Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
S. GOVINDARAJULU, D. J. , NOW WORKING ON C. D. AS CHIEF LEGAL ADVISOR - Appellant
Versus
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD - Respondent
Decided On : 03/23/2007
Advocates Appeared :
B.ADINARAYANA RAO, CHALLA SITARAMAYYA, D.V.SITARAM MURTHY, G.Vidya Sagar, P.HARINATHA GUPTA, V.RANGA REDDY, Y.Vivekananda Swamy
Constitution 0f India, Article 309 – Andhra Pradesh State higher Judicial Service Rules – Conflict – Public services – Seniority between direct recruits and promotes – Despite over abundance of precedential guidance, casual administrative practices engender such disputes with regularity – Negligent administrative handling of this area festers creative claims to seniority dispute in this writ petition is commonplace such disputes in several services including Higher judicial Service are a continuing phenomenon. We record yet another opinion on an oft visited theme petitioner seeks determination of his seniority status above respondent in the category of district and Sessions Judges Grade-II governed by Special Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution, called the Andhra Pradesh State higher Judicial Service Rules he also assails the administrative order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby his representations dated were rejected and seeks a direction to treat him as senior to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the category of District and Sessions State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary to the government, Law (Legislative Affairs and justice), Hyderabad, is impleaded as sixth respondent –Held, Petitioner submitted his representation consistently about five Half Yearly lists would have, by necessity, shown the below the petitioner circumstances and as he was not issued a notice or opportunity sensitizing him to a potential seniority threat from the 5th respondent petitioner could perhaps have been lulled into a state of repose court does not expect employees, in particular Judicial Officers to be obsessed with seniority lists and to practise with regularity an intricate study of the Half Yearly lists petitioner is seen to have submitted a representation within a period of half Yearly list. His representation states that in the recent Half Yearly list" he saw the 5 respondent placed above him. From this it could be inferred that he noticed this fact from a not unnatural behaviour for an employee (not to study Half Yearly lists as a regimen totality of facts and circumstances we are not inclined to refuse the relief. No inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner is discernible or established facts do not justify an inference that the petitioner had waived or abandoned his legitimate claim to seniority or had acquiesced in the unlawful deprivation of his seniority wider class of higher judicial service officers are not affected by the relief sought in this writ petition dispute and the context are confined to these 5 officers petitioner and the respondent court find on this issue in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents – Writ petition is partly allowed
( 1 ) THE conflict is commonplace, the facts simple and the law clear; and yet a combat. This writ petition is another illustration of a recurring morbidity in our public services, a dispute regarding inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. Despite over abundance of precedential guidance, casual administrative practices engender such disputes with regularity. Negligent administrative handling of this area festers creative claims to seniority The dispute in this writ petition is commonplace. Such disputes in several services including Higher judicial Service are a continuing phenomenon. We record yet another opinion on an oft visited theme.
( 2 ) IN substance, the petitioner seeks determination of his seniority status above respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the category of district and Sessions Judges Grade-II (in the andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial service) governed by Special Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution, called the Andhra Pradesh State higher Judicial Service Rules (for short 'the special Rules' ). He also assails the administrative order of the High Court of andhra Pradesh (the first respondent) dated 17-08-2001 whereby his representations dated 19-12-1996 and 18-02-1998 were rejected and seeks a direction (to the first respondent) to treat him as senior to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the category of District and Sessions judges Grade-II. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary to the government, Law (Legislative Affairs and justice), Hyderabad, is impleaded as sixth respondent.
( 3 ) THE petitioner entered the judicial service of the State as 'district Munsif (a post borne in category-II of the Andhra pradesh State Judicial Service) by direct recruitment in 1979. He was thereafter promoted as a Subordinate Judge (a post borne in Category-l of this service ).
( 4 ) IN 1991, the sixth respondent notified five vacancies of District and Sessions judges Grade-II (category-II of the Andhra pradesh State Higher Judicial Service) for direct recruitment. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 applied. Of these, the second respondent belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, the third respondent to Open Category, the fourth respondent to Scheduled Caste and the fifth respondent to Backward Class-B category. By orders in G. O. Ms. No. 509. General administration (SC-F) Department dated 28-09-1993, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were appointed to act as District and Sessions judges in category-II under Rule 2 (a) (ii) of the Special Rules. The appointment order specified that the respondents would be on probation for a total period of one year with effect from the date on which they join duty; separate orders of posting to be issued by the first respondent.
( 5 ) ELEVEN days earlier, in G. O. Rt. No. 4623 general Administration (SC-F) Department dated 17-09-1993, the petitioner and six others belonging to the substantive category of Subordinate Judges were appointed as district and Sessions Judge, Grade-II, oy transfer; the appointments to take effect from the dates on which the respective officers assume charge; and the orders of posting to be issued by the first respondent. The appointment order in G. O. Rt. No. 4623 specified that it is an initial temporary appointment.
( 6 ) IN notification No. 362-B. Spl. , dated 04-10-1993. the petitioner, respondent nos. 2 to 4 and two other District and Sessions judges Grade-Ii (appointed by transfer) were issued orders of posting.
( 7 ) IN G. O. Ms. No. 616, General administration (SC-F) Department dated 20-11-1993, the fifth respondent was appointed to act as District and Sessions judge Grade-II; put on probation for a period of one year with effect from the date of his joining duty; and separate orders to be issued by the first respondent regarding his posting. In notification No. 439-B. Spi. , dated 26-11 -1993, the first respondent issued orders of posting to the fifth respondent.
( 8 ) THUS, in the category of District and
gpt-4
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
