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

PETITIONER: SUBBA RAO AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT,GOVE

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/02/1996

BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ) VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1489            JT 1996 (2)   756  1996 SCALE  (2)443

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar,      The petitioners  were  originally  employees  of  Zilla Praja Parishads  of various Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The  petitioners  are  the  children  of  deceased employees of  the respondents.  In or  around December  1983 they were  appointed by  the  respondents  on  compassionate grounds as  Watchmen  etc.  under  the  quota  for  deceased employees’ children  on a consolidated pay. In December 1988 they were  appointed as regular employees in the Zilla Praja Parishad on  a regular  scale of pay. In 1991-1992 they were promoted to the post of Junior Assistants.      In April  1993 a  show-cause notice  was issued  to the petitioners to show-cause why they should not be reverted to their Last  Grade Post since five years’ service in the Last Grade Post  is required  for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. The petitioners had worked for hardly three years in the  Last Grade  Post. The  petitioners  submitted  their explanation relying upon G.O Ms. No.627 of 21st of December, 1983. They  contended that  for promotion  to  the  post  of Junior  Assistant   the  minimum   qualifying  service   was ordinarily three years and in no case less than two years.      In view,  however, of  the  provisions  of  the  Andhra Pradesh  Ministerial  Service  Rules,  1966  as  amended  by G.O.Ms.No.589, dated 19th of November 1986, which requires a minimum  of  five  years  service  in  the  Last  Grade  for promotion to  the post  of Junior Assistant, the contentions raised by  the petitioners  were rejected by the respondents by an  order dated  29.5.1993 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioners were  reverted to  their  original  post.  Being aggrieved by  this order  the petitioners filed applications before   the    Andhra   Pradesh   Administrative   Tribunal challenging their  order of  reversion.  These  applications have been  dismissed by  the Andhra  Pradesh  Administrative

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

Tribunal. The  present petitions  challenge the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.      The question  is whether  the petitioners need to  have five  years’   service  as   Watchmen,  Attenders  etc.  for appointment  as  Junior  Assistants.  The  petitioners  have placed reliance  on G.O.Ms.  No.627 dated  21st of December, 1983.  This  Government  order  is  issued  by  the  General Administration  Department   in  connection   with   certain Special/Ad  hoc-Rules   relating  to   various   State   and Subordinate Services. It states that in Special/Ad hoc Rules relating to  State and  Subordinate Services  a provision is made to  the effect  that a  member of  the  service  should ordinarily put  in a  period of five years of service in the lower category  from which  promotion is  to be  made to the next  higher  category  in  the  same  service  or  when  an appointment is to be made by transfer from any other service (underlining ours).   The Government with a view to avoiding administrative difficulties  had issued  an Ad  hoc Rule set out in  G.O.Ms. No.85  dated 12.2,1979  reducing "ordinarily five   years in  the lower category" to three years of which at least  two years’  service was  required  to  be  in  the category, class  or grade  from which  promotion was  to  be made. As  the wording  of the Rule was considered defective, it was  decided to  make a  fresh Ad  hoc Rule in its place. Accordingly a  Notification (G.O.Ms.No.627)  was  issued  on 21.12.1983 framing an Ad hoc Rule superseding the earlier Ad hoc Rule  issued in  G.O.Ms.No.85 dated  12th  of  February, 1979.   The new  Ad hoc  Rule was  deemed to  have come into force on  12th of  February, 1979.  It is  to the  following effect:-      "Notwithstanding anything contained      in the  relevant Special  Rules  or      the Adhoc  rules for  the State and      Subordinate Services,  the  minimum      period of "Ordinarily five years of      service" wherever prescribed in the      said Rules  for  appointment  of  a      member of  services from  the lower      category, class  or grade,  to  the      next  higher   category,  class  or      grade whether  such appointment  is      made either  by  promotion  in  the      regular line  or by  recruitment by      transfer from  any  other  service,      that period  shall  be  reduced  to      "ordinarily three  years, but in no      case shall  it  be  less  than  two      years, in  the category,  class  or      grade from  which such promotion or      transfer is made."                       [underlining ours]      (N.B.: The  comma after  the phrase      "less  than  two  years"  has  been      added by  an amendment made in 1989      to clarify the position).      The Ad  hoc Rule  deals only with promotions within the Service and  transfers. It  applies to a member of a Service when he  is promoted  from a  lower post to a higher post in the same Service. It also applies when the appointment is by transfer from  another Service.  It does  not, however, deal with promotions/appointments from a lower grade Service to a post in a higher grade Service.      The Ad  hoc Rule  which replaces the Ad hoc Rule framed in  1979   was  promulgated   to   overcome   administrative difficulties. These  administrative difficulties  have  been

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

spelt out  in G.O.Ms.No.85  of  12.2.1979.  It  states  that persons satisfying  five years  of service are not available and hence  to avoid administrative difficulties and disputes it has  been decided  to reduce  the existing period of five years’ service to three years’ service of which there should be service  of a  minimum period  of two years in the class, category or  grade from  which promotion is made to the next higher category.      In the present case, the petitioners have been promoted as Junior  Assistants.  The  post  of  Junior  Assistant  is governed by  the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules of 1966. Under Rule 1 of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1966  the composition  of the  Ministerial Service is set out.  It consists  of the  categories of posts which are set out  in  that  Rule.  Category  10  consists  of  Junior Assistants in  the offices  of the  Heads of the Departments and  Directorates;   while  Category   11  includes   Junior Assistant in Subordinate Offices.      Rule  3  of  these  Rules  deals  with  the  method  of recruitment to the various categories of posts enumerated in Rule 1.  It also  prescribes the necessary qualification for recruitment and  promotion. By G.O.Ms. No. 589 of 19.11.1986 Rule 3  was amended  by the insertion of Sub-rule (17) which is as follows:      "Rule 3 (17):      33.3%  of   the  posts   of  Junior      Assistants in Panchayati Raj Bodies      are reserved for Record Assistants,      Attenders  and   other   equivalent      categories  who   possess   minimum      general  educational  qualification      and  who   have  put   in   minimum      services  of  five  years  in  that      category." This is  a specific  Rule inserted  in  the  Andhra  Pradesh Ministerial Services  Rules, 1966  by an  amendment made  on 19th of  November, 1986,  much later than the formulation of the Ad hoc Rule of 1983. This Rule specifically prescribes a minimum service  of five  years in the Last Grade Service as Record Assistants,  Attenders and  the like for promotion to the post  of Junior  Assistants in  the Ministerial Service. This  Rule  applies  to  the  petitioners.  It  is  a  later amendment which directly applies to the post in question and must prevail  over  any  general  Ad  hoc  Rule  promulgated earlier.      Rule 4(2)  of the  Andhra Pradesh  Ministerial  Service Rules which  deals with  promotion  within  the  Ministerial Services, provides that no member of the service shall on or after 12th of February, 1979, be eligible for promotion from the lower  category or  post to  the next higher category or post unless he has ordinarily put in a service for a minimum period of three years in the category from which he is to be promoted but  in no  case shall it be less than two years in the category  from which  such promotion is made". This Sub- rule (2)  has a  clear nexus  with G.O.Ms No.85 of 21.2.1979 and the  subsequent G.O.Ms.No.627  of  21.12.1983,  both  of which came  into effect  from 12th  of February,  1979. Rule 4(2) which  was brought  in by  G.O.MS. NG.189  of 22.3.1984 thus appears to have incorporated the Ad hoc Rule set out in G.O.Ms.No.627 of  1983 in  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Ministerial Service Rules. This clearly  indicates  that  G.O.Ms.  No.85 dated 12th  February, 1979 and the subsequent G.O.Ms. No.627 dated 21st of December, 1983 apply only to promotions within the Service,  of members  of the  Service. This  Rule has no application to  recruitments made under Rule 3 when they are

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

not by  promotion under  Rule 4  but by promotion from other lower grade Services. Rule 3(17) provides for recruitment to 33.3% of  the post  of Junior  Assistants in  Panchayati Raj Bodies  from   Record  Assistants,   Attenders   and   other equivalent categories  in the  lower grade  service who have put in  a minimum  service of  five years  in that category. Rule 4(2) does not apply to such recruitment.      In fact,  in Rule 3, wherever in any category of posts, there is  a provision  for promotion  under Rule  4,  it  is expressly so  mentioned. For example, Rules 3(1) first part, 3(2) and 3(11) are as follows:      Rule 3:  Method  of  Recruitment  -      Special:      (l) : Besides promotion as provided      in Rule 4, the first vacancy out of      every   eight    successive   clear      vacancies excluding leave vacancies      of Superintendents  in the  Offices      of the  Heads  of  Departments  and      Directorates  shall,  on  or  after      23rd December  1980, be reserved to      be   filled    by    transfer    of      Superintendents, Managers  or  Head      Clerks working  in the  Subordinate      Offices  under  the  administrative      control of  the concerned  Head  of      the Department  or the Directorate,      as the  case may be, or for special      reasons from  any other  service or      from any  other Department  in this      service.      ........................      3(2): Besides promotion as provided      in Rule 4, the first vacancy out of      every   four    successive    clear      vacancies, of  Senior Assistants in      the Offices of Heads of Departments      and Directorates  shall be reserved      to  be   filled  only   from  among      suitable Senior Assistants, working      in the  Subordinate Offices  of the      concerned Head of the Department or      the Directorate.  If any  person so      appointed   by   transfer   suffers      reversion. he  shall be reverted to      has parent office or Department:      ........................      3(11):   Besides    promotion    as      provided in  Rule 4, appointment to      the  post  of  storekeeper  in  the      Information  and  Public  Relations      Department shall  be made by direct      recruitment    if    no    suitable      candidate    is    available    for      appointment   by   recruitment   by      promotion or by transfer."      Rule 4  is not  mentioned in  respect of recruitment to the post of Junior Assistants. The contention, therefore, of the petitioners  that they  are entitled  to the  benefit of Rule 4  (2) or  in the  alternative, to  the benefit  of the G.O.Ms.No.627  dated  21st  of  December,  1983,  cannot  be accepted. Thus we uphold the conclusion of the Tribunal.      In  the  premises,  the  special  leave  petitions  are dismissed. In  the circumstances,  there will be no order as to costs.

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