http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: S. CHINNAPPA REDDY & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/01/1996

BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7) 289        JT 1996 (1)   350  1996 SCALE  (1)366

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T BHARUCHA, J.      Leave granted.      These appeals  impugn two  orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal,  of 8th March and 13th April, 1994. They relate  to seniority in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, earlier  called Junior  Engineer,  in  the  Public Health &  Municipal Engineering Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.      Prior to 18th August, 1970, the post of Junior Engineer was  filled  by  direct  recruitment  and  by  redesignating Supervisors as  Junior Engineers, as and when vacancies were available, upon their becoming graduates.      The State Government by GOMs No. 682 dated 18th August, 1970, banned  the direct  recruitment of  Junior  Engineers. Thereafter, in  exercise of  emergency powers  conferred  by Rule 10(1)(a)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, the State Government made temporary and ad-hoc appointments  of Junior Engineers on emergency basis. Such appointments were not made after selection by the State Public Service  Commission, which  was the prescribed method of regular  appointment. In  1975, with a view to regularise the service  of these  temporary and  ad-hoc appointees, the State Government  conducted  a  Special  Qualification  Test (SQT). It  was open  to the  temporary ad-hoc appointees who had put  in two  years continuous  service upto Ist January, 1973, to  take the  SQT. Those  who qualified were ranked in seniority below  those who  had been  regularly appointed as Junior Engineers prior to 18th August, 1970.      In  1976  the  ban  on  direct  recruitment  of  Junior Engineers was  lifted by  the State  Government  and  direct recruitment through  the State  Public Service Commission to the post  of Junior  Engineer was  resorted to.  Selections, accordingly, were  processed between  1978 and  March  1979. Before appointment  orders in  respect of those who had been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

selected could  be issued,  the State  Government,  on  14th September, 1979,  issued two  orders, being GOMs NO. 646 and 647. Under  the former,  the State  Government directed that the services of all temporary appointees appointed by direct recruitment and continuing in service as on 9th August, 1979 would be  regularized without subjecting them to any written or oral  test. Under  GOMs No.  647,  the  State  Government issued orders for regularization, thus:      "(i)  the   services  of  all  temporary      Government employees  who were appointed      by direct recruitment to any category or      post and are continuing in service as on      August 9,  1979  should  be  regularized      without  subjecting  them  to  any  test      written or oral;      (ii)(A) the  services of  all  temporary      employees in  all categories, other than      LDCs, Typists  and Steno-typists, in the      Offices of  the Heads of Departments and      Junior Assistants,  Typists  and  Steno-      typists in  the Secretariat,  should  be      regularized from the next date following      the  date  on  which  the  last  regular      appointment in that category was made in      the unit  concerned or  from the date or      temporary   appointment   whichever   is      later."       Direct  recruits of  the year  1978-79 challenged GOMs Nos. 647  in a  petition before  the  Andhra  Pradesh  State Administrative   Tribunal.   The   Tribunal   rejected   the challenge. This  Court was  approached in appeal. The appeal was  rejected,   but  certain  directions  were  given.  The judgment is  I.J. Divakar  & Ors.  vs. Government  of Andhra Pradesh &  Anr., (1982)  3 S.C.C  341. The  direct  recruits selected selected in 1978 were appointed and given seniority as directed in Divakar’s case. On 17th July, 1987, the State Government directed  that the  seniority of the year 1978-79 be fixed  above  that  of  the  temporary  appointees  whose services had being regularized under GOMs No.647.      The State  Government’s order  of 17th  July,1987,  was challenged  by  those  temporary  appointees  who  had  been regularized under  GOMs No.647 and the challenge was upheld. The direct  recruits of  1978-79 thereupon  filed a  Special Leave Petition  before this  Court. It  was heard along with Civil Appeals  that  related  to  disputes  about  seniority between temporary  ad-hoc Junior  Engineers on  the one hand and Supervisors  who had  been designated  Junior  Engineers upon graduation  on the  other hand.  The judgment  of  this Court is  in G.S.  Venkat Reddy  & Ors.  vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors., (1993)  Supp.(3) S.C.C.  425, and it was delivered, on behalf of  a Bench  of three  learned Judges  by one  of us. (Ahmadi, J.,  as he  then was).  The judgment  noted several earlier  judgments,  including  the  judgment  in  Divakar’s case.in paragraph  15 "15 of the judgment, a precise summary of the Court’s directions was given, thus :      "15. To  summarise: The  candidates  who      have entered service after after passing      the SQT shall rank immediately after the      regularly appointed  candidates who  had      entered service  before the selection of      the successful  SQT candidates.  Next to      the SQT  candidates will  rank those who      are governed  by this  Court’s directive      in the  last paragraph  of Diwakar case.      Thereafter the  seniority will  be fixed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    between  the  candidates  covered  under      GOMs No.647,  the  upgraded  supervisors      and the SC/ST candidates recruited under      the  Rule   22(e)  limited   recruitment      scheme- in  the light  of this judgment,      The judgment  and order  of the Tribunal      will stand  modified to  the  extent  it      concerns the  SC/ST candidates recruited      under the Rule 22(e) limited recruitment      scheme. If  as  a  consequence  of  this      modification readjustment  of  inter  se      seniority between  a candidate  governed      by  GOMs   No.  647   and  an   upgraded      supervisor becomes  necessary it will be      effected in  the terms of this judgment.      Fresh  orders   consistent   with   this      judgment may  be issued,  if  necessary.      Except  tor  the  modification  made  in      regard to  recruitment under the limited      recruitment scheme, the Tribunal’s order      is upheld."       No seniority list having been prepared pursuant to the judgment in  Venkat Reddy’s  case, the  appellants moved the Tribunal. To  this petition  before the Tribunal, The as-hoc temporary appointees  were impleaded upon their application. They  also   filed  an   application  before   the  Tribunal questioning the  placement  in  selected  in  1978-79  above themselves.       On  21st January,  1994, the State Government issued a provisional provisional  seniority list  placing the  direct recruits  selected   in  1978-79   above  temporary   ad-hoc appointees who were covered by GOMs No.647.       The  Tribunal, on  3rd March,  1994, called  upon  the concerned officers  of the State Government to appear before it to  explain the  parameters which they proposed to follow for preparing seniority lists. On 8th  March, 1994, the first of the two orders impugned in this appeal was passed. It stated that the Government Placed before the  Tribunal a  letter dated  7th March, 1994, which indicated that  the State  Government wanted  to "proceed on the basis  of the  judgment of  the Supreme  Court  in  G.S. Venkat  Reddy’s   case  for   preparing  fresh   provisional seniority list  ..... Without considering the implication of the presidential  order, The  general and  special rules and the other  judgments of  the Supreme  Court  and  any  other Judgments of the erstwhile judgment in this Department (sic) and  executive   instructions  of   the  Government   in   a comprehensive manner  it will  not be appropriate to proceed with  the  preparation  of  provisional  seniority  list  as proposed which may give rise for further controversies." The Tribunal  directed  the  State  Government  to  prepare  the parameters for  preparation  of  the  seniority  list  after examining this  material, the  initial organisation  of  the cadres, the  cadre strength,  the persons allotted that time and the vacancies that had arisen thereafter.       On 13th April, 1994, the second of the impugned orders was passed.  It referred  to a  statement of  the parameters which the  State Government  prosed to  adopt. The  Tribunal quoted apart of para 13 thereof, as follows :      "The summary  in  the  present  judgment      (Venkat Reddy,s  case) and  direction in      the Divakar’s  case as  explained do not      go together." The Tribunal  deduced from  this that  the State Government, Apparently, was  "facing  difficulties  in  reconciling  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

judgments of the Supreme Court". The  Tribunal considered it appropriate to  direct  material,  which    was  "basic  and essential", to  be placed  before  it  "for  commencing  and exercise for  preparing a  seniority list".  A list  of  the required material  material followed.  An interim  order was issued that  "persons appointed  in 1984 on the basis of the concession given  in Divakar’s  case are  not put  above the persons who are already in the list chowing the organization of orders  or appointed pursuant to SQT or GO 647 or limited recruitment."      It seems  to us  that the  Tribunal has    over-reached itself. As  aforestated, the judgment in Venkat Reddy’s case was delivered  by a  Bench of  three  learned  Judges  after taking note  of Divakar’s  case.  The  directions  given  in Venkat Reddy’s  cease  indicated  where  those  governed  by Divakar’s case  are  to  be  placed.  There  is,  therefore, nothing in  the directions which can lead to difficultly not is  there   any  question   of"reconciling"  the  sane  with Divakar’s case.  We find no Justification for the Tribunal’s directions to  the State  Government to  furnish "basic  and essential" material to enable it to commence an exercise for preparing a  seniority lest,  nor the earlier direction that the parameters  to be  followed in  preparing the  seniority lest should  be set  down  by  the  State  Government  after examining Presidential  orders, general  and special  rules, judgments of  the Supreme  Court other  than that  in Venkat Reddy’s case and other judgments.        The  orders  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Administrative Tribunal  dated   8th  March   and  13th  April,  1994  are, accordingly, quashed  and at aside. The State  Government is directed to  review the seniority list that  it has prepared to  ensure   that  it  is  in  strict  conformity  with  the directions  given  in  Venkat  Reddy’s  case  and  precisely summarised in  paragraph 15  thereof. This  seniority  list, after such  review, shall  be placed  before  the  Tribunal, which shall  examine it only with a view to ensuring that in accordance with  the directions  contained in Venkat Reddy’s case. The  only directions contained in Venkat Reddy’s case. The only  discretion it has in this behalf is that indicated in paragraph  of venkat  Reddy’s case,  namely, that  it may issue orders  consistent with  that judgment,  if necessary. The applications  pending before  the Tribunal shall also be disposed of  in the  light the  judgment in  Venkat  Reddy’s case.       The  appeal is  allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.