitment by transfer from other categories with which we are not concerned. Sub-rule 3(A) of the said Rule 3 prescribes that 371/2 per cent of the vacancies in the Deputy Executive Engineers posts will be filled up by direct /recruitment and 62 1/2 percent by promotion of Junior Engineers and by transfer from the other categories mentioned therein. It appears that notwithstanding the quota laid down by the said rule, it was not followed as far as direct recruits were concerned with the result that the direct recruits were under-recruited. The Court opined that there was no justification at all for the State Government not to work out the quota of recruitment prescribed for direct recruits under the said Rules. The Court further held that at least from 1982, the dispute with regard to the under-recruitment of direct recruits had been systematically raised and the Administrative Tribunal had by the decision in the connected appeals which were heard along with Siva Reddys case directed the State Government to work out the said quota rule properly. The SC further held that "reopening the question of inter se seniority on the basis of non-enforcement of the rules from the very beginning may create hardship and that would be difficult to mitigate but we see no justification as to why the benefit of the scheme under the Rules should not be made available to direct recruits at least from 1982" (Emphasis supplied). The Court then gave the direction in question of which the breach is alleged in the present petitions in the following words (AIR 1988 SC 860 at p. 862).

"We, therefore, direct that as on 31-12-1982 the State Government must ascertain the exact substantive vacancies in the category of Assistant Enginee