Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 71
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
S. Sreedhar Reddy & Ors. – Appellants
VERSUS
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No. 795 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.35697/2013)
WITH
K. Madhusudhan Rao & Ors. – Appellants
VERSUS
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No. 796 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.36680/2013)
A.A.F. Vijay Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
VERSUS
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 797-798 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos.1134-1135/2014)
Munduri Srihari Jagannath – Appellants
VERSUS
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 800-801 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos.7931-7932/2014)
AND
T. Purna Chander – Appellants
VERSUS
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No. 802 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.12804/2014)
Decided On : 23-01-2017
IMPORTANT POINT
Government cannot create artificial classes for determination of inter se seniority of Station Fire Officers.
Headnote:Service Law – Seniority – Andhra Pradesh Fire Subordinate Service Rules – Rule 12 – Inter se seniority of Station Fire Officers – Validity of Rc. No.83/E1/2001 dated 22.05.2012 which created two classes amongst SFOs for determination of their inter se seniority, one class which cleared two tests in time and other class which cleared tests late – Two classes created by impugned GO dated 22.05.2012 for determination of inter se seniority of SFOs had resulted in disturbing seniority list – When respondents successfully cleared their probation, when respondents cleared two tests, when Government itself exempted respondents from appearing in third test, and when Rules did not provide for creation of two classes between employees working in one Cadre (SFO), then there was no justification on part of Government to have issued G.O. dated 22.05.2012 for determination of inter se seniority by making classification – Judgment passéd by High Court upheld. (Paras 29 to 34)
Facts of Case:
Dispute in these appeals essentially relates to inter se seniority of Station Fire Officers.
According to appellants, they cleared first and second tests and taking note of fact that third test was not conducted by Government itself, Fire Services Department issued a provisional Seniority List of SFOs in Multi Zone-I and Multi Zone-II. In this provisional Seniority List, appellants were placed below private respondents based on select list ranking. Department called for objections to said Seniority List. Appellants objected to said Seniority List by filing representations.
Findings of Court:
Taking into account three undisputed facts mentioned above and Rules governing probation and seniority, there was neither any justifiable basis for creation of such classification nor it satisfied requirement of Rules which governed determination of their inter se seniority. High Court rightly quashed GO dated 22.05.2012 being irrational, unreasonable and contrary to Rules. We concur with findings of High Court and find no good ground to interfere in its reasoning.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Applications for impleadment are allowed.
2) Leave granted.
3) These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 20.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 5161 and 7297 of 2013 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order dated 01.02.2013 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 4283 of 2012 and batch, in consequence thereof, quashed memorandum No. 83/E1/2001 dated 22.05.2012 of the Director General of the State Disaster Response and Firer Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
4) Facts of the case need mention, in detail, infra to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeals.
5) The dispute in these appeals essentially relates to inter se seniority of the Station Fire Officers (for short, “SFOs”).
6) In the year 1993, the appellants and the private respondents were appointed as SFOs by direct recruitment, which is a multi-zonal post, after passing the test conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Level Police Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). By virtue of that examination, 59 candidates were selected in the Multi Zone-I and Multi Zone-II. The said post is covered by the Andhra Pradesh Fire Subordinate Service Rules (for short, “the Rules”) issued under G.O. Ms. No. 568, Home (Prisons-A) Department, dated 24.11.1992. According to Rule 12 of the Rules, an SFO appointed through direct recruitment must pass three tests, namely, (i) Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I; (ii) Andhra Pradesh Fire Service Manual; and (iii) A certificate course of competence in wearing and instructions on Breathing Apparatus, within the period of probation which, in turn, described in Rule 9 of the Rules.
7) The first and second tests were conducted from time to time but the Government did not conduct the third test for years together for one reason or the other.
8) According to the appellants, they cleared the first and second tests and taking note of the fact that the third test was not conducted by the Government itself, the Fire Services Department vide Rc. No. 83/E1/2001 dated 31.07.2003 issued a provisional Seniority List of SFOs in Multi Zone-I and Multi Zone-II. In this provisional Seniority List, the appellants were placed below the private respondents based on select list ranking. The Department called for the objections to the said Seniority List. The appellants objected to the said Seniority List by filing representations.
9) The Fire Services Department vide Rc. No. 83/E1/2001 dated 15.11.2007 issued revised Seniority List of SFOs in Multi Zone-I and Multi Zone-II. In this Seniority List also, the appellants were put below the private respondents.
10) According to the appellants, the Government of A.P. vide G.O. Ms. No. 454 of 2009 dated 06.11.2009 exempted 59 SFOs of 1993 batch of direct recruits belonging to Multi Zone-I and Multi Zone-II from undergoing the third test, i.e., certificate course of “competence in wearing and instructions on Breathing Apparatus test” as prescribed in Rule 12 of the Rules, as a special case, as the training in Wearing Breathing Apparatus Set is included in the syllabus of Refresher Course and will meet the requirements of certificate course and all the SFOs have successfully undergone and passed the similar training during the year 2006.
11) The Fire Services Department vide Memo No. 8206/PRI.A/A2/2009-8 dated 27.01.2010 issued certain clarifications regarding the completion of probation of SFOs mentioning that the penal provisions of Rule 16(h) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 (for short “the Subordinate Rules”) shall not be applied to the SFOs of 1993 batch but the same shall apply on the employees, who failed to acquire the qualifications within the period of probation due to their lapse. As per this memorandum, the penal provision of Rule 16(h) of the Subordinate Rules shall be applicable to the private res
