Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
P.Komaraiah - Appellant
Versus
A.Yegneswarudu - Respondent
Decided On : 08-22-94
SERVICE CONDITIONS - Fixation of seniority of promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits - Quota and rota rule - Observance mandatory - Promotees appointed against vacancies meant for direct recruits - No right to claim seniority over direct recruits - Breaking down of quota rule - Not applicable - Principle of legitimate expectation - Not applicable - Seniority list prepared by Corporation - Not illegal or arbitrary - Adjustment of seniority of promotees and direct recruits appointed prior to 1981 - Directed.
Fact of the Case:
The issue to be considered in these appeals relates to one of fixation of seniority of promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits to the next higher post. As far as the service conditions of either employees or officers of the Corporation are concerned, they are governed by two sets of Regulations, which came to be framed by the Corporation in view of the powers conferred by Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The said two sets of Regulations are: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Service Regulations ) and The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Regulations ).
Finding of the Court:
Observance of quota rule in fixing seniority between the promotees and direct recruits is mandatory and non-observance of such rule will not entitle a promotee appointed against a vacancy meant for direct recruit, to claim for seniority over such direct recruit merely on the bais that he worked for a long period in a post meant for direct recruit. The decisions relied upon by the promotees to support their case are not applicable to the case on hand, because in most of the cases relied upon by them, either rules were not existing or if existing, they are not similar to the Regulations of A. P. S. R. T. C. , which are required to be considered.
Issues: 1. In case of fixation of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, whether it is mandatory to follow the quota and rota rule, if the same governs the field ? 2. Whether any continuous service or officiation, though one was appointed on a temporary or ad hoc or stop gap arrangement will confer any right on such an employee or officer to claim as a matter of right for regularisation of his service and count such service for fixation of seniority ? 3. In the case on hand, was there any break down of quota rule ? 4. Whether promotees have acquired any right to challenge the seniority list, published by the Corporation on 28-12-1989 and to seek for a relief that they shall be placed above the direct recruits in the seniority list ? and 5. In view of the circumstances prevailing and promotions made prior to 1981, whether the situation warrants any adjustment in the seniority list of A. T. Ms. and A. M. Es ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Observance of quota rule in fixing seniority between the promotees and direct recruits is mandatory and non-observance of such rule will not entitle a promotee appointed against a vacancy meant for direct recruit, to claim for seniority over such direct recruit merely on the bais that he worked for a long period in a post meant for direct recruit. 2. There was no breaking down of the rule while filling the posts either by promotion or direct recruitment in the present case. Further the principle of legitimate expectation, as explained by the Supreme Court in Hindusthan Development Corporation (25 supra) cannot be made applicable to the case, of the writ petitioners. 3. A promotee will have no right when his service conditions are governed by rules, to say that by virtue of his continuous service, he is entitled for being placed above the direct recruits.
Final Decision: Writ Appeals are allowed. Judgment in Writ Petitions No. 5837 and 5838 of 1991, dt. 19-3-1993 is set aside. However, while parting with the case, we observe that the Corporation shall adjust the seniority of the promotees and direct recruits appointed for the period prior to 1981 and prepare a fresh seniority list of such officers in the light of the observations made by us.
( 1 ) THESE two writ appeals are directed against a common judgment passed by His Lordship Sri Justice B. Subhashan Reddy in Writ Petition Nos. 5837 and 5838 of 1993. Since the questions of law, facts involved and the grounds of challenge are almost identical in both the appeals the same are clubbed and disposed of by a common Judgment.
( 2 ) THE appellants and respondents in these two appeals are officers of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation ). They are borne on the cadre either as Assistant Traffic Managers or Assistant Mechanical Engineers (hereinafter referred to as A. T. Ms. and A. M. Es. respectively ). The issue to be considered in these appeals relates to one of fixation of seniority of promotees vis-a-vis direct recruits to the next higher post. As far as the service conditions of either employees or officers of the Corporation are concerned, they are governed by two sets of Regulations, which came to be framed by the Corporation in view of the powers conferred by Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The said two sets of Regulations are: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Service Regulations ) and The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Regulations ). The relevant provisions of these two Regulations whtch will have bearing on the issue involved will be dealt with at a little later stage. The Respondents herein were the petitioners in the Writ Petitions. At the time of filing of the Writ petitions, they were working as either A. T. Ms. or A. M. Es. Aggrieved by the notification dt. 28-12-89,relating to seniority of A. T. Ms, and A. M. Es. , they approached this Court in two writ petitions referred to above for the relief that (i) the said notification dt. 28-12-1989 be quashed, (ii) a writ of mandamus be granted declaring that the writ petitioners are entitled to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment and (iii) to declare that the Corporation s Regulation prescribing the quota rule has been broken down and as such placing the direct recruits appointed subsequent to the promotion of the writ petitioners, in the seniority list is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. So also the Regulations relating to Service and Recruitment of the employees of the Corporation are vitiated.
( 3 ) A few facts which are necessary to resolve the real issue involved, as told by the parties, are as follows: According to the Writ petitioners, they were all appointed in different capacities by the Corporation prior to 1971. As per the Recruitment Regulations of the Corporation, the Corporation is empowered to appoint to the post of A. T. Ms, or A. M. Es. , which are posts of Class I Junior Scale Officers, either by direct recruitment, or by promotion, or by transfer or deputation. The Corporation was filling up the posts of A. M. Es. and A. T. Ms, by both sources, namely, promoting from the cadre of Mechanical Foreman or by direct recruitment. From 1966 till 1989, in a span of 25 years, the posts of A. M. Es. and A. T. Ms. were filled up by direct recruitment only for 7 times i. e. , in the years 1966,1971,1973,1977,1984,1986 and 1988. As and when the necessity to fill up the post was existing in order to see that the administration of the Corporation runs smoothly, the said posts was being filled up by way of promotion, drawing the suitable and qualified candidates from the feeder categories and after selection. Between 1966 and 1986, nearly 80 people were promoted after due selection. From the date of their promotion, the Writ petitioners are working in the promotion post, without any break. For the said posts there was selection by way of direct recruitment in the year 1
AI
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
