05 September 1994
Supreme Court
Download

GOVERNMENT OF A.P.& ANR. Vs Y. SAGARESWARA RAO


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF A.P.& ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: Y. SAGARESWARA RAO

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/09/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (1)  16 JT 1995 (1)   134  1994 SCALE  (4)585

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                      ORDER 1.     Leave granted. 2.     Consequential to the reorganisation of the  Panchayat Raj  System  under the A.P. Mandal Parishads &  Zilla  Praja Parishads and Zilla Pranalika, Abhivrudhi Mandais Act,  1986 (Act  No.  31 of 1986) (for short the  ’Act’)  the  Governor exercising  the  power  under proviso to  Art.  309  of  the Constitution read with Sec. 28 (c) of the Act made the  A.P. Mandal  Development  Officer in A.P. Panchayat  Raj  service (executive  branch  )  Ad hoc Rules in  G.O.Ms.  No.3  dated January  3,1989 whereunder Rule 2 prescribed the  method  of appointment,  namely  appointment  to  the  post  of  Mandal Development  Officers  shall be made by  transfer  from  the categories,  namely, Superintendents working in Zilla  Praja Parishad    offices,   Divisional  Panchayat  officers   and Extension  officers  working  in  the  erstwhile   Panchayat Samithies,   under   G.O.Ms.  No.4  dated   January   3,1989 Panchayati  Raj  & Rural Development, a  committee  of  five members   was  constituted  to  select  the  candidates   by conducting special qualifying tests and prescribed the marks for   the   written   examination  and   also   viva   voce. Consequently number of persons came to be appointed, a  list of  which was attached to SLP paper book for Zone  III.  The list has been mentioned-in the light of the orders issued by 135 the   Government  in  G.O.Ms.  No.3  dated  January   3,1989 panchayati  Raj and Rural Development dated April  30,  1989 there  in  the respondent’s seniority  was  determined.  The respondents  filed O.A. in the Tribunal contending that  his scale  of  pay as an Veterinary Asstt.  Surgeons  (Extension officers)  was.  a  gazetted  post on  par  with  the  Block development  officer in the erstwhile  Panchayat  Samithies. This  scale  of pay was also the same.  He was also  in  the gazetted   cadre  and  that,  therefore,  when   the   block development  officers were absorbed and given  the  previous

2

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

service  the  respondents also should have  given  the  same benefit  to  him under Rule (for short  the  ’Rules’).  That contention was found favour with the Tribunal and it allowed the O.A.No. 38356/91 on October 1, 1993, Calling that  order in question the present appeal was filed. 3.      It  is contended for the State  that  the  Extension Officers  were subordinate to the Block Development  Officer and  that, therefore when the recruitment was made in  terms of  G.OMs.  No. dated January 3,1989 and the  Committee  had assigned  the order of seniority on the basis of merit,  the respondent  cannot be given seniority tagging  his  previous service and that, therefore, Rule 37(e) has no  application. Initially  the contention appealed but after looking to  the orders passed as regards Veterinary Asstt. Surgeons we  find that  there is no force in the contention.   The  respondent admittedly  stands  on different footing. In GOMs.  No.  2/9 Panchayati  Raj Department dated June 17, 1972 they made  an amendment  to the Rule and taken out the asstt.   Veterinary Surgeons  from  the purview of the Extensions  Officers.  In G.O.Ms.  No. 169 Panchayati Raj dated July 3,1973 the  posts of  Asstt.  Veterinary Surgeons had been made  Gazetted  and consequently  they have been taken out from the  purview  of the   administrative  control  of  the   Block   Development Officers.  In  consequence the Veterinary Asst  Surgeons  no longer  remained to be subordinate to the Block  Development Officer.  He  had  the  pay scale  at  par  with  the  Block Development   Officers.   Under  those   circumstances   the respondent  is  entitled to tag his previous  service  since admittedly  the  B.D.Os. were given their  benefit  and  the appointment  is by transfer though by process of  selection, Rule 33(c) of the Rule stands attracted. 4.     The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The  benefit  of this  order  cannot go to the  other  subordinate  Extension Officers  who continued to be subordinates to the  erstwhile Block Development Officers. 136