http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 22  

PETITIONER: B. VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/08/1983

BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1108            1983 SCR  (3) 545  1984 SCC  (1) 645        1983 SCALE  (2)241

ACT:      (Andhra Pradesh)  Adhoc Rules,  1973 framed  in G.O.Ms. 939, Education dated 19-9-1973-Interpretation of-Rule 13(1)- Inartistically worded-must  be read  with Rule  3(1)  &  (2) otherwise this rule leads to disharmony.      (Andhra Pradesh)  Adhoc Rules,  1974 framed  In G.O.Ms. 502, Education dated 19-6-1974, Rule 6-Validity of.      Andhra Pradesh  State and  Subordinate Services  Rules- Rule 33(c)-Scope of.

HEADNOTE:      Pursuant to  tho policy  decision taken  by the  Andhra Pradesh  Government   in  1964  that  the  secondary  school duration should  be 10  years instead  of 11  years  and  it should be  followed by a two years’ intermediate course, the Government  decided   in  G.O.Ms.   1920,  Education,  dated 25.10.1968 that  in the  existing colleges  the  two  years’ intermediate course  should be  introduced and  laid down in G.O.Ms. 2063, Education, dated 25.8.69 the staff pattern and pay scales  of staff  m Junior  Colleges started for the two years’ intermediate  course.  In  G.O.Ms.  2186,  Education, dated 17.9.1969 the Government issued instructions regarding the absorption  of Post Graduate teachers in Junior Colleges on the  basis of  the Post-Graduate degree and the number of years of  service rendered  by them.  It was  stated in that G.O. that  all the  existing  Post  Graduates  who  will  be absorbed as  Junior Lecturers  in Junior  Colleges  will  be appointed temporarily as Junior Lecturers pending framing of adhoc rules  in due  course. The  Government ordered in G.O. Ms, 1147,  Education, dated  4.6.1970  that  in  the  common seniority list  first rank should be given only to those who have secured first and second class Post Graduate degree. On 19.9.1973 the  Government  framed  Adhoc  Rules,  1973  with retrospective effect from 1.8.1969 for the temporary post of Junior Lecturers  in Junior  Colleges. Rule  13 of the Adhoc Rules, 1973  says that seniority of Post Graduate Assistants appointed as  Junior Lecturers  shall be  a determined  with reference to  the dates  of their actual appointment as Post Graduate Assistants.  Rule 3 states that post-graduates with first or  second class  degrees are  to be  given preference over  Post-Graduates   holding  third   class  degrees.   On

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 22  

19.6.1974 the  Government framed  Adhoc Rules,  1974 for the temporary  posts  of  principals  of  Junior  Colleges  with retrospective effect  from 1.8.1969.  Rule 6  of  the  Adhoc Rules, 1974  prescribes first  or second class Post-Graduate degree for  promotion of  Junior Lecturers  to the  posts of Principals of  Junior Colleges.  Rule 8  of the  Adhoc Rules 1974 says  that a person who held the post of Principal of a Junior College immediately before 546 the issue of these Rules shall be continued as Principal and given option  either A  to continue in the post of Principal or to revert to his original post.      The appellants  in Civil  Appeals 1652-1659 of 1978 who were working  as Post-Graduate  Assistants and were first or second class  Post-Graduate degree holders were appointed as Junior Lecturers  in 1969.  Soon after the Adhoc Rules, 1973 were framed  the second respondent, Joint Director of Higher Education, prepared a subjectwise seniority list in 1974 and on the  basis of  their seniority in that seniority list all the appellants  except one  were promoted  as Principals  of different Junior Colleges. The first respondent State, under the directions of the High Court in a separate proceeding to prepare the  seniority list  as per  Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973,  prepared a  revised seniority  list in 1976 in which respondents 3 to 8, who were third class Post Graduate degree holders  and were  appointed as  Junior Lecturers  in 1970 and  1975 were placed as seniors to the appellants. The appellants   as   petitioners   filed   petitions   in   the Administrative Tribunal  for quashing  the revised seniority list of  1976 and  restoring the  earlier seniority  list of 1974 or  in the alternative for declaring that Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc  Rules, 1973 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.  The petitioners  contended that under the Adhoc Rules  Post-Graduate Assistants  with first and second class Post  Graduate degrees  should be treated as one group and as  senior to  Post Graduate Assistants with third class Post-Graduate degrees  The Tribunal  held that the seniority list of  1976 framed  as per  Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973  having   precedence   over   the   earlier   executive instruction is  valid and as the petitioners and respondents 3 to  8 belonged  to  the  same  category  of  Post-Graduate Assistants, there  is no question of violation of Articles I 1 and 16 of the Constitution.      The appellants  in Civil  Appeal 415  of 1979  who were working as School Assistants in Higher Secondary Schools and were third  class Post  Graduates were  appointed as  Junior Lecturers in  Junior Colleges  in terms  of Rule  3 of t the Adhoc Rules,  1973. Pending  the framing  of Adhoc Rules for the temporary  posts of  Principals of  Junior Colleges, the second respondent,  Director of  Public Instructions, issued proceedings dated  14.3.1974 promoting  under Rule 10(a) (i) of the  State and  Subordinate Services  Rules  seven  third class Post Graduate Junior Lecturers as Principals of Junior Colleges. The  appellants as  petitioners challenged  in the Administrative Tribunal  these Adhoc  promotions. They  also challenged the  validity of  Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 on the  ground that  it violates  Articles 14  and 16 of the Constitution.  The  Tribunal  held  that  Rule  6  does  not contravene Articles  14 and  16  of  the  Constitution.  The Tribunal found  nothing objectionable in Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974  which protects  the right  of third  class Post Graduate degree  holders who  had been  promoted under  Rule 10(a) (i)  of  the  State  and  Subordinate  Services  Rules pending framing of Adhoc Rules.      Allowing Civil  Appeals 1652-59  and  dismissing  Civil

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 22  

Appeal 415, ^      HELD: There is no need to quash Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973  which has  to  be  interpreted  in  the  manner indicated in the Judgment and 547 seniority has to be fixed accordingly. The seniority list of 1976 is  quashed and the seniority list of 1974 is restored. Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 is valid. [571 H, 572 A]      There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  Government intended by Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 to take away from First  and second  class Post Graduate Junior Lecturers the preference  shown to them over third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers  in the  executive instructions  especially G.O. Ms.  1147, Education,  dated 4,6.1970  and even in Rule 3(1) and  (2) of  the Adhoc  Rules, 1973. Rules 3(1) and (2) and 13(1)  have to be read together. Only then there will be harmony between  those rules.  If Rule 13(1) is read without reference to  Rule 3(1)  and (2)  the  consequence  will  be disharmony and  the first  and  second  class  Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers  who were given preference over third class Post Graduate  Junior Lecturers  will be  placed in  a  less advantageous and  inferior position  as compared  with third class Post-  Graduate Junior  Lecturers as regards seniority alone, which  will not  even help  them  in  the  matter  of promotion as Principals of Junior Colleges in view of Rule 6 of Adhoc  Rules, 1974  so long  as they do not improve their academic attainment  by obtaining  a first  or second  class Post-Graduate Degree.  Every rule in the Adhoc Rules must be given its  full, natural and legal effect. There is no doubt that Rule  13(1) is  inartistically worded  though when read with Rule  3(1) and (2) it would be clear that the principle laid down  in it has to be applied separately to each of the three categories  of Junior Lecturers mentioned in Rule 3(1) and (2). Each of these three categories forms a distinct and separate category.  The first category consists of first and second class  Post Graduates,  and on  their appointment  as Junior Lecturers  their inter  se seniority  has to be fixed under Rule  13(1) with  reference  to  the  dates  of  their original appointment  as Post  Graduate  School  Assistants. When  Post-Graduates  with  not  less  than  five  years  of service, working  as Post  Graduate  School  Assistants  are appointed as  Junior Lecturers  their inter se seniority has to be  fixed like  wise under Rule 13(1) on the basis of the dates of  their original appointment as Post-Graduate School Assistants. Similarly,  when Post-Graduates  with less  than five years  of service,  working  as  Post  Graduate  School Assistants are  appointed as Junior Lecturers their inter se seniority has to be fixed on the basis of the dates of their original appointment  as Post-Graduate School Assistants. If Rule 13(1) is interpreted in this manner, no disharmony will result from  applying all  the adhoc  rules. It  is only  by constructing Rule 13(1) in this manner the Government framed the seniority list of 1974. [569 D-H 570 A F]      The  object  of  achieving  excellence  in  educational institutions like  Junior Colleges  is a  laudable one,  and excellence  in   academic  attainments   of  heads  of  such institutions  is   a  relevant  fact.  Promotion  of  Junior Lecturers as  Principals is  based only  on merit  judged by their academic  distinction  which  cannot  be  said  to  be discriminatory. Prescribing  a first  or second  class  Post Graduate Degree  for the  head of an educational institution has a  direct nexus  with the object of excellence sought to be achieved,  and it  cannot be  said to  be discriminatory. Therefore, it  is not  possible to  hold that  Rule 6 of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 22  

Adhoc Rules?  1974 is  liable to  be struck  down  as  being discriminatory and illegal. [572 G-H, 573 A] 548      S. M.  Pandit v.  State of  Gujarat, 1972 S.L.R. 79 not applicable.      The promotion of seven third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers as  Principals were irregular having regard to the fact  that   even  for   appointment  as   Junior  Lecturers preference has  to be  given to  first and second class Post Graduate School Assistants. The irregularity has been sought to be overlooked by providing a saving clause by way of Rule 8 of the Adhoc Ruler, 1974. It is not possible to think that there could  have been any valid necessity to continue those adhoc promotions  made even after the Adhoc Rules, 1974 were framed within  about three  month of those promotions. There is no meaning in providing for the option in that rule as it is not  likely that  a  person  who  has  been  promoted  as Principal  would   voluntarily  opt  for  reverting  to  his original post  of Junior Lecturer. However, having regard to the long  lapse of time it is not desirable to declare those appointments as illegal. [573 E-H, 574 A]      Rule 33(c)  of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules  applies to persons who were transferred from one class  or  category  of  service  to  another  class  or category of the same service and would not apply to the fact of  the  present  case  where  Junior  Lecturers  have  been appointed  by   election  amongst   Post   Graduate   School Assistants in  the manner  indicated in Rule 3(1) and (2) of the Adhoc Rules and there is no question of transfer of Post Graduate School Assistants as Junior Lecturers. [571 C-E]      Reserve Bank  of India  v. N.  C. Paliwal,  A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2342 not applicable.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeals Nos. 1652 to 1657 of 1978      Appeals by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and order dated  the   31st  August,   1978  of   the  Andhra  Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Representation Petitions Nos. 595 and 985 of 1977 and 340, 289, 466 and 533 of 1978.                             WITH      Civil Appeal Nos. 1658 and 1659 of 1978.      Appeals by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and order dated  the   8th  September,  1978  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Representation Petitions Nos. 561 and 59 of 1978.                             AND      Civil Appeal No. 415 of 1979.      Appeal from  the Judgment  and  order  dated  the  31st August, 1978  of the  Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Transferred Writ Petition No. 941 of 1976. 549      M.N. Phadke,  M. R.  K Chaudhary, B. Kanta Rao and Miss Nalini, for the Appellants in CA. Nos. 1652-59/78.      S. N. Kacker and B. Parthasarthi, for the Appellants in CA 415.      T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer,      K Ramkumar  and Mrs.  J. Ramachandran,  for RR. 3, 5, 8 and 9 in CAS. 1652-59/78.      P. Ram  Reddy, and  G. Narayana  Rao for RR. 1 and 2 in CA. 1652-59 and 415 of 1979.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VARADARAJAN J.  These  appeals  by  special  leave  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 22  

directed  against   the  Judgments  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh Administrative   Tribunal,   Hyderabad   in   Representation Petitions  595  of  1977  and  batch  and  transferred  Writ Petition 941  of 1976. C. As. Nos. 1652 to 1659 of 1978 have been filed  against the  common judgment  dated 31.8.1978 in Representation Petition  595 of  1977  and  batch  in  which common issues  arose for consideration while C.A. No. 415 of 1979 has  been filed  against the  separate judgment,  dated 31.8.1978 in  Transferred Writ  Petition 941  of  1976.  All these appeals  by the  petitioners before  the Tribunal were heard together  in this  Court and  will be disposed of by a common judgment.      The main  judgment of  the Tribunal  in  Representation Petition 595 of 1977 and batch is in Representation Petition 595  of   1977  in   accordance   with   which   the   other Representation Petitions  in the batch have been disposed of as  stated   elsewhere  in   this  judgment.  Representation Petition 595  of 1977 was filed by seven petitioners of whom petitioners Nos  1 to 6 were working as Principals of Junior Colleges at  various places while the seventh petitioner was working  as   a  Junior   Lecturer  in  Government  College, Srikakulam in  Andhra Pradesh  and claimed  to be  ripe  for promotion as Principal of Junior College on the basis of his original seniority among junior Lecturers. We will refers to the parties  in these appears as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.      The seven  pettioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977  who   were  working  as  Post-Graduate  Assistants  or Headmasters in 550 the Zilla  Parishad Higher  Secondary Schools  at  different places were  appointed as  junior Lecturers  in 1969 as they were all  Post-Graduates who  had passed  in  the  first  or second class  with  50%  marks  and  above  and  were  fully eligible  for   appointment   as   Junior   Lecturers.   The petitioners’  contention  is  that  under  the  Adhoc  Rules governing Junior Lecturers they being Post-Graduates who had passed in  first or  second class,  should be  placed in the seniority list  above Post Graduate Assistants who hold only third class  Post-Graduate degrees.  The second  respondent, joint Director of Higher Education, Andhra Pradesh, prepared a subject-wise  seniority list  in 1974  as per  the rules,, placing the seven petitioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977  at Nos. 17, 15, 20, 21, 23, 40 and 41 respectively. On the  basis of  that seniority  Junior Lecturers  upto the rank of  40 in  that list  were promoted  as  Principals  of various junior  Colleges. The 1st respondent State of Andhra Pradesh, prepared  a  revised  seniority  list  as  per  the directions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 4358  of 1974  and Writ  Appeal No. 920 of 1975. In that revised seniority  list issued  in 1976  the petitioners  in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 have been placed at Nos. 380, 54,  390, 392,  406,  368  and  374  respectively.  The petitioners’ contention  was that  third class Post-Graduate degree holders who were appointed for the first time in 1970 and 1975  as junior Lecturers were shown in the said revised seniority list  as seniors  to the  petitioners  though  the petitioners had  all been  appointed as  junior Lecturers in 1969 itself  and were  regularised as  early as  in November 1969 and  under the  Adhoc Rules  framed by  the Government, Post-Graduate Assistants  with first  and second class Post- Graduate degrees  should be  treated as  one  group  and  as senior to  Post-Graduate Assistants  with third  class  Post Graduate degrees,  who should  be treated  as another group. The petitioners  in  Representation  Petition  595  of  1977

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 22  

prayed in  these  circumstances  for  quashing  the  revised seniority list  issued by  the  first  respondent  State  of Andhra Pradesh  on 27.12.1976  so far  as they are concerned and for  restoration of  their  old  seniority  as  per  the earlier seniority  list of  1974 or  in the  alternative for declaring that  Rule 13 (1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 dealing with seniority  of Junior Lecturers is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution      Rule 13  (ll and  (2) of  the Adhoc Rules framed by the Government under  Article 309  of the  Constitution read  as follows:           "Rule 13  (1)-The seniority  of a person appointed      under clauses  (i) and  (ii) of  sub-rule (l) of Rule 3      shall be 551      determined with  reference to  the date  of his  actual      appointment  as   a  Post-Graduate  Assistant  of  the.      probable date  on which he would have been appointed as      Post Graduate  Assistant but  for  his  appointment  or      promotion to a higher post;           (ii) The  seniority of  any person appointed under      clause (iii)  of  sub-rule  (1)  of  Rule  3  shall  be      determined with  reference to  the date of commencement      of his probation.      Provided that  no such  person shall  be senior  to any person appointed under clause (i) or (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3;      Provided further  that no  person appointed  under sub- clause (b),  sub-clause (c)  or clause (iii) of sub-rule (I) of Rule  3 shall  be senior to a person appointed under sub- clause (a) of that clause...."      Rule 3 of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 reads as follows: 4           "Rule 3  of Appointment:  (1) Appointment  to this      class shall be made as follows:      (i)  First by  appointment of  Post-Graduate Assistants           in Category  I-A of  Class II  and Selection Grade           Assistants in Grade I of Category 2 of Class II in           the  Andhra   Pradesh   Educational   Sub-ordinate           Service or  Headmasters of  High Schools and Post-           Graduate Assistants in Zila Parishads High Schools           and such of the Municipal Schools as are converted           into Junior Colleges;      (ii) Secondly,  if there  are no suitable and qualified           persons available for appointment under clause (i)           then  by   appointment  of   Trained  Graduates  a           possessing  Post-Graduate   Diploma  in   Physical           Sciences in  the scale  of pay  admissible to Post           Graduate   Assistants   immediately   before   the           commencement of these rules;       (iii) Thirdly,  if there are no suitable and qualified           persons available for appointment under sub clause           (i) or sub-clause (ii)- 552           (a)  by recruitment from among the Headmasters and                Post-Graduate   Assistants    in   recognised                Multipurpose  or   Higher  Secondary  Schools                under  private   management  or   under   the                management of  the Municipality which are not                converted into Junior Colleges; or           (b)  By transfer  from School  Assistants in Grade                II or  Category 2  in Class  II  and  Pandits                (including Hindi Pandits), Munshis Grade I in                Category I of Class III of the Andhra Pradesh                Educational   Subordinate   Service   or   by                recruitment  by   transfer  from   any  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 22  

              service; or           (c)  by direct recruitment.      (2)  Preference shall  be given  for appointment  under           clause (i)  or sub-clause  (a) of  clause (iii) of           sub-rule (I)(a):           (a)  Firstly to persons with first or second class                Post Graduate degree;           (b)   Secondly to  persons with a third class Post                Graduate degree with not less than five years                of service  as a  Post-Graduate Assistant  or                Selection  Grade   Assistant  in  the  Andhra                Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or as                a Headmaster  of a  Zila Parishad High School                or a  Post Graduate  Assistant  in  a  school                under the  management of a Zila Parishad or a                Municipality;           (c)   Thirdly to  persons with a third classs Post                Graduate degree  with less  than five  years’                service  as  a  Post  Graduate  Assistant  or                Selection  Grade   Assistant  in  the  Andhra                Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or as                a  Headmaster   of  a  High  School  or  Post                Graduate Assistant  in  a  School  under  the                management of  a Zila  Parishad or  a Munici-                pality....." 553      The Andhra  Pradesh Government decided in 1964 that the Secondary School  Education should  be of 10 years’ duration instead .  4 of 11 years and that it should be followed by a two-years’ Intermediate Collegiate education in the place of the then  existing Higher Secondary and Multi-purpose system commencing from 1969-70. Accordingly,     the     Government decided- in G.O.Ms 1920, Education, dated 25.10.1968 that in the existing colleges two-year Intermediate Course should be introduced in the place of one year P.U.C. The staff pattern and pay  scales of  staff in junior Colleges started for the two-year  Intermediate   Course  were   laid  down   by  the Government in  G.O. Ms  2063, Education, dated 25.8.1969. In G.O.Ms. 2186,  Education,  dated  17.9.1969  the  Government issued the  following instructions  regarding the absorption of Post-Graduate Teachers in Junior Colleges:           "In regard to the appointment of Post Graduates as      Junior Lecturers  in Junior  Colleges, priority will be      given to those who are in the scales of pay of Rs. 180-      350 and  who are suitable and willing to be absorbed as      per seniority as indicated below:           (a)  First or  second class Post-Graduates working                as Post-Graduate Assistants:           (b)  Third class Post-Graduates with not less than                5 years  of service, working as Post-Graduate                Assistants:           (c)   Third class Post-Graduates with less than of                5 years  of service, working as Post Graduate                Assistants.      and   (d)   Lastly Trained  Graduates  possessing  Post                Graduate  diploma   in   Physical   Sciences,                working  in  the  Post  Graduate  Assistant’s                scale.      It was  stated in that G. O. that all the existing Post Graduates who will be absorbed as Junior Lecturers in Junior Colleges will  be appointed  temporarily as Junior Lecturers pending framing of adhoc rules in due course. The Government ordered in  G.o.Ms. 1147,  Education, dated 4.6.1970 that in the common seniority list first rank should be given only to those who have secured first and second

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 22  

554 class Post-Graduate degree with 50 per cent marks and above. These G. Os. were all executive instructions.      There is no dispute that the petitioners are holders of first or  second class  Post-Graduate and  that the  private respondents 3  to 8  in Representation  Petition 595 of 1977 who have  been placed  as  their  seniors  in  the  impugned seniority list  of 1976  are holders  only third class Post- Graduate degrees.  The petitioners relied heavily I J on the above rule  3 of the Adhoc Rules, according to which persons with first  or second  class Post-Graduate degrees are to be given preference  over Post-Graduates  holding  third  class degrees and  contended that they should, therefore. be given seniority over  the third class Post Graduate degree holders in determining the inter se seniority in the cadre of Junior Lecturers in  Junior Colleges  as was  done in the seniority list prepared in 1974.      The contention of the first respondent, State of Andhra Pradesh,  was  that  the  executive  instructions  given  in Government orders regarding appointments of Junior Lecturers pending the  framing of Adhoc Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution ceased to operative once those adhoc rules were framed and  that under  Adhoc Rule 13 the seniority of Post- Graduate Assistants  of former  Higher Secondary Schools and Multipurpose Schools  with first,  second  and  third  class Post-Graduate degrees  and Post  Graduate diploma shall have to be  determined with  reference  to  the  actual  date  of appointment  as  Post-Graduate  Assistants.  The  Government denied that  Rule 13  (l) is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the  Constitution and  contended in the counter affidavit that the  Education Department  followed the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh  High Court in W.P. No. 4358 of 1974 and Writ Appeal 920  of 1975 and cancelled the earlier seniority list of 1974  and framed  the  revised  seniority  list  of  1976 according to  Rule 13  (1) of  the  Adhoc  Rules.  Thus  the Government opposed the Representation Petitions.      The Tribunal  has taken  note in  Paragraph  9  of  its judgment of  the fact  that the  petitioners arc  first  and second class  Post-Graduate degree holders while respondents 3 to  8 are  only third  class Post  Graduate degree holders correctly,  but  it  has  wrongly  observed  that  both  the categories of  Post-Graduate Assistants  have been appointed as Junior  Lecturers under Rule 3 (1) (i) of the Adhoc Rules issued in G.O.Ms 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973. It was not disputed 555 before us  that the petitioners being first and second class Post  Graduates  with  50  per  cent  and  more  marks  were appointed as Junior Lecturers in 1969 and that respondents 3 to 8  who are  third class  Post-Graduates were appointed as Junior Lecturers  only in  1970  and  1975.  Therefore,  the petitioners  and  some  of  respondents  3  to  8  had  been appointed in  1969 and  1970 before  the  Adhoc  Rules  were framed on  19.9.1973 and only some of the respondents 3 to 8 B were appointed in 1975 under Rule 3 (1) (i) of those Adhoc Rules. The  fact that  the  petitioners  were  appointed  as Junior Lecturers  earlier than  the respondents was conceded by Mr.  Shiv  Shankar  before  the  Tribunal  as  seem  from paragraph 8  of the  Tribunal’s judgment. The Tribunal noted the following further facts:-      (1)  That  Government  had  decided  in  G.O.Ms.  2063, Education, dated 25.8.1969 that first and second class Post- Graduates would  be given a higher starting pay of Rs 260 in in the  scale of  Rs. 200-500  and that  third  class  Post- Graduates would be allowed only the pay drawn by them before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 22  

they were appointed as Junior Lecturers in the above scale;      (2)  That the  Government expressed the view in G.O.Ms. 1147, Education, dated 4.6.1970 that in the common seniority list first  rank should  be given  only to  those  who  have secured first  or second class Post-Graduate degrees with 50 per  cent   marks  and  above  which  is  the  qualification prescribed for  direct recruitment  of Junior Lecturers; and (3) That  in Rule  3 (1)  (i) of  the Adhoc  Rules framed on 19.9.1973 it  is stipulated  that at the time of appointment to the  category of  Junior Lecturers  persons with first or second class  Post Graduate  degrees would  have  preference over persons with third class Post Graduate degrees.      But the  Tribunal relied  heavily on  the fact that the Andhra Pradesh  High Court  had directed in Writ Appeals 920 and 938  of 1975  that the seniority list should be prepared in accordance  with Rule  13 (1)  of the  Adhoc Rules,  1973 which have been given retrospective effect from 1.8.1969 and held that  the impugned  seniority list  framed as  per Rule 13(1) of  the Adhoc Rules having precedence over the earlier executive instruction  is valid  and that as the petitioners and respondents 3 to 8 belonged to the same category of Post Graduate Assistants,  there is  no question  of violation of Articles 14  and 16 of the Constitution as Adhoc Rule 13 (1) says that seniority of Post 566 Graduate Assistants  appointed as  Junior Lecturers shall be determined with  reference to  the  dates  of  their  actual appointment as  Post Graduate  Assistants  or  the  probable dates on  which they  would  have  been  appointed  as  Post Graduate Assistants  but for  their appointment or promotion to higher  posts. The  Tribunal has  observed  that  if  the intention of  the Government  was otherwise  they would have specifically provided accordingly. In this view the Tribunal rejected the  petitioners’  prayer  for  restoring  the  old seniority list  prepared in  1974 which  in its  opinion  is contrary to  Rule 13 (1) of the Adhoc Rules. Accordingly the Tribunal dismissed  Representation Petition  595 of 1977 and in view  of its judgment in that Petition either rejected or dismissed Representation Petitions 985 of 197? and 289, 340, 446 and  553 of 1978. In Representation Petition 273 of 1978 the Tribunal  observed that the plea of the petitioners that first and  second class  Post Graduate degree holders should be given  preference over  third class  Post Graduate degree holders in  the matter  of seniority  as Junior Lecturers is covered by  its judgment  in Representation  Petition 595 of 1977  and  that  since  the  petitioners  in  Representation Petition  273   of  1978   have  already   acquired  B.  Ed. qualification,  which   is  a   prerequisite   for   regular appointment as  Post Graduate  Assistants, the  question  of those petitioners’  regularisation  in  the  posts  of  Post Graduate Assistants  should be  examined in  accordance with the rules  and their  service should  be regularised in that category and  thereafter their seniority as Junior Lecturers should be  determined in  accordance with Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules.  In Transferred  Writ Petition 1246 of 1976 the Tribunal has  stated in its judgment that in the judgment of the High Court in Writ Appeals 920 and 938 of 1975, the High Court has  ordered that  a fresh  seniority list  should  be prepared in  accordance with Rule 13 (1) of the Adhoc Rules, that the  relief prayed  for by the four petitioners in that Writ Petition  has already been given and that Writ Petition is disposed  of accordingly.  The Tribunal  has ordered that Transferred Writ  Petition 78  of 1976  also stands disposed of, presumably  in  the  same  manner  as  Transferred  Writ Petition 1246  of 1976 was disposed of, without specifically

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 22  

indicating bow that Writ Petition is disposed of.      In Transferred  W.P. 941  of 1976 out of which C.A. No. 415 of  1979 filed  by 34  petitioners in  that Petition has arisen, the  reliefs prayed  for were:  (I) that  a  correct seniority list  based on  Rule 13  of the  Adhoc Rules  1973 should be issued in respect of all the Junior Lecturers, (2) that Rule 6 of the adhoc Rules framed in G.O.Ms. 557 502, Education, dated 19.6.1974, under which first or second class  Post-Graduate  degree  has  been  prescribed  as  the qualification for  promotion to  the posts  of Principal  of Junior Colleges  should be  struck down  as illegal  and (3) that adhoc  appointments of  seven third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers  as Principals  of Junior  Colleges made in the proceedings  dated 14.3.1974  by the  second  respondent Director of  Public Instruction,  Andhra Pradesh  should  be declared as illegal, Here also we shall refer to the parties as arrayed  before the  Tribunal for the sake of convenience as stated earlier.      The 34  petitioners in  this petition  were working  as School Assistants  in Higher  Secondary  schools  in  Andhra Pradesh.  They   were  subsequently   appointed  as   Junior Lecturers in junior colleges in terms of Rule 3 of the Adhoc Rules which  states that first preference for appointment as junior Lecturers in Junior Colleges should be given to Post- Graduate  Assistants   in  Category  I-A  of  Class  II  and Selection Grade Assistants in Grade I of Category 2 of Class II in  the Andhra Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or Headmasters or  High Schools and Post-Graduate Assistants in Zilla Parishad  High  Schools  and  such  of  the  Municipal Schools as are converted into Junior Colleges. The rule also provides that  preference should  be given  to persons  with first or second class Post-Graduate degrees. Rules 13 (1) of the Adhoc  Rules provides that seniority is to be determined with reference  to the  date of  their actual appointment as Post Graduate  Assistants or the probable date on which they would have  been appointed  as Post-Graduate  Assistants but for their  appointment or  promotion to  higher  posts.  The petitioners contended  that seniority  of Junior  Lecturers, which is  being maintained subjectwise, should be integrated and there  should be  a  combined  seniority  list  and  not subject-wise  list.   In  the  Adhoc  Rules  framed  by  the Government in  G.O.Ms. 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973 there were no rules regarding promotion of Junior Lecturers to the posts of  Principals of junior Colleges. Pending the framing of  Adhoc  Rules  in  that  regard  the  second  respondent, Director of  Public Instruction,  issued proceedings in R.C. No. 775-Cl/2/74  dated 14.3.1973 promoting under Rule 10 (a) (i) of  the  State  and  Subordinate  Service  Rules,  seven persons as Principals of Junior Colleges though they did not hold  first   or   second   class   Post-Graduate   degrees. Subsequently, Adhoc  Rules were  framed by the Government in G.O.Ms. 502, Education, dated 19.6.1974 under the proviso to Rule 309  of the Constitution with retrospective effect from 1.8.1969 558 regarding promotion  to the  posts of  Principals of  Junior Colleges. Under these Rules Junior Lecturers holding a first or second  class Post-Graduate  degrees who  have put  in  a service  of   three  years   as  Junior   Lecturers  in  the Educational Subordinate Service are eligible or promotion as Principals of  junior Colleges.  But Rule  8  of  the  Adhoc Rules, 1974 which is a saving clause, reads as follows           "Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules      a person  who held  a post  of a  Principal  of  Junior

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 22  

    College immediately  before the  issue of  these  Rules      shall be  continued as  Principal and  be given  option      either to  continue in  the Post  of a  Principal or to      revert to his original Post".      The  tribunal   affirmed  in   its  judgment   in  this Transferred Writ  Petition its  judgment  in  Representation Petition 595  of 1977 and observed that judgment would apply as regards  the interpretation  of Rule  13 in the matter of fixing  inter   se  seniority   among  Post-Graduate  School Assistants appointed  as Junior  Lecturers under  Rule 3 (l) (1) of  the Adhoc  Rules, 1973, and that seniority should be determined with reference to the date of appointment as Post Graduate School  Assistants without  reference to the nature of the Post-Graduate degrees, whether they are first, second or third  class degrees.  The Tribunal  held that subject to that  provision  regarding  fixing  of  over  all  seniority subject-wise seniority  can  also  be  fixed  and  that  for purposes of promotion to the posts of Principals the overall seniority in  the category  of  junior  Lecturers  fixed  in accordance with  Rule  13  of  the  Adhoc  Rules  should  be followed.      It was  submitted before  the Tribunal on behalf of the Government that  considering the  nature of  the  duties  of Principals there  is  a  reasonable  classification  between first and  second class  Post Graduate School Assistants and such  Assistants   holding  only  third-class  Post-Graduate degrees, and there is no contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the  Constitution in  prescribing first  and second class Post-Graduate degree  for Junior Lecturers to be promoted as Principals of Junior Colleges and that clear distinction has been maintained  between holders  of first  and second class Post-Graduate degrees  and those  holding only  third  class Post-Graduate degrees, and the former class of Post-Graduate degree holders  have been  given advance increments on their appointment as  junior Lecturers  while the latter have been given only the pay they were drawing as 559 Post Graduate  School Assistants when they were appointed as junior Lecturers.  It was also submitted before the Tribunal that academic  qualification is  germane in  the educational field  and   that  classification   made  on  the  basis  of qualification for  the post of Principal cannot be termed as discriminatory.      On a perusal of G.O.Ms. 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973 in which Adhoc Rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution have been framed by the Government the Tribunal found that  weightage is  to be  given for  first and second class Post-Graduate  degree holders  over third  class Post- Graduate  degree   holders.  The   Tribunal   accepted   the contention of  the Government  that in academic institutions excellence in  academic attainments is a relevant considera- tion and  that any  discrimination based  on  excellence  in academic attainments  has direct  nexus with  the object  of achieving excellence  in a  teaching institution and that it does offend Articles 14 and 17 of the Constitution, more . O when  third  class  Post-Graduate  degree  holders  are  not permanently  debarred   from  improving  their  standard  of qualifications  for   becoming  eligible  to  the  posts  of Principals of  Junior Colleges.  The Tribunal  thus rejected the second  prayer of  the petitioners that the prescription of  first   and  second   class  Post-Graduate   degree   as qualification for  eligibility for promotion to the posts of Principals of Junior Colleges contravenes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.      The Tribunal  found nothing  objectionable in Rule 8 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 22  

the Adhoc  Rules 1974  referred to  above which protects the rights of  third class  Post-Graduate degree holders who had been promoted  under Rule  10  (a)  (i)  of  the  State  and Subordinate Service  Rules pending  framing of  Adhoc  Rules which were actually framed subsequently on 19.6.1974.      On these  findings the  Tribunal dismissed  Transferred Writ Petition No. 941 of 1976.      Pursuant to  the policy  decision taken  by the  Andhra Pradesh  Government   in  1964  that  the  secondary  school duration should  be 10  years instead  of 11  years  and  it should be  followed by  a two  years’ intermediate course in the  place   of  then  existing  PUC  instead  of  the  then prevailing  Higher   Secondary  and   Multi-purpose  system, commencing from  the academic  years 1969-70  the Government decided in G.O.Ms. 1920, Education, dated 25.10.1968 that in the existing 560 colleges  the  two  years’  intermediate  course  should  be introduced instead  of the  one year  PUC, and  laid down in G.o.Ms. 2063,  Education, dated  25.8.1969 the staff pattern and pay  scales of  staff in junior Colleges started for the two years’  intermediate course. In implementing this scheme Post-Graduates Assistants  in certain  categories of schools were appointed  as Junior  Lecturers in Junior Colleges. The petitioners in  Representation  Petition  595  of  1977  and batch, out  of which Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978 have arisen -  and Transferred  Writ Petition 941 of 1976, out of which Civil  Appeal 415  of 1979  has arisen  and  those  in certain other  Representation Petitions and Transferred Writ Petitions 785  and 1246  of 1976  were appointed  as  Junior Lecturers. Prior  to their  appointment as  Junior Lecturers they were all Post-Graduate School Assistants or Headmasters in   various    schools.   The    private   respondents   in Representation Petitions  595 of  1977  and  batch  and  the petitioners in  Transferred Writ  Petition 941  of 1976 were seniors  as   Post-Graduate   School   Assistants   to   the petitioners in  Representation 595 of 1977 and batch and the private respondents  in Transferred  Writ  Petition  941  of 1976. The said senior Post-Graduate Assistants are all third class Post-Graduate  degree holders  whereas the said Junior Post-Graduate School  Assistants are  all  first  or  second class Post  Graduate degree holders. Based on their superior academic qualification  those first  and second  class Post- Graduate School  Assistants were  given priority and treated as seniors  to the  said third  class  Post-graduate  School Assistants in the seniority list prepared in 1974 after they were appointed  as  Junior  Lecturers.  The  petitioners  in Representation Petitions  595 of  1977  and  batch  and  the petitioners in  Transferred Writ  Petition 941  of 1976 were appoint ed  in 1969,  1970 and  1975 as Junior Lecturers. In Writ Appeals  1? 920 and 938 of 1975 the Andhra Pradesh High Court gave  directions to prepare a common seniority list of junior Lecturers  in accordance with Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules framed  by the  Government in  G.o.Ms. 939, Education, dated  19.9.1973.  Pursuant  to  that  direction  a  revised seniority list of Junior Lecturers was issued by the Govern- ment on  27.12.1976. In  the  seniority  list  of  1974  the petitioners in  Representation Petition 595 of 1977 had been placed at Nos 17, 15 20, 21, 23, 40 and 41 respectively, and on the  basis of  that seniority  junior Lecturers up to the rank of  40 in  that list had been promoted as Principals of various  junior  Colleges  and  the  seventh  petitioner  in Representation Petition  595 of  1977 who had been placed at No. 41  in that list was awaiting his promotion as Principal of junior College. But in the revised seniority list of 1976

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 22  

those petitioners have been 561 placed  at  Nos.  380,  54,  390,  392,  406,  368  and  374 respectively   and   the   private   respondents   in   that Representation Petition have all been 4 placed above them as their seniors. The seniority of the petitioners in the other Representation Petitions  in the batch was also disturbed to their disadvantage  in the  revised seniority  list of 1976. The  Representation   Petitions  were  therefore  filed  for quashing the  revised seniority  list issued  by  the  first respondent State  of Andhra  Pradesh in  1976 so  far as the petitioners are  concerned and  for restoration of their old seniority as  per the  earlier seniority  list of 1974 or in the alternative  for declaring  that Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973  dealing with  seniority of  junior Lecturers is violative of  Articles 14  and 16  of the  Constitution. The only question  arising for  consideration in  Representation Petition 595  of 1977  and batch  out of which Civil Appeals 1652 to  1659  of  1978  have  arisen  is  the  question  of seniority of  the Petitioners in those petitions (appellants in  Civil   Appeals  1652   to  1659  of  1978).  Though  in Transferred Writ  Petition 941  of 1976  out of  which Civil Appeal 415  of 1979 has arisen three reliefs were prayed for viz. (1)  that an integrated seniority list based on Rule 13 of the  Adhoc Rules, 1973 should be issued in respect of all Junior Lecturers;  (2) that Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules framed in G.O.Ms.  502, Education,  dated 19.6.1974  by which first and second  class post-graduate  degree has  been prescribed for promotion  of junior  Lecturers as  Principals of Junior Colleges should be struck down as being illegal and (3) that adhoc appointments of seven third class Post-Graduate degree holders as Principals of Junior Colleges made in proceedings dated 14.3.1974 of the second respondent, Director of Public Instructions should  be declared  illegal, Mr.  S.N. Kackar, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal 415 of  1979 confined  his arguments  to the  second  prayer alone viz.  the attack  on Rule  6 of the Adhoc Rules framed G.O.Ms. 502,  Education, dated  19.6.1974  which  prescribes first or  second class Post-Graduate degree for promotion of Junior Lecturers as Principals of Junior Colleges, which has been dealt  with by  the Tribunal  in  paragraph  6  of  its judgment in  Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976. We shall consider these  two questions  in this  common judgment.  We shall  also  consider  briefly  the  third  prayer  made  in Transferred  Writ  Petition  941  of  1976  which  has  been negatived by  the Tribunal.  We may  state  that  the  first prayer made in Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976 will be covered by  our  finding  on  the  only  point  arising  for consideration in Civil Appeals 165 to 1659 of 1978.      Mr. M.N.  Phadke, Senior  Advocate  appearing  for  the appellants in  Civil Appeals  1652 to  1659 of 1978 drew our attention to the 562 special provisions  in various  Government orders  which are executive instructions  issued before  the Adhoc  Rules were framed under  the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution on 19.9.1973  and to  some special  provisions made  even in those adhoc  rules showing preference and priority for Post- Graduate School  Assistants holding  first and  second class Post-Graduate degrees  over  such  Assistants  holding  only third  class   Post-Graduate  degrees   in  the   matter  of appointment as  Junior Lecturers  in Junior  Colleges and of promotion  of  Junior  Lecturers  as  Principals  of  Junior Colleges and  submitted  that  fixing  seniority  of  Junior Lecturers  holding  first  and  second  class  Post-Graduate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 22  

degrees, forming  one group and of those holding third class Post-Graduate degrees,  forming another  group, on the basis of the  dates of their original appointment as Post-Graduate School Assistants  is arbitrary  and therefore  the impugned seniority list  of 1976  should be quashed and the seniority of  the   petitioners  in   the   representation   Petitions (appellants in  Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978) fixed in the list  of 1974  should be  restored. But Mr. T.S. Krishna Moorty Iyer  Senior Advocate  appearing for  the  contesting private respondents  3, 5,  8 and 9 in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 to  1978 argued that before their appointment as Junior Lecturers Post Graduate Assistants holding first, second and third class  Post Graduate  Degrees were doing the same work and drawing  the same scale of pay. He submitted that though in G.O.Ms.  2063, Education,  dated 25.8.1969  it was stated that first  or second  class Post-Graduates  will be given a higher start  of Rs. 260 in the pay scale of Rs. 200-15-320- 20-500 and  third class  Post-Graduates will be allowed only the pay  drawn by  them before  their appointment  as Junior Lecturers in  the pay  scale of Rs. 200-500 if their pay was more than  the minimum of the new scale on their appointment as Junior  Lecturers, nothing  is  mentioned  in  the  Adhoc Rules, 1973 about salary, and this would show that under the Adhoc Rules no new service was created but only the previous service created  by the executive instructions was continued and that in alt fairness and justice the private respondents in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978 who had been appointed as Post-Graduate  School Assistants  prior to the appellants in those  appeals should be regarded as their seniors as had been done in the impugned seniority list of 1976 prepared in accordance with  the directions  given by the Andhra Pradesh High Court  in its  judgment in  Writ Appeals 920 and 938 of 1975. Mr.  P. Rama  Reddy, Senior Advocate appearing for the official respondents  in all the civil appeals supported the impugned judgment  of the  Tribunal saying  that the  first, second and third class Post-Graduate Assistants before they 563 were appointed  as Junior  Lecturers belonged  to  the  same class and  were drawing the same pay and doing the same kind of work and that seniority after their appointment as Junior Lecturers should be fixed on the basis of the dates of their original appointment  as Post Graduate School Assistants, as has been done in the impugned seniority list of 1976.      As stated  above, in  G.O.Ms.  2063,  Education,  dated 25.8.1969 Government  ordered that  first  or  second  class Post-Graduates will  be given  a higher  start of Rs. 260 in the new Junior Lecturers’ pay scale of Rs. 200-15-320-20-500 and third  class Post-Graduates will be allowed only the pay drawn by  them before  their appointment as Junior Lecturers in the  scale of  Rs. 200-500 if their pay was more than the minimum of  the  new  scale  of  Rs.  200-15-320-20-500.  In G.O.Ms. 2186,  Education, dated 17.9.1969 Government decided that all  the existing  Post-Graduate teachers  who will  be absorbed in Junior Colleges will be appointed temporarily as Junior Lecturers  pending framing  of  adhoc  rules  in  due course and  that in  regard to appointment of Post-Graduates as Junior  Lecturers in  Junior Colleges  priority will - be given to  those who  are in  the scale of pay of Rs. 180-350 and are suitable and willing to be absorbed as per seniority as indicated below:      (a)  First and second class Post-Graduates working           as Post-Graduate Assistants:      (b)  Third class Post Graduates with not less then           five  years   of  service,  working  as  Post           Graduate Assistants;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 22  

    (c)   Third class  Post Graduates  with less  than           five  years   of  service,  working  as  Post           Graduate Assistants;      (d)   Lastly, trained  graduates  possessing  Post           Graduate  Diploma   in   Physical   Sciences,           working  in  the  Post  Graduate  Assistants’           scale.      In G.O.Ms.  1147, Education,  dated 4.6.1970 Government reiterated the  aforesaid decision  taken in  G.O.Ms.  2186, Education, dated 17.9.1969 regarding priority to be given to first and second class Post-Graduates over third class Post- Graduates,  based   on  the   recommendations  of  the  Vice Chancellors’ Conference and stated 564 that they  consider that  in the common seniority list first rank should be given only to those who have secured first or second class  with 50  marks and above and third class Post- Graduates should  be given  rank  with  reference  to  their services viz.  those with  five years of service, working as Post-Graduate Assistants, next to the first and second class Post-Graduates, working  as  Post-Graduates  Assistants  and thereafter those  with less  than  five  years  of  service, working  as   Post  Graduate   Assistants.  Government  have observed in that G.O. that this manner of creating seniority is reasonable.  These orders  are all no doubt in the nature of executive instructions.      The Adhoc  Rules  were  framed  under  the  proviso  to Article 309  of the  Constitution with  retrospective effect from 1.8.1969 in G.O.Ms. 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973 for the temporary posts of Junior Lecturers in Government Degree and Junior Colleges in Andhra Pradesh. Rule 3 (1) and (2) of those rules reads as follows           "3.  Appointment:-(1)  Appointments  to  this           class shall be made as follows:-       (i)  firstly  by  appointment  of  Post  Graduate           Assistants in  Category I-A  of Clause II and           Selection Grade  Assistants  in  Grade  I  of           Category 2  of Class II of The Andhra Pradesh           Educational  Subordinate   Service,  or  Head           Masters of  High Schools  and  Post  Graduate           Assistants in Zilla Parishad High Schools and           such  of   the  Municipal   Schools  as   are           converted into Junior Colleges.      (ii)  Secondly,  if  there  are  no  suitable  and           qualified persons  available for  appointment           under clause  (i), then,  by  appointment  of           trained Graduates  possessing  Post  Graduate           Diploma in  Physical Sciences in the scale of           pay admissible  to Post  Graduate  Assistants           immediately before  the commencement of these           rules.       (iii) Thirdly,  if  there  are  no  suitable  and           qualified persons  available for  appointment           under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii):-           (a)   By  recruitment  from  among  the  Head                Masters and  Post Graduate Assistants in                recognised 565                multi-purpose   or    Higher   Secondary                Schools  under   private  management  or                under the  management of  a Municipality                which  are  not  converted  into  Junior                Colleges; or           (b)   By transfer  from School  Assistants in                Grade II  Category 2  in  Class  II  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 22  

              Pandits   (including   Hindi   pandits),                Munshis Grade  I in  Category I of Class                III of  the Andhra  Pradesh  Educational                Subordinate Service or by recruitment by                transfer from any other service; or           (c)  By direct recruitment.           (2) Preference shall be given for appointment      under clause (1) or sub-clause (a) of Clause (iii)      of sub-clause 1-      (a)  Firstly to persons with First or Second class           P.G. Degree:      (b)   Secondly to  persons with a third class Post           Graduate Degree with not less than five years           of service  as Post  Graduate  Assistants  or           Selection  Grade  Assistants  in  the  Andhra           Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or as           a Head Master of a Zilla Parishad High School           or as  a Post  Graduate Assistant in a School           under the management of a Zilla Parishad or a           Municipality;      (c)  Thirdly to  person with  a third  class  Post           Graduate  Degree with less than five years of           service as  a Post  Graduate Assistant  or  a           Selection  Grade   Assistant  in  the  Andhra           Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or as           a Head  Master  of  a  High  School  or  Post           Graduate Assistant  in  a  school  under  the           management  of   a  Zilla   Parishad  or   of           Municipality.           .....................................".      It is  not disputed  before us  that the petitioners in Representation. Petition  595 of  1977 and batch (appellants in Civil Appeals 566 1652 to  1659 of 1978) fall under the above preferred clause (a) and  that the  contesting private  respondents in  those appeals and  the appellants in Civil Appeal 415 of 1979 fall under the above clause (b) or clause (c) and they would have come  up   for  consideration   for  appointment  as  Junior Lecturers only  after those  falling under  the above second clause (a).  Thus, the  preference given to first and second class Post  Graduate Assistants in the matter of appointment as  Junior   Lecturers  in  G.O.Ms.  2186,  Education  dated 17.9.1969 has been maintained even in the Adhoc Rules, 1973.      As submitted  by Mr. T.S. Krishna Moorthy Iyer there is nothing in  the Adhoc  Rules, 1973  regarding the  salary of first and  second class  Post Graduate Assistants on the one hand and  of third  class Post Graduate School Assistants on the  other   on  their   appointment  as  Junior  Lecturers. Therefore, G.O.Ms. 2063, Education, dated 25.8.1969 by which first and  second class  Post Graduates  are given  a higher start of  Rs. 260  in the new Junior Lecturers’ pay scale of Rs. 200-15-320-20-500  and third  class Post  Graduates  are given only  the pay  drawn by them before their appointments as Junior Lecturers in the scale of Rs. 200-500 if their pay was more  than the  minimum of  the new scale of Rs. 200-15- 320-20-500 continues  to govern  the  matter  of  pay.  This position is  not disputed  before us. Thus, in the matter of pay also  first and  second class  Post-Graduate  Assistants who are appointed as Junior Lecturers are placed in a better and preferential  position than  third class  Post  Graduate Assistants who are appointed as Junior Lecturers.      Some  time   after  the  Adhoc  Rules  were  framed  on 19.9.1973, Government  framed Adhoc  Rules under the proviso to  Article   309  of   the  Constitution  in  G.O.Ms.  502,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 22  

Education,  dated  19.6.1974  for  the  temporary  posts  of Principals  of   Junior  Colleges  in  Andhra  Pradesh  with retrospective effect from 1.8.1969. According to those rules the posts  of Principals  of Junior Colleges form a separate class in  the administrative  section of  the Andhra Pradesh Educational Service, and appointment to that class should be made; (a)  by recruitment  by transfer from Junior Lecturers in the  Andhra Pradesh  Educational Subordinate  Service who have opted  or are  deemed to have opted to remain as Junior Lecturers, or  (b) by  recruitment by  transfer  of  Schools Assistants in Grade I and Deputy Inspectors of Schools Grade I  in  Category  2  of  clause  II  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh Educational Subordinate  Service.  Rule  6  of  those  Rules states that  no person  shall be eligible for appointment to this class unless he 567 holds a  first or second class Post-Graduate degree of M.A., M. Sc.,  M. Com.,  B.A. (Hons.),  B. Sc.  (Hons.), or B. Com (Hons.) of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a Provincial Act or a State Act or  institutions   recongnised  by   the  University  Grants Commission. This  rule which is impugned in Civil Appeal 415 of 1979  prescribes a  first or  second class  Post-Graduate degree for  promotion of  Junior Lecturers  to the  posts of Principals of  Junior Colleges.  Under this rule third class Post  Graduate   Junior  Lecturers   are  not  eligible  for promotion as  Principals of  Junior Colleges.  Thus, even in the matter  of promotion  as Principals  of Junior Colleges, first and  second class  Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers have priority  and  preference  over  third  class  Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers  who are  not eligible at all for promotion as  Principals  on  account  of  the  inferiority  of  their academic attainments so long as they remain only third class Post Graduates.      Now Rule  13 dealing with seniority of junior Lecturers reads as follows:-      13.   Seniority: (1)  The seniority  of  a  person           appointed under  clause (i)  and (ii) of Sub-           rule (1)  of Rule  3 shall be determined with           reference  to   the  date  of  the  actual  l           appointment as  a Post  Graduate Assistant or           the probable date on which he would have been           appointed as  a Post  Graduate Assistant  but           for his  appointment or promotion to a higher           post;  (2)   The  seniority   of  any  person           appointed under  clause (ii)  of sub-rule (1)           of Rule  3 shall be determined with reference           to the date of commencement of his probation;           Provided that  no such person shall be senior      to any  person appointed  under clause (i) or (ii)      of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3.           Provided further  that  no  person  appointed      under sub-clause(b)  or sub-clause  (c) of  clause      (iii) of  sub-rule(1) of Rule 3 shall be senior to      a person  appointed under  sub-clause (a)  of that      clause". 568      It was  submitted before  us that these two provisos to sub-rule (2)  of Rule 13 have been struck down by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.      The main question for consideration is whether in spite of the  aforesaid provisions  in the  executive instructions and adhoc  rules providing  for preferential  treatment  and position to  holders of first and second class Post-Graduate Degrees in  the matter  of appointment  as Junior Lecturers,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 22  

their starting pay and subsequent promotion as Principals of Junior Colleges,  particularly (1)  G.O.Ms. 1147, Education, dated 4.6.1970  in which  Government considered  and decided that in the common seniority list first rank should be given only two  those who have secured first or second class Post- Graduate degree  with 50  per cent marks and above and third class Post-Graduate  Degree holders  with not less than five years of service, working as Post Graduate Assistants should be ranked  next and third class Post Graduate Degree holders with less  than five  years  of  service,  working  as  Post Graduate Assistants, should rank next, and (2) Rule 3(1) (i) and (2)  of the  Adhoc Rules, 1973 according to which in the appointment of  Junior Lecturers  preference has to be given firstly to  persons with first or second class Post Graduate Degrees, secondly  to persons with third class Post Graduate Degrees with  not less  than five  years of  service as Post Graduate Assistants  and thirdly to persons with third class Post Graduate  Degrees with  less than five years of service as Post  Graduate Assistants,  Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules confers  seniority  on  third  class  Post  Graduate  Junior Lecturers over  first and  second class Post Graduate Junior Lecturers  based   on  their  earlier  appointment  as  Post Graduate Assistants.      There is  nothing on  record to show that while framing Rule 13(1)  of the Adhoc Rules Government intended to depart from  the   policy  earlier   enunciated  in  G.O.Ms.  1147, Education, dated 4.6.1970 as regards conferment of seniority on first  and second  class Post-Graduate  School Assistants appointed as  Junior Lecturers  and Rule 3(1) (i) and (2) of the Adhoc  Rules, 1973  as regards  preference of  first and second class  Post-Graduate  School  Assistants  over  third class Post-Graduate  School Assistants.  On the  other hand, the fact that in the seniority list prepared in 1975 so soon after the Adhoc Rules were framed on 19.9.1973 higher places were given  to first  and second  class Post-Graduate Junior lecturers over  third class  Post Graduate  Junior Lecturers although the  first and  second class  Junior lecturers were Juniors to the third class Post-Graduate Junior 569 Lecturers when they were all-Post-Graduate School Assistants would indicate  that the  Government who  framed  the  Adhoc Rules themselves  interpreted Rule  13(1) in  the manner  in which the  appellants in  Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978 invite us  to do,  giving full  effect to  the priority laid down in  Rule 3(1)  and (2) of the Adhoc Rules which follows the policy  laid  down  in  that  regard  in  G.O.Ms.  1147, Education, dated  4.6.1970. lt  is true  that we cannot base our decision  on this question on that fact alone especially having regard  to the  stand now  taken before  us  and  the Tribunal by  the Government as regards the interpretation of Rule 13(1) which perhaps they are obliged to take in view of the direction given by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeals 920  to 938  of 1975  which is  binding on  them  to prepare a  fesh seniority  list as  has been  done  by  them subsequently in 1976 which is impugned in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659  of 1978.  As stated earlier there is no material on record to show that the Government had any reason, policy or otherwise, when  they framed the Adhoc Rules, 1973 to depart from what they had decided in G.O.Ms. 1147, Education, dated 4.6.1970 about how seniority should be accorded. There is no reason to  think that  the Government intended by Rule 13(1) of the  Adhoc Rules  to take  away from the first and second class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers the preference shown to them over  third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers in the executive instructions  especially G.O.Ms.  1147, Education,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 22  

dated 4.6.1970  and even  in Rule  3(1) and (2) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973. As contended by the appellants in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978 Rules 3(1) and (2) and 13(1) have to be read together. Only then there will be harmony between those rules. If  Rule 13(1) is read without reference to Rule 3(1) and (2) the consequence will be disharmony and the first and the second  class Post-Graduate  Junior Lecturers  who  were given  preference  over  third  class  Post-Graduate  Junior Lecturers by  the other  provisions mentioned above, will be placed in  a  less  advantageous  and  inferior-position  as compared with  third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers as regards seniority  alone, which  will not  even help them in the matter  of promotion as Principals of Junior Colleges in view of  Rule 6  of Adhoc Rules, 1974 so long as they do not improve their  academic attainment  by obtaining  a first or second class  Post Graduate  Degree. Every rule in the Adhoc Rules must  be given  its full,  natural and  legal  effect. There is  no doubt  that Rule 13(1) is inartistically worded though when  read Rule  3(1) and  (2) it would be clear that the principal  laid down  in it has to be applied separately to  each   of  the  three  categories  of  Junior  Lecturers mentioned in Rule 3(1) and (2) viz. 1) first and 570 second class  Post Graduates, (2) third class Post-Graduates with not  less than  five years  of service, working as Post Graduate  School   Assistants,  and  (3)  third  class  Post Graduates with  less than  five years of service, working as Post-Graduate School  Assistants according  to the  order in which they  have to  be selected  for appointment  as Junior Lecturers. Each  of these  three categories forms a distinct and separate  category. The first category consists of first and second  class Post Graduate, and on their appointment as Junior Lecturers  their inter  se seniority  has to be fixed under Rule  13(1) with  reference  to  the  dates  of  their original appointment  as Post  Graduate  School  Assistants. When Post-Graduates with not less than five years of service working as  Post Graduate School Assistants are appointed as Junior Lecturers  their inter  se seniority  has to be fixed likewise under Rule 13(1) on the basis of the dates of their original appointment  as Post  Graduates School  Assistants. Similarly, when  Post Graduates with less than five years of service, working  as Post  Graduate  School  Assistants  are appointed as  Junior Lecturers  their inter se seniority has to be  fixed on  the basis  of the  dates of  their original appointment as  Post-Graduate  School  Assistants.  If  Rule 13(1) is  interpreted in  this manner,  no  disharmony  will result in  the consequences  of applying all the adhoc rules We think  that only  by construing Rule 13(1) in this manner the Government  framed the seniority list of 1974 soon after framing the  Adhoc Rules, 1973 by according seniority to the first and  second class  Post Graduate Junior Lecturers over the third  class Post-Graduate  Junior  Lecturers  who  were senior to  them when  all  of  them  were  working  as  Post Graduate School  Assistants before  they were  appointed  as Junior Lecturers,      As stated  earlier, before  the Tribunal  it was argued for  the  private  respondents  3  to  8  in  Representation Petition 595  of 1977  that the  prayer for quashing Rule 13 (1) of  the Adhoc  Rules has  to be negatived in view of the High Court’s  judgments in  Writ Petition  4358 of  1974 and Writ Appeals  920 and  938 of  1975 and  that it  is not the contention of  the petitioners  in that  petition  that  the impugned revised  seniority list  of 1976 is contrary to the directions given  in those  judgments. In  the view  we take regarding the interpretation of Rule 13 (1) there is no need

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 22  

for quashing  that rule.  It is true that the petitioners in Representation Petition  595 of 1977 have not contended that the impugned  seniority list  of 1976  is not  in accordance with the  directions given  in the High Court’s Judgments in those Writ Petition and Writ Appeals. The petitioners in 571 Representation Petition  595 of  1977  have  contended  that those judgments  relate to  the 1969  batch  and  that  they belong to  1960 batch  and would  not be  affected by  them. Whatever this  may mean,  it must  be noted  that it has not been contended  by the  respondents in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of  1978 that  the appellants  in  those  appeals  were parties to  those judgments and they constitute res judicata and are binding on them. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention of the private respondents in Representation Petition 595 of 1977.      Next it  was  contended  before  the  Tribunal  by  the private respondents  in Representation  Petition 595 of 1977 that they  were appointed  earlier as  Post Graduate  School Assistants than  the petitioners  in that  petition and were qualified to  be appointed  as  Junior  Lecturers  when  the petitioners in  that petition  were appointed  as such,  but were not  available for  posting, and that under Rule 33 (c) of the  Andhra Pradesh  State and  Subordinate Service Rules they are entitled to seniority. That rule applies to persons who were  transferred from  one class or category of service to another  class or category of the same service, and would not apply  to the  facts of  the present  case where  Junior Lecturers have  been appointed  by  selection  amongst  Post Graduate School Assistants in the manner indicated in Rule 3 (1) and  (2) of  the Adhoc Rules and there is no question of transfer  of  Post  Graduate  School  Assistants  as  Junior Lecturers. Therefore,  there is  no merit even in the second contention put  forward on behalf of the private respondents in Representation Petition 595 of 1977.      There is  no question  of this Court striking down Rule 13 (1)  of the  Adhoc Rules on the ground that any other rub which in  the opinion of the Court would have been better or more appropriate. Therefore, the decision in Reserve Bank of India  v.   N.C.  Paliwal(1)   relied  on  for  the  private respondents 3  to 8  in Representation  Petition 595 of 1977 before the  Tribunal is  not relevant. It is only a question of interpreation of Rule 13 (1) read with Rule 3 (1) and (2) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973.      In these  circumstances we  hold that Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules,  1973 has  to  be  interpreted  in  the  manner indicated above,  and seniority  has to be fixed accordingly and there is no need to 572 quash that rule and that the impugned seniority list of 1976 has to  be quashed  and the seniority list of 1974 has to be restored. It  would follow  that the  first prayer  in Civil Appeal 415  of 1979  regarding fixing of seniority as prayed for by  third class Post Graduate Junior Lecturers has to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected.      Coming now  to the  only point  argued  by  Mr.  S.  N. Kackar, Senior  Advocate for  the petitioners in Transferred Writ Petition  941 of  1976 (Civil  Appeal 415 of 1979) that Rule 6  of the  Adhoc Rules,  1974 prescribing  a  first  or second class  Post Graduate  Degree for  a Junior Lecturer’s promotion  as   Principal  of   a  Junior  College,  thereby excluding third  class Post-Graduate  Junior Lecturers  from eligibility for  promotion as  Principals, we  would like to state at  the outset  that the contention put forward before the Tribunal that the posts of Principals are administrative

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 22  

posts and  no teaching  experience is required is incorrect. The Director  of  Public  Instructions  has  stated  in  his Proceedings  Rc.   No.  1068/IC-4/70  dated  16.1.1971  that Principals of Junior Colleges must take at least six periods of work  per week  if not  more.  Therefore,  Principals  of Junior Colleges have to take up teaching work in addition to their administrative  duties. They  are administrative heads of Junior  Colleges where first, second and third class Post Graduates work  as Junior  Lecturers. They  have to exercise administrative control  over first,  second and  third class Post-Graduate  Junior   Lecturers.  I.   is  therefore  very desirable that  the Principals  should be  first  or  second class Post  Graduates. Post of Principals of Junior Colleges are gazetted  while  those  of  Junior  Lecturers  of  those colleges  are  not  gazetted.  According  to  G.O.Ms.  2068, Education, dated  25.8.1969 Principals  of  Junior  Colleges will have  the status of Senior Lecturers in Degree Colleges and their  pay scale  is Rs.  400-800 while the pay scale of Junior Lecturers  is Rs.  200-15-320-20-500. The  object  of achieving excellence in educational institutions like Junior Colleges is  a laudable  one,  and  excellence  in  academic attainments of  heads of  such institutions  is  a  relevant fact. Promotion  of Junior  lecturers as Principals is based only on  merit judged  by their  academic distinction  which cannot be  said to  be discriminatory.  The  ratio  of  this Court’s decision  in S.  M. Pandit  v. State  of  Gujarat(1) referred to  above cannot  be applied  to the  facts of  the present case.  Prescribing a  first or  second  class  Post- Graduate Degree for the head of an educational 573 institution has a direct nexus with the object of excellence sought  to  be  achieved,  and  it  cannot  be  said  to  be discriminatory. Therefore,  we do  not think  that Rule 6 of the Adhoc  Rules, 1974  is liable to be struck down as being discriminatory and illegal.      Pending the  framing of  Adhoc Rules  for the temporary posts of  Principals of  Junior Colleges,  the  Director  of Public Instructions  issued proceedings  in  Rc  775-Cl/2/74 dated 14.3.1974  promoting under Rule 10(a) (i) of the State and  Subordinate   Service  Rules  seven  third  class  Post Graduate Junior  Lecturers as Principals of Junior Colleges. The third  prayer in  Transferred Writ Petition 7146 of 1976 is that  those appointments  should be  declared as illegal. Under  Rule   6(ii)  of   the  Adhoc   Rules,  1974   framed subsequently in  G.O.Ms.  502,  Education,  dated  19.6.1974 three years’  service  in  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Educational Subordinate Service  is prescribed  as a  qualification  for promotion  of  Junior  Lecturers  as  Principals  of  Junior Colleges in  addition  to  a  first  or  second  class  Post Graduate  Degree.   It  is  not  known  whether  when  those promotions of  seven  4  third  class  Post-Graduate  Junior Lecturers as  Principals were  made first  or  second  class Post-Graduate  Junior   Lecturers  were  not  available  for promotion or  why after  the Adhoc  Rules, 1974  were framed within about three months thereafter those third class Post- Graduate  Junior  Lecturers  were  not  reverted  as  Junior Lecturers. Their  promotions were irregular having regard to the fact  that even  for  appointment  as  Junior  Lecturers preference has  to be  given to first and second class Post- Graduate School Assistants. The irregularity has been sought to be overlooked by providing a saving clause by way of Rule 8  of  the  Adhoc  Rules,  1974  where  it  is  stated  that notwithstanding anything  contained in  those rules a person who F  held the  post  of  Principal  of  a  Junior  College immediately before  the issue of those rules and who was not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 22  

appointed in accordance with those rules, shall be continued as Principal and he is given an option either to continue in the post  of Principal or to revert to his original post. We do not  think that there could have been any valid necessity to continue those adhoc promotions made even after the Adhoc Rules, 1974  were framed  within about three months of those promotions. We  think that  there is no meaning in providing for the  option in  that rule  as it  is not  likely that  a person who  has been  promoted as  Principal in the grade of Rs. 400-800  would voluntarily  opt  for  reverting  to  his original post of Junior Lecturer in the grade of Rs. 200-15- 320-20-500. However, having regard to 574 the long  lapse of  time we  do not  think it  desirable  to declare those appointments as illegal.      In the  result Civil  Appeals 1652  to 1659 of 1978 are allowed as  indicated above  and Civil Appeal 415 of 1979 is dismissed. The  contesting respondents in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659  of 1978  shall pay  the costs  of the appellants in those appeals.  Advocate’s fees  one set.  The parties shall bear their respective costs in Civil Appeal 415 of 1979. H.S.K.                   CA Nos. 1652-59 of 1978 allowed and                                CA No. 415 of 1979 dismissed. 575