http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: C. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/11/1989

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1989 SCR  Supl. (2) 140  1990 SCC  Supl.  638  JT 1989 (4)   412        1989 SCALE  (2)1102

ACT:     Service Law: Andhra Pradesh (Roads and Buildings)  Engi- neering    Service   Rules,   1965--Rule   3(1)--Inter    se Seniority--Direct  Recruits  and  Promotees--Drawing  up  of list--Government  circular  dated  12.8.1988--Fixing  Guide- line--Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     Pursuant  to this Court’s direction in K. Siva  Reddy  & Ors.  v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1988]  Suppl.  SCC 225,  the State Government issued Circular dated  12.8.1988, fixing  the guideline for drawing up of inter  se  seniority list  of direct recruit and promotee Deputy Executive  Engi- neers  in Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service. This  Circular was challenged by the petitioners. Promotee Engineers, in  a Writ  Petition  filed in this Court, contending  that  since they  had put in continuous service of 6 to 7 years by  1982 and  their  services  had been regularised in  the  post  of Deputy  Executive Engineer in the year 1974-75,  direct  re- cruits appointed in the year 1982 could not, under any  law, be placed above them. Dismissing the writ petition, this Court,     HELD:  Promotees  had exceeded the quota  and  even  got regularised in respect of the posts in excess of the  limit. Taking  into consideration the fact that regularisation  had been  done  after  the promotees had put in  some  years  of service  and  disturbing regularisation  would  considerably affect the officers concerned, regularisation was not inter- fered with. This Court’s intention was not to take away  the benefit of regularisation in respect of the officers belong- ing  to the promotee group in excess of their quota but  the Court  did not intend to allow such regularised officers  in excess of the quota to also have the benefit of such service for purposes of seniority. [142-H; 143A-B]     A  reading of the judgment in Siva Reddy’s case  clearly indicates that this Court intended what the Government  have laid down by way of guideline. Therefore, there is no justi- fication to interfere with the Government direction.. [143B] 141     K. Siva Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &  Ors., [1988] Suppl. SCC 225, referred to.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No.369 of 1989. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).     K. Madhava Reddy, B. Rajeswar Mehta Dave and Ms.  Neelam for the Petitioners.     M.K. Ramamurthi, M.A. Krishnamurthy, Mrs. C. Ramamurthy, GVS  Surayanarayana  Raju in person TVSN Chari,  Jagan  Rao, DRK. Reddy, GVS Surayanarayana for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     RANGANATH  MISRA, J. Promotee Engineers of the  Roads  & Buildings Wing of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service are the  petitioners  in this application under Art. 32  of  the Constitution and challenge is to the Government circular  of 12.8.1988 (Annexure A) fixing the guideline for the  drawing up  of the seniority list pursuant to a direction issued  by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, decision whereof is reported  in  1988 Suppl. SCC 225--K. Siva Reddy &  Ors.  v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.     While  petitioners  are promotees, the  respondents  are direct  recruits.  Petitioners allege that they had  put  in continuous  service of 6-7 years by 1982 and their  services having  been  regularised in the post  of  Deputy  Executive Engineer  in the year 1974-75, direct recruits appointed  in the year 1982 cannot under any law be placed above them.     As  noticed  in Siva Reddy’s case  (supra),  substantive vacancies  in the category of Assistant Engineers had to  be filled  up from two sources--37-1/2% by  direct  recruitment and  the  remaining 62-1/2% by transfer of  Supervisors  and Draughtsmen  and  by promotion of Junior  Engineers.  Direct recruits had complained that notwithstanding this  prescrip- tion,  there had been no recruitment of Assistant  Engineers and the promotees from the other two modes had come into the cadre far in excess of the limit provided by the Rules.  The Chief  Engineer by his order dated June 8, 1984  regularised the  temporary  service of promotees of the  years  1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 in the cadre of 142 Assistant  Engineers (later designated as  Deputy  Executive Engineers).  They had, therefore, asked the quashing of  the regularisation  and  drawing up of a seniority list  on  the basis of the ratio fixed under r. 3(1) of the Special Rules. This Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment stated:               "Reopening of the question of inter se senior-               ity  on  the basis of non-enforcement  of  the               rules  from  the  very  beginning  may  create               hardship and that would be difficult to  miti-               gate but we see no justification as to why the               benefit  of the scheme under the rules  should               not  be made available to direct  recruits  at               least from 1982. When the State Government  by               rules duly framed prescribed the method of re-               cruitment and put the scheme into operation it               had  the  obligation to comply  with  it.  The               explanation  offered by the  State  Government               for non-compliance of the ’requirements of the               rules  does not at all impress us.  We  there-               fore, direct that as on December 31, 1982, the               State  Government  must  ascertain  the  exact               substantive  vacancies  in  the  category   of               Assistant  Engineers  in the service.  On  the               basis  that 37-1/2 per cent of such  vacancies               were  to be filled up by  direct  recruitment,

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

             the  position should be worked out.  Promotees               should  be confined to 62-1/2 per cent of  the               substantive vacancies and in regard to  37-1/2               per cent of the vacancies the shortfall should               be  filled up by direct  recruitment.  General               Rules shall not be applied to the posts within               the limits of 37-1/2 per cent of the  substan-               tive  vacancies  and  even  if  promotees  are               placed  in those posts, no seniority shall  be               counted. The State Government shall take steps               to  make recruitment of the shortfall  in  the               direct recruitment vacancies within the  limit               of  37-1/2 per cent of the  total  substantive               vacancies up to December 31, 1987 within  four               months  from  today by  following  the  normal               method of recruitment for direct recruits. The               seniority  list  in  the  cadre  of  Assistant               Engineers shall be redrawn up, as directed  by               the  Tribunal  by the end of  September  1988,               keeping  the directions referred to  above  in               view  ......  " With a view to implementing this direction the State Govern- ment came out with the impugned order dated 12.8.1988 marked Annexure ’A’.     In Siva Reddy’s case this Court found that promotees had exceeded  the quota and even got regularised in  respect  of the posts in 143 excess of the limit. Taking into consideration the fact that regularisation had been done after the promotees had put  in some  years of service and disturbing  regularisation  would considerably  affect the officers concerned,  regularisation was  not interfered with. This Court’s  intention  obviously was  not to take away the benefit of regularisation  in  re- spect  of  the officers belonging to the promotee  group  in excess of their quota but the Court did not intend to  allow such  regularised  officers in excess of the quota  to  also have the benefit of such service for purposes of  seniority. A  reading  of  the judgment in Siva  Reddy’s  case  clearly indicates that this Court intended what the Government  have laid  down by way of guideline. We see no  justification  to interfere  with the Government direction. A draft  seniority list  on the basis of such direction has already been  drawn up and has been circulated. We are told that objections have been received and would be dealt with in usual course by the appropriate authorities. This writ petition had been  enter- tained in view of the allegation that the Government  direc- tion  was  on a misconception of what was indicated  in  the judgment  and  in case there was any such mistake  the  same should be rectified at the earliest. Now that we have  found that the Government order is in accord with the Court direc- tion,  this writ petition must be dismissed  and  individual grievances, if any, against the draft seniority list  would, we  hope, be considered on the basis of objections filed  by the competent authority. There shall be no order as to costs. N.P.V.                                Petition dismissed. 144