Back
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA
P. Rammohan Rao – Appellant
Versus
K. Srinivas – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of appointments (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 2. details of g.o.m. no. 262 (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 3. submissions by appellants (Para 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. submissions by private respondents (Para 27) |
| 5. discussion on seniority (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 6. outcome of the appeals (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Civil Appeals @ SLP (Civil) Nos. 4036-4038 of 2024; Civil Appeals @ SLP (Civil) Nos. 4596-4597 of 2024
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals take exception to the final judgment and common order dated 21st September, 2023 rendered by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad1 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’] whereby the Division Bench allowed the batch of writ petitions preferred by the private respondents herein and quashed the Government Office Memorandum2 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘G.O.M.’] No. 262, dated 17th June, 2006, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
4. Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for the disposal of thes
The period of officiating service of temporary AEEs appointed between 1990-1992 must be counted for seniority, entitling them to be placed above the 1997 batch of regularly appointed candidates.
The government cannot alter established seniority rights or conditions of service without due process and must adhere to principles of natural justice.
Service matter - Seniority - The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service....
Seniority is to be counted from date of substantive appointment and substantive appointment means, an appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment, on a post in cadre of service, made after selection....
Lengthy service by an employee on ad-hoc basis, when performed against a sanctioned post, must be counted towards seniority and benefits, ensuring equitable treatment in state employment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of the petitioners should be counted from the date of their regularization as Assistant Engineers. The court also emphasized the....
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
The court ruled that individuals denied appointments due to administrative errors retain entitlement to benefits and seniority on par with their counterparts, affirming parity despite delayed appoint....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of seniority should be based on the Quota-Rota method prescribed in Rule 2(c) of the Special Rules, and the regularisation o....
Petitioners (including the present petitioner) would not be entitled to the benefit of the ad hoc period of service while reckoning of his seniority.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
