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

1999 Supreme(AP) 520

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, VAMAN RAO
Government of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
Sangaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 07-23-99

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Government order – Administrative Tribunal – Determinatin of seniority - Dispute relating to inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineers of Roads and Buildings Department of State of Andhra Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as Randb Dept. , which was carved out of erstwhile Public Works Department (PWD ) – THESE five writ-petitions are filed questioning the common judgment rendered by A. P. Administrative Tribunal – Grievance of the petitioners is that the judgment is self-contradictory and runs even contra to the burning issues already resolved by Supreme Court and if the adverse findings are not set aside, the entire adjudication made so far in several cases gets re-opened taking the dispute back to square one –Held, direct recruits of pre-31-12-1982 period are no way concerned with such vacancies and their seniority in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineers shall be counted only from the date of their entry into service pursuant to their direct recruitment from the respective dates before 31-12-1982 and they cannot claim seniority anterior to the said dates of their respective entry into the service in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineers. Government orders issued in G. O. shall be scrutinised again and if they are found to be in consonance with our directives above, they shall be treated as final, or else, necessary modifications be made to be in tune with the above directives – This exercise shall be made within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this – All other directives issued by the Tribunal which run contra to the directives issued by this Court mentioned above from 19 (1) to (6) stand set aside – Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) AT issue, again, is the dispute relating to inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineers of Roads and Buildings Department of State of Andhra Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as Randb Dept. , which was carved out of erstwhile Public Works Department (PWD ).

( 2 ) THESE five writ-petitions are filed questioning the common judgment dated 29-10-1997 rendered by A. P. Administrative Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioners is that the judgment is self-contradictory and runs even contra to the burning issues already resolved by Supreme Court and if the adverse findings are not set aside, the entire adjudication made so far in several cases gets re-opened taking the dispute back to square one.

( 3 ) WHILE the Government and Engineer-in-Chief are the petitioners in WP No. 5834 of 1998, in other writ petitions, the Engineers are the petitioners. The petitioners in WP Nos. 23020, 25597 and 27778 of 1998 are the promote Deputy Executive Engineers, the petitioner in WP No. 24462 of 1998 is the directly recruited Deputy Executive Engineer. It is pertinent to mention that the issue relates to the seniority in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer which is the basis for further promotions. Even though some of them are holding promotional posts, they are only in fluid state as the seniority issue is not being allowed to be finalised in view of series of litigation.

( 4 ) ROADS and Buildings Department came into existence with effect from 1-4-1965. Special Rules were framed for the Service titled "andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Engineering Service Rules" hereinafter referred to as R and B Service Rules. General Rules i. e. , A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, operate wherever the special rules are silent.

( 5 ) THE post of Deputy Executive Engineer was hitherto called as Assistant Executive Engineer. Under Randb Service Rules, the source of recruitment is (1) by direct recruitment of 37 1/2% of substantive vacancies and the rest (2) by promotion from the feeder categories.

( 6 ) AT the time of formation of R and B Department, the permanent cadre strength consisted of 73 Assistant Engineers (30 from PWD and 43 from the High-ways Department ). Out of 43 posts of erstwhile Highways Department, direct recruitment was in process for two vacancies, consequent to which, two directly recruitted candidates, namely, V. Murahari Reddy and D. Rama Rao joined the services on 30-6-1966 and 18-7-1966 respectively.

( 7 ) THE disputes started regarding seniority in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineers and the above two persons have filed WP No. 4151 of 1972 before this Court, claiming seniority over and above the promotee Assistant Engineers on the ground that the promotee Engineers were occupying the vacancies meant for direct recruits and that the above persons being direct recruits, should go up in the slots meant for direct recruits, even though the promotees were far senior to them. In fact, they were claiming seniority over the persons who were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers in the year 1961. By order dated 29-3-1973, a learned single Judge of this Court issued certain directions to the Government to consider the grievances of the above two persons. The Government has then passed the orders, but the above two persons were not satisfied with same and again filed WP No. 6157 of 1973, but, it was dismissed and was further upheld in writ appeal by the Division Bench. Aggrieved by the said orders, the matter was appealed against in C. A. No. 1995 of 1977 before the Supreme Court (Desoola Rama Rao and another v. State of A. P. and others ). When similar dispute arose regarding the seniority of Deputy Executive Engineers of Irrigation Department, whose service rules were analagous to Randb Services Rules, direct recruits of 1966 batch have filed RP No. 1653 of 1982 before the State Administrative Tribunal (Constitutional under Article 371-D of the Cons














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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