1. Direct recruits challenged the principles for determining inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the Irrigation Department. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 693
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : R.P.Sethi : Shivaraj V.Patil
K.S.Reddy
Versus
Principal Secy.To Govt.Of A.P.
Case No. : 5615 of 1999, special leave petition (civil) , 76
Date of Decision : 4/4/00
Promotees appointed beyond the prescribed quota prior to a specified cutoff date are entitled to both the protection of their promotional posts and the preservation of their inter se seniority, provided such a right has been established by preceding judicial interpretations.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Seniority - Inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees - Protection of seniority for promotees appointed beyond the quota prior to a specific cutoff date - Where previous judicial interpretations have categorically held that promotees appointed before a certain date, even if beyond the quota, are entitled to continue in the promotional post and their inter se seniority shall not be disturbed in any manner, such seniority is protected. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) Seniority - Governing Rules - Determination of seniority for certain classes of employees may be governed by general State and Subordinate Services Rules rather than the specific Statutory Recruitment Rules. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Direct recruits to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer challenged the determination of inter se seniority between themselves and promotees. The petitioners contended that while promotees appointed beyond the prescribed quota prior to 31/12/1982 might be allowed to continue in the post on compassionate grounds, they should not be granted seniority based on such appointments.
Findings of Court:
The court found that prior decisions by the court had interpreted the protection of promotees prior to 31/12/1982 to include both the factum of promotion and the preservation of their inter se seniority, regardless of whether they were appointed beyond the quota. The court noted that no other decision supported the view that only promotion was protected and not seniority.
Issues: Whether promotees appointed beyond the quota prior to 31/12/1982 are entitled to the protection of their inter se seniority or only to the protection of their promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: When existing judicial precedents explicitly protect both the continuation of service and the inter se seniority of promotees appointed beyond the quota before a specific date, and no contrary legal authority is established, the court will not reopen the matter to disturb such seniority.
Result: Special Leave Petitions accordingly stand dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claimed earlier judgment protected only promotion beyond quota, not seniority; respondents argued seniority was also protected. (Para 2 )
3. Court found no prior decision took the view that only promotion was protected and not seniority. (Para 4 )
4. An earlier judgment protected both the promotion and inter se seniority of promotees appointed before a specified date. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Special Leave Petitions dismissed; Court declined to reopen or examine the matter further. (Para 4 )
6. Does a judgment protecting appointments beyond quota also protect the seniority of those appointees?
Yes, the court held that the earlier judgment protected both the fact of promotion and the inter se seniority of those promotees. (Para 3 , 4 )
(1) THE direct recruits to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineer in the Department of Irrigation, State of Andhra Pradesh, are the petitioners assailing the principles on which the inter se seniority between them and the promotees has been determined.
(2) THE main plank of the arguments advanced by Mr. Subramaniam, the learned senior counsel and M. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of their claim is that, by the judgment of this Court what was protected in respect of those promotees prior to 31/12/1982 is the factum of promotion even though that might have been in excess of the quota as provided under the Statutory Recruitment Rules but not their seniority and, according to the learned counsel, if a person has been appointed beyond the quota provided under the Statutory Rules, then by compassion his promotion may not be disturbed, but by no stretch of imagination, he can get seniority also on that score. In support of this contention, a number of decisions of this Court have been placed before us starting from K.R. Prasad and Ors. v. B. Rosain & Ors., C. Radhakrishna Reddy v. State of A.P., D. Hanmanth Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. aswell as J. Chandrashekhar Reddy v. D. Arora, the last one arising out of a contempt proceeding filed in this Court.
(3) THE original decision had been rendered by Justice R.N. Misra (as His Lordship then was) and the very learned Judge in the subsequent decision has also interpreted as to what has been held in the first decision and has categorically said that the promotees prior to 31/12/1982 even beyond the quota meant for them will be allowed to continue in the promotional post and also their seniority inter se will not be disturbed in any manner. It may be stated so far as the seniority of these persons are concerned, it is not governed by the Recruitment Rules, but by the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules .
(4) HAVING examined all the decisions placed before us, we do not find that in any decision a view has been taken that only the Court has protected their promotion and not their seniority, and possibly that is the reason why recently a Bench of this Court in the case of J.Chandrashekhar Reddy (supra) did not interfere with on being approached by the direct recruits of R&B Department. In that view of the matter and on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we are not inclined to reopen the matter and examine any further. The Special Leave Petitions accordingly stand dismissed.
