1. Temporary employees appointed to sanctioned posts during a rule vacuum were regularized, leading to a dispute over seniority relative to later direct recruits. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 29 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
P. Rammohan Rao – Appellant
Versus
K. Srinivas and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 4036-4038 of 2024], Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4596-4597 of 2024], Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. of 2025] [Diary No. 27613 of 2024]
Decided On : 13-02-2025
Important Points
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.
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Service Employment
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICES RULES: R.25
ANDHRA PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES: R.10(a)(i), R.10(a)(i)(1)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.245, Art.320(3)
VALIDATION ACT: S.3(1)
ANDHRA PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES: R.10(a)(i), R.10(a)(i)(1)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.245, Art.320(3)
VALIDATION ACT: S.3(1)
Headnote
(A) Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 - G.O.M. No. 262, dated 17th June, 2006 - Seniority of Assistant Executive Engineers - The High Court quashed the G.O.M. which regularized the services of temporary AEEs appointed between 1990-1992, placing them below the last regularly selected candidate. The court found that the appointments were not de hors the rules and that the delay in regularization was due to the need for amendments to the service rules. The court held that the period of officiating service should be counted for seniority. (Paras 29, 30, 48)
(B) Doctrine of Functus Officio - The court ruled that the State Government was not functus officio after issuing G.O.M. No. 234 and could modify it through G.O.M. No. 262. (Paras 41, 42)
(C) Principles of Natural Justice - The court held that there was no requirement for the State to provide a hearing to affected parties before issuing the revised G.O.M. (Paras 45, 47)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were appointed as temporary AEEs between 1990-1992 and sought regularization of their services. The State Government issued G.O.M. No. 234 in 2005, regularizing their services but placing them below the 1997 batch of AEEs. The appellants challenged this in the High Court, which quashed the G.O.M. No. 262 that favored the appellants.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the appellants' contention that their period of officiating service should be counted for seniority and that the State Government was justified in issuing the revised G.O.M.
Result: Appeals allowed.
(B) Doctrine of Functus Officio - The court ruled that the State Government was not functus officio after issuing G.O.M. No. 234 and could modify it through G.O.M. No. 262. (Paras 41, 42)
(C) Principles of Natural Justice - The court held that there was no requirement for the State to provide a hearing to affected parties before issuing the revised G.O.M. (Paras 45, 47)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were appointed as temporary AEEs between 1990-1992 and sought regularization of their services. The State Government issued G.O.M. No. 234 in 2005, regularizing their services but placing them below the 1997 batch of AEEs. The appellants challenged this in the High Court, which quashed the G.O.M. No. 262 that favored the appellants.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the appellants' contention that their period of officiating service should be counted for seniority and that the State Government was justified in issuing the revised G.O.M.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S. Uday Bhanu, Adv. Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rao Vishwaja, Adv. Mr. P Vamshi Rao, Adv. Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR Ms. J Akshitha, Adv. Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv. Mr. Ashwin K,, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. K. Lakshmi Narsimha, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. Tushar Singh, Adv. M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S.uday Bhanu, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S. Uday Bhanu, Adv. Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rao Vishwaja, Adv. Mr. P Vamshi Rao, Adv. Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR Ms. J Akshitha, Adv. Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv. Mr. Ashwin K,, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. K. Lakshmi Narsimha, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. Tushar Singh, Adv. M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S.uday Bhanu, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether temporary appointments were ad-hoc stop-gap arrangements or uninterrupted service entitling seniority, and whether the government became functus officio after the initial regularization order. (Para 25 , 27 )
3. The appointments were not stop-gap arrangements but based on service rules for exigencies, and administrative policy decisions are not subject to the doctrine of functus officio. (Para 30 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 )
4. Uninterrupted officiating service in a post, where initial appointment was not a stop-gap arrangement, counts toward seniority upon regularization under Proposition B of Direct Recruit Class II. (Para 32 , 40 , 48 )
5. Appeals allowed; High Court judgment quashed; revised government memorandum restoring seniority to temporary employees appointed between 1990-1992 is upheld. (Para 49 , 50 )
6. When can the period of officiating service of a temporary employee be counted for seniority upon regularization?
If the initial appointment was not a stop-gap arrangement and the appointee continued in the post uninterruptedly until regularization in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. (Para 32 , 40 )
7. Does the doctrine of functus officio apply to the rule-making or policy-making power of the State Government?
No. The doctrine normally applies to judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Applying it to administrative decision-making would cripple executive power and prevent the State from reversing or modifying policies based on changing circumstances. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 )
8. Is the State required to provide a prior hearing to affected individuals before issuing a revised administrative policy or rule?
No. There is no inviolable rule requiring a personal hearing before every State decision. The right to be heard can be excluded where it would paralyze the administrative process or obstruct prompt action. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 )
9. How does the court distinguish between a stop-gap ad-hoc appointment and a temporary appointment that counts for seniority?
A stop-gap arrangement is a transient, conditional appointment. In contrast, a temporary appointment made under service rules for public interest or exigencies, without a fixed tenure or reversion clause, is not considered ad-hoc. (Para 34 , 35 , 37 )
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Civil Appeals @ SLP (Civil) Nos. 4036-4038 of 2024; Civil Appeals @ SLP (Civil) Nos. 4596-4597 of 2024
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals take exception to the final judgment and common order dated 21st September, 2023 rendered by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad1 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’] whereby the Division Bench allowed the batch of writ petitions preferred by the private respondents herein and quashed the Government Office Memorandum2 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘G.O.M.’] No. 262, dated 17th June, 2006, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
4. Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for the disposal of these appeals are as under.
5. The appellants who hold the qualification of B. Tech (Bachelor of Technology) were selected and appointed as Work Inspectors in the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Development Corporation3 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘Corporation’] on 1st January, 1990 and were serving in the said department. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.M. No. 89, dated 9th February, 1990, sanctioning posts of Assistant Executive Engineers4 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘AEEs’] for achieving Phase-II of the Andhra Pradesh Primary School Project5 [To achieve the first objective 84 primary school building with improved designs were constructed in 11 selected project districts. In order to achieve phase-II of the project construction work needed to be entrusted to the Panchayat Raj Engineering department and to have a separate class of engineer’s staff for undertaking construction of buildings of primary schools and teachers’ centres] which was initiated in collaboration between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of United Kingdom in the year 1983. The said project was time-bound and hence, directions were issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the Chief Engineer, to fill up the posts immediately from the list available with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission6 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘APPSC’] and if the list was not adequate then the Chief Engineer was permitted to recruit the candidates through the employment exchange.
6. Since the list available with the APPSC was inadequate to fill the posts required for the project, the Chief Engineer wrote to the State Government, and in response thereof, G.O.M. No. 429, dated 6th March, 1990, was issued by the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, directing that these vacancies may be filled up from the Work Inspector/Draughtsman/Tracers who were already serving in the Panchayat Raj Department and possessed a graduation degree in Engineering i.e. B.E./B.Tech. It was further clarified that the nature of these appointments would be temporary under Rule 10(a)(i) of the ANDHRA PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES 7 [Hereinafter, referred to as ‘Service Rules’] pending amendment to the Special Rules for Panchayat Raj Engineering Services. The said G.O.M. also contained a direction to frame a formula for the promotion of the abovementioned candidates, taking into account the strength of cadre and the retirement vacancies in the next two years as per the rules. A Committee was also constituted to consider the proposal for temporary appointments and for filling up the remaining vacancies.
7. Thereafter, another G.O.M. No. 540, dated 30th August, 1990 was issued by the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, whereby 386 posts of AEEs were sanctioned under the Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project.8 [Hereinafter, referred to as ‘CERP’] The appellants herein and one individual who were already serving as Work Inspectors were appointed as temporary AEEs on 5th December, 1992 against these vacancies. It is an undisputed fact that the appellants herein and his peers were appointed against substantiate vacancies created for the project.
8. Subsequently, the Andhra Pradesh
