Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : I.P.RAO, P.A.CHOUDHARY
N.KRISHNA MURTHY - Appellant
Versus
A.P.S.R.T.C. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-13-87
SERVICE REGULATIONS - APPOINTMENT - SENIORITY - INTERPRETATION OF SERVICE REGULATIONS - PROMOTION - TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT - REGULAR APPOINTMENT - COUNTING OF SERVICE - FIXATION OF SENIORITY - RATIO OF DIRECT RECRUITS AND PROMOTEES - RULE OF ROTATION - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SERVICE REGULATIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SEPARATION OF POWERS - JUDICIAL ACTIVISM - BUREAUCRATIC DISCIPLINE - LEGISLATIVE POLICY - JUDICIAL LEGISLATION - DELAY AND LACHES - CONFLICTING ORDERS - REVIEW OF EARLIER DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a promotee, was appointed as an Assistant Traffic Manager in 1975 under a regulation that allowed for his replacement by a direct recruit. In 1978, he was appointed on a regular basis. The petitioner claimed that his seniority should be determined from the date of his initial appointment in 1975, while the respondents, who were direct recruits appointed after the petitioner, argued that his seniority should be determined from the date of his regular appointment in 1978.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's appointment in 1975 was only temporary and that he was liable to be replaced by a direct recruit. The court further held that the petitioner's service from 1975 to 1978 could not be counted towards his seniority, as it was not a regular appointment. The court also held that the service regulations providing for direct recruitment and recruitment by promotion in fixed quotas were not unconstitutional and that the petitioner could not claim seniority over the respondents based on his continuous officiating service.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's appointment in 1975 was a temporary or regular appointment. 2. Whether the petitioner's service from 1975 to 1978 could be counted towards his seniority. 3. Whether the service regulations providing for direct recruitment and recruitment by promotion in fixed quotas were unconstitutional. 4. Whether the petitioner could claim seniority over the respondents based on his continuous officiating service.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's appointment in 1975 was a temporary appointment, as it was made under a regulation that allowed for his replacement by a direct recruit. 2. The court held that the petitioner's service from 1975 to 1978 could not be counted towards his seniority, as it was not a regular appointment. 3. The court held that the service regulations providing for direct recruitment and recruitment by promotion in fixed quotas were not unconstitutional, as they did not violate any specific constitutional prohibitions. 4. The court held that the petitioner could not claim seniority over the respondents based on his continuous officiating service, as the service regulations did not permit the counting of officiating service towards seniority.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions the promotee Assistant Traffic inspectors of the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation are claiming seniority over their compeers that were directly recruited as Assistant Traffic inspectors (now called Traffic Managers ). The writ petitioner in W. P. No. 2529 of 1985 was initially appointed by direct recruitment in the year 1961 as Traffic Apprentice/traffic Inspector Grade-II. On 1-6-1968 he was promoted as Senior Traffic Inspector. Eventually he was promoted on 19th of May, 1975 as a Depot Manager.
( 2 ) BY means of a provisional seniority list of the Assistant Traffic managers dt. 14th of April, 1982, the petitioner was shown as junior to those assistant Traffic Managers directly recruited in the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 subsequent to the writ petitioner s appointment as Assistant Traffic Manager. By means of another Circular dated 11th January, 1983, the final seniority list of the Assistant Traffic Managers was published maintaining the seniority of those directly recruited Assistant Traffic Managers subsequent to 19-5-1975 over the writ petitioner. It may be noted that the petitioner s service in the category of Assistant Traffic Manager was counted for the purpose of reckoning his seniority with effect from 19-9-19. 78 instead of 19-5-1975. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for a declaration that the final seniority list of the Assistant Traffic Managers dated 11th January 1983 is illegal. He also seeks a declaration from this Court that the petitioner is senior to the respondents 2 to 17 and that he would be ennded for the consequential benefit of further promotion to the post of Divisional Manager.
( 3 ) THIS writ petition is opposed by the first respondent-Andhra pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and the respondents 2 to 17 who are the directly recruited Assistant Traffic Managers. These respondents in their counter-affidavit admit that the writ petitioner was first promoted as assistant Traffic Manager on 19th of May of 1975. But they argue that the writ petitioner s service from 19-5-1975 to 19-9-1978 cannot be counted for the purpose of reckoning his seniority as Assistant Ttaffic manager because the writ petitioner was never appointed during that period as a regular Assistant Traffic Manager and was appointed and was working as a Temporary Assistant Traffic Manager. Respondent No. 2 was appointed on 24th of May, 1977 while respondent No. 3 was appointed on 23rd July, 1978. Respondents 4 to 17 were appointed Assistant Traffic Managers on or after September/october, 1978.
( 4 ) UNDER the Employees Recruitment (Regulations) of 1966 made by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, in a unit of 4 posts, first and third vacancy should be filled in by direct recruitment and the second and the fourth vacancy should be filled in by promotion from the post of Chief Inspector. If a suitable candidate is not available in a particular category for filling up of a vacancy reserved for that category, it is open for the APSRTC under the regulations to fill up the vacancy by a suitable candidate from the other cetegory and that if no suitable candidate is available in any of the categories, the A. P. S. R. T. C. may fill up the post by direct recruitment by selection. The method of recruitment above referred to requires that the first and the third vacancy of the post of Assistant traffic Manager should go to a direct recruit and that the second and the fourth post alone should go to the promotee. Regulation 34 of the above emplopees (Recruitment) Regulations reads as follows :"if in any of the following categories a sufficient number of approved candidates who have successfully completed their training is not available for filling posts reserved to be filled by direct recruitment such posts may be filled temporarily by departmental promotion until approved candidates who have successfully completed their training become available to replac
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
