SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17797

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J
V.M. Radha Krishna – Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Learned counsel for the petitioner
For the Respondents:Learned Government Pleader for General Administration appearing for respondent No.1, Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5, Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent, Learned counsel for the 6th respondent

Inter se seniority among employees appointed simultaneously is determined by merit/ranking in the recruitment examination and not by roster points, which are only for implementing reservation.

Headnote:(A) A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rule 33(b) - Constitution of India - Articles 16(4) - Determination of inter se seniority - Seniority is not to be fixed in terms of roster points - The roster system is for ensuring quantum of reservation in recruitment process and has nothing to do with inter se seniority among recruits. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 14)

(B) Roster points - Purpose - Roster points are not intended to determine seniority between general candidates and reserved candidates - They merely become operative when a vacancy reserved at a higher level becomes available - Once all such vacancies are filled, the roster works itself out. (Paras 8, 12)

(C) Precedent - P.S. Ghalaut - Overruled - The decision in P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana that reserved candidates, though less meritorious in the selection merit list, would occupy roster points and thereby gain seniority over general candidates, was not correct and did not lay down good law. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was selected as Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) through DSC-2000 and was later promoted as School Assistant based on a seniority list prepared following roster points. The 6th respondent, who had secured higher marks in DSC-2000 but was given a lower position in the seniority list, filed an Original Application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking seniority based on DSC ranking. The Tribunal allowed the O.A., directing that seniority be fixed on the basis of DSC-2000 ranking. The petitioner challenged this order in the writ petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether inter se seniority among employees would be determined by roster points or by merit/ranking in the District Selection Committee (DSC) examination.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the determination of inter se seniority would depend on merit/ranking in DSC and not on roster points. The roster system is only for implementing reservation in the recruitment process and does not determine seniority among appointees who gain simultaneous appointments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the settled legal position from various Supreme Court judgments including R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, and Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, that roster points are not intended to determine seniority between general candidates and reserved candidates. The order of the Tribunal was upheld. Result : Writ Petition dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • service law
    • seniority
      • determination of seniority
        • merit ranking in recruitment (Para 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15)
        • roster points (Para 4, 8, 12)
    • promotion
      • seniority-cum-fitness (Para 3)
    • reservation
      • roster system
        • running account (Para 8)
  • constitutional law
    • affirmative action
      • article 16(4) (Para 14)

Table of Contents

1. Dispute over determination of inter se seniority for promotion based on DSC merit ranking vs roster points. (Para 1 , 3 )

2. Petitioner claimed seniority based on roster points under Rule 33(b); respondent claimed seniority based on merit ranking in DSC. (Para 3 , 4 )

3. Writ petition dismissed; Tribunal's order upheld and directed to be implemented within three months. (Para 16 )

4. How is inter se seniority determined among candidates appointed simultaneously through direct recruitment?

Seniority is determined by the merit/ranking in the recruitment process, not by roster points; roster points only ensure reservation quota. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 14 , 15 )

5. What is the purpose of the roster system in reservation?

The roster system ensures that the prescribed percentage of reservation is achieved; it does not determine seniority and operates as a running account only until the quota is filled. (Para 8 , 12 )

6. What is the catch-up rule regarding seniority of roster-point promotees?

The catch-up rule allows senior general category candidates promoted later to claim seniority over earlier roster-point promotees, as approved by the Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh (II). (Para 14 )

7. Can the appointing authority exercise discretion under Rule 33(b) to fix seniority based on roster points?

No, such discretion cannot override the settled legal principle that seniority must be based on merit ranking; any contrary exercise is invalid. (Para 4 , 15 )

The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela)

Heard,

Learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for General Administration, appearing for respondent No.1; learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5; Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and learned counsel for the 6th respondent.

1. The Writ Petition is filed assailing the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) passed in O.A.No.5374 of 2004, wherein the O.A. was disposed of, declaring that the applicant therein is entitled to be considered for promotion on the basis of DSC ranking, in preference to the people who got lesser rank in DSC-2000 and the unofficial respondents were directed to prepare the seniority list on the basis of DSC-2000 ranking and if any of the juniors to the applicant are promoted earlier to him, assign notional seniority to the applicant, in the post of School Assistant with all consequential benefits, unless he is not found eligible for such promotion.

2. The narration of the parties is as in the present writ petition.

3. The contour facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is as follows:

(i) The petitioner appeared in DSC-2000 examinations and got selected for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) and was allotted to Bhimavaram Municipality. The next promotion from the post of SGT is School Assistant, which is based on seniority-cum-fitness. Thereupon, based on the seniority list, the petitioner was promoted as School Assistant on 25.02.2005.

(ii) Further, the arguments advanced by the petitioner that the appointing authority in his wisdom and discretion has taken the order of preference by following the roster while selecting the candidates for the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers for the purpose of determining inter se seniority and accordingly provisional seniority list dated 02.09.2004 in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teachers was prepared, thereby inviting objections and thereafter the final seniority list was published based on the roster. It is the submission of the Writ Petitioner that he stands at Serial No.8 and based on the said seniority, he was promoted as School Assistant on 25.02.2005, vide ROC.No.3848/2002/C2.

(iii) The further grievance is that the provision under Rule 33(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 , is not applicable to the petitioner since he is the employee of Bhimavaram Municipality and governed by different set of rules. He further asserts that even as per Rule 33(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, discretion has been given to the appointing authority to fix the seniority based on the order of preference or merit while appointing two or more candidates simultaneously and, in consonance to that, the seniority list basing on the roster was prepared and since the petitioner belongs to category of PHC got promoted as School Assistant. The categorical submission of the Writ Petitioner was that the appointing authority has discretion as per Rule 33(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules to assign seniority based upon the preference or merit as it deems fit and proper. Once a discretion is exercised, later cannot be reprobated.

(iv) In oppugnation, the 6th respondent/applicant in O.A.No.5347 of 2004 ventilated that those persons who got lesser marks in DSC-2000 were preferred over and above the persons who secured more marks in DSC-2000. The contention before the Tribunal was that the applicant is more meritorious than the persons promoted earlier to him and he is entitled to be considered on the basis of rank assigned in DSC-2000 for promotion to the post of School Assistant earlier than the juniors promoted by following roster seniority and with that factual background, the O.A. was filed to declare that the applicant as entitled for seniority in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher in Bhimavaram Municipal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top