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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9886

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R Raghunandan Rao, T.C.D.Sekhar, JJ
K.V.L.Narasimha Rao – Appellant
Versus
M Ganeshwara Rao – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos: 4493 of 2016|38747 of 2015|14864 of 2017|3629 of 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sodum Anvesha
For the Respondents:K Ramamohan, Addl Advocate General II, J Sudheer, P Bala Krishna Murthy

The court held that imposing additional seniority conditions on a fixed roster system for promotion, which effectively nullifies reserved promotional slots for specific feeder categories without a carry-forward mechanism, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and lacks a rational nexus to the service rules.

Headnote:(A) Road and Buildings Engineering Service Rules - Promotion - Quashing of Government order - The Tribunal correctly observed that imposing an additional condition of seniority on a roster-based promotion system in which separate feeder categories were assigned specific slots was arbitrary and discriminatory. (Para 21)

(B) Administrative Law - Roster System - Promotional Avenues - The court emphasized that the State must stipulate fair and equitable conditions for promotion; introducing seniority criteria that effectively nullify roster-based slots for a feeder category creates an irrational and inequitable system. (Para 20)

Facts of the case:
Public servants from various engineering streams challenged the validity of a Government order that introduced provisos to the existing 24-point roster system for promotions to the Deputy Executive Engineer post. The petitioners sought to implement seniority as a condition, which the respondents (Assistant Engineers) argued would effectively eliminate their promotional opportunities.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the roster-based promotion system for disparate feeder categories cannot be modified by imposing supplementary seniority conditions that lead to the extinction of reserved vacancies for specific feeder groups, as this lack of nexus makes such rules arbitrary.

Issues: Whether the Government was empowered to impose additional seniority conditions on an existing roster-based promotional scheme involving merged feeder categories.

Ratio Decidendi: A roster system created to accommodate different feeder categories must be strictly followed; adding seniority layers that effectively consume or block quota-based vacancies for select categories without a carry-forward mechanism is inherently arbitrary and discriminatory.

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the roster system for promotions in engineering services. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. challenge to government orders modifying promotion rules and roster seniority. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. parties' arguments regarding the fairness of roster versus seniority-based promotions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court rules that overlaying seniority on fixed rosters is arbitrary. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

The Court made the following Common Order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

As the issues raised in all these Writ Petitions are common, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. The primary dispute in these Writ Petitions is on the question of promotions to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, under the Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Engineering Service Rules, from the feeder categories of Assistant Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Draughtsmen.

3. The Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Service Rules, were brought into force, under G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 22.05.1996, on being published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, on 17.08.1996. Rule 2 of these Rules sets out the various categories of posts, falling within these Rules. Rule 3 provides for the method of appointment and appointing Authorities of these categories of posts. The relevant posts, for the purpose of these promotions are Deputy Executive Engineer, which is category (5) of Class A in Rule 2 , Assistant Executive Engineer, which is category (6) in Clause A of Rule 2 . Apart from this, the posts of Assistant Engineers, Draughtsman Special Grade and Draughtsman Grade I, under the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Services are also relevant.

4. The method of appointment, for Deputy Executive Engineer, which is the present controversy, reads as follows:

5. Dy. Executive Engineers

(i) By promotion from category (6)

(ii) By appointment by transfer of Asst. Engineers in A.P. Roads and Buildings Engineering Subordinate Service:

(iii) By appointment by transfer of D’Man Special Grade and D’Man Grade I from a combined seniority list with reference to the date of their appointment to the category of D’Man, Grade I.

5. Category (6) mentioned in Clause – 1 is the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. This post is filled up in the following manner:

6. Assistant Executive Engineers

(i) By direct recruitment;

(ii) By appointment by transfer of Asst. Engineer/D’Man, Spl. Grade/D’Man, Grade I who have acquired a degree in Civil Engineering or Mechanical Engineering from a combined seniority list with reference to the date of their appointment to the category of D’Man, Grade I.

6. The Assistant Engineers mentioned in Clause 2 of Rule 3 (5) are Assistant Engineers appointed, under the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Services. The education qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer is a Diploma. They are appointed either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the lower categories of posts, in the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Services. Similarly, the posts of Draughtsman Special Category and Draughtsman Grade 1 are the posts within the ambit of the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Services. The post of Deputy Executive Engineer is filled either by way of promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer; by promotion by way of transfer of Assistant Engineers under the Engineering Subordinate Service Rules or by transfer of Draughtsman Special Grade and Draughtsman Grade I, again from the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Service.

7. As there are three feeder categories, to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, a scheme was framed by way of the Service Rules, under G.O.Ms.No.103. This scheme was brought in by way of a Note. Under this Note, a 24-point roster was established. Under this roster, every 4th vacancy, except the 20th vacancy was reserved for Assis

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