Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3310]
K Manmadha Rao, J.
Dabbara Gopal Naidu and Others – Petitioner
Versus
The Engineerinchief and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No: 4149/2021
Decided On : 07-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules - Rules 33, 33(b), and 34 - Writ petition challenging the final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers issued by the respondents as arbitrary and contrary to statutory rules - The court found that the seniority was improperly determined based on length of service rather than the prescribed rules. (Paras 1, 10, 11)
(B) Seniority - Determination of seniority must adhere to statutory rules and cannot be based solely on length of service - The court emphasized that the seniority list must be prepared in accordance with the rules laid out in the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers in 2007 and 2008, challenged the seniority list issued on 30.11.2020, which was based on the length of service rather than the rules. The petitioners argued that their seniority should be determined based on their respective dates of joining, which were earlier than that of a promoted candidate.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the final seniority list was prepared contrary to the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and directed the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list in compliance with the rules.
Issues: The main issues were whether the seniority list was prepared in accordance with the statutory rules and the validity of the reliance on length of service for seniority determination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the seniority must be determined according to the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, rejecting the reliance on length of service as the sole criterion.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned proceedings set aside.
ORDER :
K Manmadha Rao, J.
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the Respondents in preparing and issuing final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers (Zonal, i.e., in so far as Zone-IV is concerned and integrated) prepared as per the length of service by Proceedings No.8844/CS1/2020, dated 30.11.2020 issued by the 1st Respondent instead of preparing as per Rules 33, 33(b, proviso to Rule 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules is concerned, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rules 33, 33(b), proviso to Rule 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules and issue consequential direction directing the Respondents to forthwith review the final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers (Zonal i.e., in so far as Zone-IV is concerned and integrated) issued in Proceedings No.8844/CS1/2020, dated 30.11.2020 in terms of Rules 33, 33(b), proviso to Rule 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules by taking into account date of joining of Smt. Kambam Devika, i.e., 05.04.2013 in pursuance of the promotion order issued in Proceedings No.444/CS1/2013, dated 04.04.2013 and assigning the same date to Sri Madine Narayana Swamy also as well as the Petitioners including Smt. Kambam Devika, and further direct the Respondents from restraining to effect promotions to the post of Executive Engineers till reviewing the final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers (Zonal i.e., in so far as Zone-IV is concerned and integrated) prepared as per the length of service by Proceedings No.8844/CS1/2020, dated 30.11.2020 issued by the 1st Respondent in terms of Rules 33, 33(b), proviso to Rule 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules by taking into account the date of joining of Smt.Kambam Devika, i.e., 05.04.2013 and assigning the same date to Sri Madine Narayana Swamy as well as Petitioners including Smt Kambam Devika….”
2. Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers in the year 2007 in the Public Health Department except the 5th petitioner in the year 2008, in pursuance of selection made by A.P. Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in Public Health Department, whereas the 3rd petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 in the Municipal Administration Department. Both the Deputy Executive Engineers (for short “DEE”) working in Public Health Department as well as Municipal Administration Department are eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer based on the combined integrated seniority list quota fixed in terms of the Special Rules. All the petitioners were promoted as DEEs in Public Health Department and Municipal Administration Department vide DPC recommendation vide Proceedings No.444/CS1/2013, dated 04.04.2013 in pursuance of including their names for the panel year 2012-2013. After receiving promotion orders dated 04.04.2013, the 1st four petitioners joined on 06.04.2013, whereas the 5th petitioner joined on 08.04.2013. While so, one M.Narayana Swamy, who belongs to reserved category, whose name placed at Serial No.1, in the order of promotion, dated 04.04.2013 joined on 07.04.2013. On the ground that M.Narayana Swamy is placed at Serial No.1, the authorities determined the seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers reckoning the seniority of DEEs only with effect from 07.04.2013. The 1st respondent vide proceedings No.8844/CS1/2020, dated 28.10.2020 communicated the provisional seniority list of DEE (Zonal and integrated) as per the length of service, wherein the 1st respondent issued the zonal seniority of DEEs for Zone-IV and other zones and t
Seniority in public service must be determined according to statutory rules, not solely based on length of service.
Promotion decisions must adhere to established seniority lists to avoid arbitrary actions violating principles of natural justice.
Promotions on seniority-cum-merit basis require using final seniority list of feeder cadre from immediately preceding year; initial joining date irrelevant; non-speaking orders invalid; settled lists....
Seniority in public service must be determined by the appointing authority's order of merit, and any violation of statutory rules renders the seniority list arbitrary.
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
Service matter - Seniority - The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service....
Seniority cannot be granted to employees not borne in the cadre; it must reflect the actual date of joining. A fresh seniority list should be prepared following Supreme Court rulings.
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
