http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3368  of  2001

PETITIONER: T.ARUNA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE  SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/04/2001

BENCH: S. RAjrndra Babu & K.G. Balakrishnan

JUDGMENT:

Judgement Balakrishnan, J.

       Leave granted.

   The  Judgment of the Division Bench of High Court Andhra Pradesh  is  challenged  before   us.   The  appellants  and respondents 3 to 10 are now working in different cadres such as   Assistant  Secretaries,   Superintendents  and   Senior Assistants  in  Andhra  Pradesh  Public  Service  Commission (hereinafter  being  called "APPSC").  The  appellants  were initially  recruited as Typists and Respondents 3 to 10 were initially recruited and appointed as Junior Assistants.  For Junior  Assistants,  the  next  promotion  post  was  Senior Assistants.   Those  who were appointed as Typists had  also been  urging for promotion to the post of Senior  Assistants and  from 1978 onwards they were given promotion to the post of  Senior  Assistants.   Promotions to the post  of  Senior Assistant  from  the cadres of Junior Assistant  and  Typist were  in the ratio of 4:1.  However, promotions so made were not  supported  by  any  rules but were based  on  a  policy adopted  by  APPSC.   In 1992, APPSC decided that  inter  se seniority  between  Typists  and   Junior  Assistants  shall henceforth be fixed from the date of their first appointment and  the  ratio  for the purpose of their promotion  to  the category  of  Senior  Assistants was sought to  be  revised. Both  groups  of employees were given opportunity to  submit their  objections  and thereafter the seniority was  revised vide  Office Memorandum No.  2051/ADB/2/93 dated  30.6.1996. The   group  representing  employees   who  were   initially recruited  as Junior Assistants filed OA No.  4013/96 before Andhra  Pradesh Admn.  Tribunal for a direction to the APPSC for  implementation  of  the revised proceedings  issued  on 30.6.1996  and the rival group, namely, the appellants filed OA  No.  4172/96 challenging the proceedings dated 30.6.1996 relating to seniority.

   The  APPSC  filed  reply statement contending  that  the Commission  had earlier adopted a ratio of 1:4 in the matter of  promotions  to the posts of Senior Assistants  from  the categories of Typists and Junior Assistants respectively and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

that  procedure  was found to be incorrect as there were  no rules  supporting  such promotions,and that  the  Commission accordingly  revised the seniority list.  After hearing  the parties,  the Tribunal found that promotions to the post  of Senior Assistants were not being done in accordance with the relevant rules and the Tribunal disposed of the two OAs with the following directions:-

   a.   For  making  promotions to the category  of  Senior Assistants, the length of service in feeder cagetories i.e., Junior  Assistants  and Typists should be the criterion  for the purpose of promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and not the ratio of 4:1.

   b.   Junior  Assistants  with  3 years  of  service  are eligible for promotions to the category of Senior Assistants with effect from 12.2.1979.

   c.  Typists should have 5 years of service for promotion to  the  categoty  of Senior Assistants in  respect  of  the promotions  to  be made prior to 21.3.1984.  In  respect  of promotions  to  the  category  of  Senior  Assistants   made subsequent  to  22.3.1984, three years of service  would  be sufficient.

   d.   In  these  Oas,  the Tribunal has  only  laid  down guidelines  for the purpose of promotions to the category of Senior  Assistants  from  the feeder  categories  of  Junior Assistants  and Typists during the period from 1980 to 1992. The  inter  se  seniority between the  individual  employees recruited  to different categories through different methods of  recruitment  should  be fixed following  the  rules  and orders of the courts, if any.

   e.   Following the above guidelines, the promotions made during  the  period  from 1980 to 1992 to  the  category  of Senior  Assistant  should be reviewed and after such  review the revised seniority lists should be drawn and communicated to  the employees for making representations, if any.  After considering  the  representation, the final seniority  lists should be issued.

   f.  This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order.

   The  aforesaid  direction  issued by  the  Tribunal  was challenged  by  the appellants in W.P.  No.  18552/97.   The Division  bench  of Andhra Pradesh High Court  affirmed  the decision  of  the  Tribunal.  That  decision  is  challenged before us.

   We  heard  the Appellants’ Counsel Sri T.V.  Ratnam  and Respondent’s  senior Counsel Sri Raju Ramachandran and  also the Counsel for the APPSC.  The main contention urged by the appellants’  Counsel is that Jr.  Assistants and Typists are in  the  feeder category for promotion to the posts  of  Sr. Assistant  and  the  date  of  first  appointment  in  their respective   feeder   category   should    be   taken   into consideration  for the purpose of inter se seniority between employees of the two categories.  The appellants relied upon Rule  33(c)  of the A.P.  State Subordinate Services  Rules. But  this  contention  of the appellants is refuted  by  the respondents  and it is submitted that Junior Assistants  and Typists  are not equivalent posts and the qualification  and method  of their recruitment is also different.  It is  also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

submitted  that for the purpose of promotion to the category of  Senior Assistant, separate rules are applicable for  the two feeder categories.

   It  is true that both Typists and Junior Assistants have been  in the feeder category for the purpose of promotion to the  posts of Senior Assistant.  But it is not fully correct to  say  that  posts of Junior Assistants  and  Typists  are equivalent.  Minimum education qualifications prescribed for Typists is SSC/Matriculation, whereas for the post of Junior Assistant,   the   minimum   educational  qualification   is graduation.   For  recruitment of Junior Assistants, a  test consisting of four papers is prescribed, whereas for Typists one  has  to  pass  a test consisting  of  only  one  paper. Moreover,  in  Andhra  Pradesh Ministerial  Rules,  separate guidelines  have been provided for promotion from these  two categories.   Therefore,  it is idle to contend  that  there should  not  have  been  any distinction in  the  matter  of promotion  from  these  two categories to  the  next  higher cadre.

   In  fact,  the  relevant rules also  treated  these  two groups  differently for the purpose of promotion.  By virtue of  Regulation 12(3) of the APPSC Regulation, 1963, which is reproduced hereinbelow, it is made clear that Andhra Pradesh Ministerial  Service Rules would be applicable to  employees of APPSC.

REGULATION 12(3)

   The conditions of service of the members of the staff of the  Commission  shall, save as expressly provided in  these regulations,  be  the  same  as those  prescribed  by  State Government  in  respect  of   Government  servants   holding corresponding  appointments elsewhere than in the Office  of the  Commission.   The  provisions in Annexure-II  to  these regulations  shall apply to the members of the staff of  the Commission mentioned therein.

                                       ANNEXURE-II                                 [See Regulation 12(3)]

       1       (a)     The Secretary shall be:

(i)     XXX XXX XXX

(ii)    XXX XXX XXX

(iii)   The authority competent:-

               (a)     XXX XXX XXX

   (b)  To  make appointments, promotions and transfers  in respect of the posts of Superintendents, Assistants, Clerks, Accountants, S.C.  Steno, Senior Steno, Senior Steno, Junior Stenos  and Typists within the meaning of the Special  Rules for Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service:

                       XXX XXX XXX

   3(a)  A  member  of the staff of  the  Commission  shall ordinarily  put in a minimum service of three years, but  in no  case  shall it be less than two years in  the  category, class  or  grade from which he or she shall be  promoted  or appointed  by recruitment by transfer as the case may be, to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

the  corresponding  next higher category, class or  grade  - Stenographers  and Typists of the Commission shall  however, be  governed  by  Rule 5 of the Andhra  Pradesh  Ministerial Service Rules for promotion or appointment.

   From the above Rules, it is clear that Junior Assistants are entitled to get promotion to the next higher grade after completion  of  3 years’ service, of which at least 2  years shall be in that category, and the Typists shall be governed by rule 5 for the purpose of their promotion.

   The  relevant portion of the Andhra Pradesh  Ministerial [Service Rules, viz.  Rule 5 reads as follows:-

   5.   Promotion  and absorption of certain  stenographers and typists:- No member of the service shall be eligible for promotion  or appointment as the case may be, from the  post mentioned  in  column  (1) of the table below  to  the  post mentioned  in column (2), unless he has put in  satisfactory service for the minimum period and in the category specified in column (3) thereof.

                       THE TABLE

      (1)        (2)        (3) XXX XXX XXX

(4) Upper Division Stenographer Upper Division Clerk 3 yr service as Upper Division Stenographer

(5) Third Grade Stenographer or Typist, Or Steno-Typist who Has opted for Absorption in the post Of Upper Division Stenographer Upper Division Stenographer 5 years service as (Third) Grade Steno- grapher or Typist or Steno-Typist

   "28(a) Typists and steno-typists in the offices of Heads of  Departments  and Directorates shall not be eligible  for conversion  as  Lower  Division Clerks or for  promotion  as Upper Division Clerks and Directorates shall be eligible for conversion  as  Lower  Division Clerks unless  they  hold  a degree  of a University in India established or incorporated by or under Central act, Provincial Act, or State Act or any other equivalent qualifications.

   Provided that those appointed to these categories in the offices  specified  in this sub-rule prior to 31st  October, 1980 shall be eligible for promotion as Upper Division Clerk

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

or  for  conversion as Lower Division Clerk even if they  do not  possess  a  degree of a University but they  must  have passed  the  full  test(two paper test) held by  the  Andhra Pradesh  Public  Service Commission for recruitment  to  the post of Lower Division Clerks.

   (b)  Typists or Steno-typists shall not be eligible  for conversion as Lower Division Clerk or for promotion as Upper Division  Clerk  and telephone Operators for  conversion  as Lower  Division Clerk the Subordinate office, i.e.,  offices other  than the heads of Departments and Directorates unless they hold Minimum General Education Qualification.

   (c)  No  typists or Steno-typist shall be  eligible  for such  promotion  or  transfer before he  has  satisfactorily completed the period of his probation."

   From  these  Rules, it is abundantly clear that  Typists and  Stenographers  have  to pass the eligibility  test  for getting  promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and  they have  to  put  in  5  years’  service  for  the  purpose  of promotion.   The  appellants have submitted that  they  have passed  the  test  and qualified themselves  for  promotion. Admittedly, from 22.3.1984, the Typists also are entitled to get  promotion  to  the  cadre  of  Senior  Assistant  after completing  3  years  service.  The direction given  by  the Tribunal  which  is  affirmed  by   the  High  Court  is  in accordance with the relevant rules.

   The  Counsel  for the appellants urged that some of  the appellants  who were given promotion to the cadre of  Senior Superintendents  long back and subsequently to still  higher cadres  are to be reverted to lower category in view of  the directions  contained  in  the impugned  judgment.   It  was submitted  that promotions effected long back should not  be disturbed  as  they  were not challenged.   Admittedly,  the Commission  was  not following any rule and  the  promotions were  effected  based  on a policy.  No seniority  list  was either  published.  The affected parties got the opportunity to challenge these promotions only when a seniority list was published  in  1996.   Under the  above  circumstances,  the reasons  for delay, if any, cannot be put at the door of the respondents  who were seriously affected by the way in which promotions  were  being  done.  We are, however,  told  that seniority  list  has  now been finalised  after  giving  due consideration to the individual representation.

   We  do not find any merit in the appeal and the same  is accordingly dismissed, however, without costs.