SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(AP) 583

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.B.SINHA, V.V.S.RAO
G.Dhanna Veera Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., Panchayat Raj and Rural employment Dept. - Respondent
Decided On : 06-18-01

Headnote:

General rules 33 (a) – Petitioners - Working as Assistant - Confirmed seniority – Published – Ranking – unofficial – Services – Regularized - Initial appointment - Impugned order - The order proposed to be passed by us it is not necessary to consider all the contentions raised in the bar. Suffice it to say that the decision of the apex Court in Venkat Reddy s case was binding upon the State. Revised provisional seniority list was prepared with the following norms (1) Regular promotee Assistant engineers/absorbed Assistant engineers from other departments in regular basis are placed in the order of their seniority. (2) The Supervisors (Assistant engineers) selected through Public service Commission (PSC) during the year of 1964 are placed in the seniority list as per the ranking assigned by the PSC and the date of their commencement is revised with reference to their ranking – Held, We are of the opinion that the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in passing the impugned order. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with the aforementioned observations. There shall be no order as to costs. Engineers in the Panchayat Raj Department by reason of this writ petition seek seniority from the date of their initial appointment and not on the basis of their rankings accorded by the Public Service Commission. The petitioners have originally been appointed on ad hoc basis as Supervisors and they joined their duties soon thereafter. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court their services were regularised on or about. In the year 1975 they were subjected to selection by the public Service Commission - We are, therefore, of the considered view that the seniority fixed of the Engineer-in-Chief, PR, Hyderabad based on the norms accordance with the rules and directions of the Supreme Court, except norm, (6 ). For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, we hold that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in G. S. Venkata reddy s case (AIR 1993 SC 2306) has to be followed in fixing the seniority of the direct recruits, promotee and SQT candidates. The official respondents are directed to take necessary action accordingly by fixing the seniority in accordance.

S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners herein who are four in number and working as Assistant

( 2 ) THEREAFTER another confirmed seniority list was published wherein the ranking of the petitioners vis-a- vis the unofficial respondents is as follows:

Sl. No.

Name

S. No. in provisional list of 1985

S. No. in provisional list of 1996

S. No. in confirmed list of 1997

S. No. in revised provisional seniority list of 1999


Petitioners


1.

G. Dharma Veera Reddy

224

233

24

233


2.

C. Prakasa Rao

186

195

187

196


3.

K. Prabahakar

204

213

205

214


Respondents 4 and 5


4.

M. Arjun Reddy

115

122

143

123


5.

G. Butchi Lakshmi

137

145

237

146


( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that having regard to the fact that the services of the petitioners had been regularised from the date of their initial appointment, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Assocn. vs. State of Maharashtra.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the seniority list has been prepared in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in G. S. Venkat Reddy vs. Government of A. P.

( 5 ) HAVING regard to the order proposed to be passed by us it is not necessary to consider all the contentions raised in the bar. Suffice it to say that the decision of the apex Court in Venkat Reddy s case was binding upon the State. Revised provisional seniority list was prepared with the following norms: (1) Regular promotee Assistant engineers/absorbed Assistant engineers from other departments in regular basis are placed in the order of their seniority. (2) The Supervisors (Assistant engineers) selected through Public service Commission (PSC) during the year of 1964 are placed in the seniority list as per the ranking assigned by the PSC and the date of their commencement is revised with reference to their ranking. (3) As per G. O. Ms. No. 206 PR and RD (E-11) Dept. , dated 18-3-87, the regular. promotee Assistant engineers from the cadre of overseer/draughtsmen in between 30-10-65 to 31-8-68 are placed immediately below the PSC batch of 1964. (4) Further as per the said G. O. the assistant Engineers who were originally selected for Public Works department through PSC and re-allotted to this department are placed below the last regular assistant Engineer working in this department as on 31-8-68. (5) Later the regular promotee assistant Engineers from the cadre of Overseer/draughtsmen after 31-8-68 are placed immediately below the PSC 1965 re-allottees. (6) In pursuance of G. O. Ms. No. 702, pr and RD, dt 20-6-78, the Assistant engineers working in the department on temporary capacity and appeared SQT 1974, their placement is arranged based on the ranking of PSC and date of their commencement of probation is considered w. e. f. the date of their first appointment as Assistant engineers in relaxation of General rules 33 (a) of State and subordinate Service Rules.

( 6 ) AS noticed hereinbefore, the Tribunal in its judgment dated 10-2-1999 in O. A. No. 642 of 1998 and batch found that Norm no. 6 aforementioned had not been followed. As the said judgment has already been implemented by drawing up a fresh seniority list on or about 4-10-1999 upon taking into consideration the said Norm no. 6 wherein the decision of the Apex court in Venkat Reddy s case (supra) has been followed we are of the opinion that there being a subsequent cause of action the petitioners cannot question the seniority list which is operative in the field.

( 7 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the decision in Venkat Reddy s case (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the case cannot be accepted.

( 8 ) IT is one thing to say that the services of a person have been regularised for certain purposes but that by itself may not mean that they would rank senior to others who have been appointed following the procedure laid down



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top