IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
J. Gopala Krishna and others – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
WP No.24572 of 2021 and Batch
Decided On : 15-11-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute on seniority of assistant executive engineers. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court issued interim order preserving status quo. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. counter-arguments to claims of petitioners. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. court's observations reflect impacts of inconsistent government policies. (Para 11) |
| 5. arguments on legality of g.o. ms. no.71. (Para 14 , 22) |
| 6. legal procedures for modifying seniority of appointed staff needs judicial review. (Para 15 , 20 , 24) |
| 7. principle of seniority based on appointment date. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. final judgment to set aside g.o. ms. no.71. (Para 29 , 30 , 32 , 46 , 48) |
| 9. court maintains orders in favor of equity for affected temporary aees. (Para 47) |
JUDGMENT
As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, and therefore, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this common order.
2. The main grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is for declaring the G.O. Ms. No.71, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dated 05.10.2021, issued by the 1st respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the said G.O.
3. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.25472 of 2021 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, the main dispute in this WP No.24572 of 2021 is about seniority between two groups of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) of the Panchayat Raj Engineering Service of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Department. The petitioners herein represent the group of Engineering Graduates, who were drafted by the Employment Exchange on the question of the Government for appointment to the post of AEE. They were first appointed as Work Inspectors in the year 1991 and later appointed as AEEs in the year 1994 and their services were regularized in the year 2005 and they were directed to be placed in the seniority list just below the last AEE directly recruited through APPSC prior to 1994.
It is stated that the 1st respondent Government took up construction of school buildings as part of the Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Project with the financial assistance of the Government of United Kingdom in 1990. For the purposes of the said project, the 1st respondent, issued G.O. Ms. No.89 dated 09.02.1990. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent, had taken up "Cyclone Reconstruction Project" with the financial aid of the World Bank. To execute the said project, the 1st respondent issued G.O. Ms. No.540 dated 30.08.1990, which provided for, among other things, sanctioning of 306 posts of AEEs. Due to there was dearth of AEEs in the Panchayat Raj Department, the Employment Exchange was requisitioned to sponsor candidates having Engineering and other equivalent Degrees for the purpose of filing up of the said posts of AEEs. The Employment Exchange in turn sponsored the names of the petitioners herein and several others to the office of the Engineer-inChief, Panchayat Raj Engineering Department. At this juncture, certain existing employees of the Panchayat Raj Department of the cadre of Work
Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa and others
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra and others
Registrar General of India v. V. Thippa Setty
S. Sumnyan and others v. Limi Niri and others
Sri ARTS and CRAFTS Society v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2024 (1) ALD 165 (AP)
State of Maharashtra and another v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and others
The government cannot alter established seniority rights or conditions of service without due process and must adhere to principles of natural justice.
The period of officiating service of temporary AEEs appointed between 1990-1992 must be counted for seniority, entitling them to be placed above the 1997 batch of regularly appointed candidates.
G.O.Ms.Nos.880 and 881, which conferred seniority benefits to respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the date of their joining in the Department, were invalid and contrary to the statutory rules, the orders pas....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of the petitioners should be counted from the date of their regularization as Assistant Engineers. The court also emphasized the....
The court held that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long period, emphasizing the principle of res judicata and the limits of administrative power in altering promotion dates.
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 is to be counted from date of substantive appointment and substantive appointment means, an appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment, on a post in cadre of service, made after selection....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.