Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G. Narendar, Nyapathy Vijay, JJ.
K.Hemalatha - Appellant
Versus
B.V.Usha Rani & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 353, 336 and 278 of 2023
Decided On : 15-03-2024
Relaxation of Rules - Appointment by Transfer - A.P. Drugs Control Administration Service Special Rules, 1994 - A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rule 36, Rule 35 - The court discussed the relaxation of special rules, the method of appointment, and the determination of seniority under the relevant rules.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner and others were appointed as Junior Analysts in relaxation of the A.P. Drugs Control Administration Service Special Rules, 1994. Dispute arose regarding the fixation of seniority among the appointees.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petitioner was senior to the other appointees based on the date of their original appointment as Pharmacists, Grade-II.
Issues: The issues considered were: (i) Whether the deputation period could be counted for reckoning seniority in the Cadre of Junior Analyst where appointment was by transfer and in relaxation of Rule 3 Category-I of Rules, 1994? (ii) Whether the fixation of seniority in the Cadre of Junior Analyst should be reckoned from the date of actual joining or date of actual joining after the time prescribed for joining? (iii) Whether the writ petitioner is senior to the Respondent No.3 and 4?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant rules and held that the seniority should be determined based on the date of original appointment as Pharmacists, Grade-II, and not the date of joining as Junior Analysts.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the court held that the writ petitioner was senior to the other appointees.
JUDGMENT
Nyapathy Vijay, J. - The present Writ Appeals are directed against the Order dated 02.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.18875 of 2021 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The Appeals are filed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 i.e. State and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 respectively.
2. The parties herein are referred to as per the nomenclature in the Writ Petition.
3. The facts leading to this case are as follows:-
The writ petitioner in W.A.No.353 of 2023 was appointed as Pharmacist, Grade-II on 07.09.1995, which is a District cadre post. The writ petitioner along with Smt. M. Aruna and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 i.e. K. Suresh Kumar and K. Hemalatha had made representation to the Government on 24.04.2018 to consider their case for 'appointment by transfer' to the post of Junior Analyst in the Drugs Control Administration under 20% quota by relaxing the Rule-3, Category-1 of A.P. Drugs Control Administration Service Special Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1994') issued vide G.O.Ms.No.411, HM & FW (L.2) Department, dated 11.08.1994.
4. As the representations were not being considered, all of them filed O.A.No.1393 of 2018 before A.P. Administrative Tribunal in not disposing of the representation. On 05.09.2018, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed an interim order directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 24.04.2018 within a period of eight (8) months.
5. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.1 had issued Memo No.781/I.1/2012, dated 05.02.2019 directing Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner and others for appointment to the post of Junior Analyst in the Drugs Control Administration by relaxing the Rule-3, Category-1 of the Rules, 1994. It was also clarified that those who are willing to come to the post of Junior Analyst must forgo their seniority in the present Unit and take last rank after the last regular candidate in the new Unit as these transfers are from the District cadre to State cadre. Respondent No.2 was advised to take the individuals as per their seniority, qualifications by following the rule of reservations and that they shall take last rank in the category of Junior Analyst in the Drugs Control Administration.
6. In compliance of the Memo issued by Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 issued proceedings vide Proc.Rc.No.387/E2/2018, dated 08.02.2019 appointing the petitioner, M. Aruna and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 as Junior Analysts subject to the relaxation of Rule-3, Category-1 of the Rules referred to above. The conditions of appointment were specified in the said proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petitioner and others had joined as Junior Analysts and their probation was declared on 20.11.2020 regularizing their services.
7. On 26.02.2020, a tentative seniority list among the petitioner and others who were appointed as Junior Analysts was drawn and objections were called for. As per the tentative seniority list, the petitioner was placed at the bottom while Smt. M. Aruna and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 were placed above the petitioner at Sl.Nos.4, 5 & 6. This was the breaking point for the joint pursuit for appointment as Junior Analyst among the petitioner and the un-official respondents and is the genesis for this litigation. The petitioner submitted her objections on 04.03.2020 stating that she is the senior most vis-a-vis Respondent Nos.3 & 4 and contended that she should be placed at Sl.No.5 rather than Sl.No.7.
8. On the objections submitted by the petitioner, Respondent No.2 sought clarification from Respondent No.1 with regard to fixation of seniority among the petitioner and the un-official respondents. Respondent No.1 thereupon issued impugned proceedings vide Memo No.HMF01-DRGC0DDCA (MISC)/28/2020-1, dated 29.09.2020 directing Respondent No.2 to consider the deputation period of Smt. M. Aruna and Respondent No.3 as Junior Analysts for reckoning notional seniority without any monetary benefits from the dates of joining in the deputation post of Junior Analyst vide G.O.Rt.No.461 date
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of seniority in cases of appointment by transfer and relaxation of rules should be based on the date of original appointment....
Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of first appointment, not by roster points, as per statutory rules.
The determination of inter-se seniority under Rule 33(a) is based on the date of first appointment, not merit rankings.
Seniority in a service cadre is determined by the date of entry into that cadre, and voluntary transfers do not entitle individuals to claim seniority from a prior service date.
The court established that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment, and settled seniority cannot be revised after a significant delay.
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
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
