http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4799-4844 1997

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: A.P.JAISWAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/12/2000

BENCH: U.C.Banerjee, S N Hegde, G.B.Pattanaik

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J       J U D G M E N T

     SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

     The   State  of  Andhra   Pradesh  was  formed  w.e.f. 1.11.1956  by  the integration of erstwhile State of  Andhra and  the erstwhile State of Hyderabad.  The constitution  of the  new  State of Andhra Pradesh with the merger  of  civil service  belonging to the two erstwhile States paved way for disputes  between  the  civil servants of  the  two  merging States  and  the  present appeals are a group  of  one  such continuing  dispute  which  has not yet  found  a  solution. These  appeals involve the claim of the Engineers  belonging to  the Departments of Public Works of the two States.   The dispute   in  particular  pertains   to  the   retrospective regularisation  of service of the Engineers belonging to the former   State  of  Andhra  in   the  cadre   of   Assistant Engineers/Supervisors  etc.   as also the equation of  posts then  existing  in the said Engineering services of the  two States.  Dozens of petitions filed before the High Court and the  Service Tribunal, and over half a dozen visits to  this Court  did not finally conclude the pending dispute  between the  parties.  Consequently, the seniority/gradation list of these  officers  could not be finalised and  the  respective seniority  of  the  officers   remained  nebulous.   Ad  hoc promotions   given   on  the   basis  of   various   interim arrangements  added to the heartburn of the officers.  Thus, even  after  a  lapse  of over four  decades,  the  officers concerned are in the portals of this Court.  Though in their judgments  the  tribunals  and the  courts  have  repeatedly blamed the State and the Central Government for the delay in finalising  the seniority/gradation list, fact still remains that  every attempt to finalise such list, though belatedly, could  not  succeed  because  of  the  intervening  judicial orders.   The blame for this protracted litigation should be shared  by  everyone  concerned  equally.  It  will  be  our

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

endeavour  in  these  appeals to finalise  all  the  pending disputes between this group of litigants once and for all.

     For  the purpose of disposal of these appeals, it  may not  be  necessary  for  us to trace  the  history  of  this litigation  in its entirety.  Suffice it to say that on  the formation  of  the new State of Andhra Pradesh, a number  of Engineers  who  were  then  holding the  post  of  Assistant Engineers/Supervisors  temporarily stood transferred to  the new  State.  It is the contention of the Engineers from  the erstwhile  State  of Andhra that though they were  regularly appointed  to  clear vacancies, orders as to  their  regular appointment  were  delayed  by  the  Administration  due  to administrative  exigencies and for no fault of theirs, hence ultimately  when their services were regularised, they  were entitled  to count their seniority in the initial grade from the  date of their original appointment and consequently  in the  promoted  cadres  also.   While the  Engineers  of  the erstwhile   Hyderabad  State  (to   be   called   Telangana Engineers)  contend  that  these Engineers of  Andhra  were never appointed regularly, their appointments were temporary and  fortuitous, hence they were not entitled to count their seniority on the basis of their initial service i.e.  on the basis  of  their  date  of  initial  appointment  and  their seniority  could  be counted only from the date  from  which their  services were regularised by the successor State, and also  it was the contention of the Telangana Engineers  that the post of Sub-Engineer in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad is equivalent to the post of Assistant Engineer of Andhra.

     The  State  of Andhra Pradesh and the Union  of  India took  different decisions at different stages and ultimately in  the course of the litigation, the matter came up  before this  Court when the aggrieved party challenged the order of the  tribunal  dated  27.6.1980, and this Court as  per  its decision dated 5.2.1981 gave the following directions :

     (1)  The  Central Government will consider the  rival contention  of  Andhra  Officers and Telangana  Officers  to whether the services of the Andhra Officers were on stop-gap and fortuitous arrangements.

     (2) The Central Government will have to decide whether the  regularisation  of promotions of Andhra  Engineers  and relaxation  of  Rules had retrospective  regularisation  was permissible.

     (3)  Whether  the   retrospective  regularisation  and relaxation  of  rules  will  amount to  any  change  in  the conditions  of service or will result in denial of fair  and equitable treatment to any of the officers affected thereby. The  Central  Government will reach a decision afresh  after affording  an  opportunity  to the  officers  concerned  and submit  its  findings  with reasons thereof  to  this  Court within two months.

     As  directed by this Court in the abovesaid  decision, the  Central Government after hearing the officers concerned submitted  a report to this Court dated 10.7.1981 and  after considering  the said report, this Court took the view  that the  pending civil appeals could not be decided by it unless the  parties concerned were given an opportunity of  placing the   respective  contentions   before  the   Administrative Tribunal  and  also  came to the conclusion that  since  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

tribunal  while passing the impugned order, did not have the benefit  of  the finding of the Central Government, it  felt that  it could be eminently just and proper to set aside the judgment  of the Administrative Tribunal dated 27.6.1986 and remand  the  matter to the said tribunal for fresh  decision and  while  doing so this Court specifically stated that  it was  not  expressing  any opinion as to the  correctness  or otherwise  of the finding reached by the Central  Government or  on the merits of the case or even on the judgment of the tribunal  which  was  under  appeal.  It thus  left  to  the tribunal  to re-examine the correctness or otherwise of  all issues including the finding given by the Central Government dated 10.7.1981.  It further directed the tribunal to afford all  opportunities  to the parties concerned to place  their respective  claims and contentions on merits in the form  of additional  pleadings with respect to the latest decision of the Central Government.  Thus, the ball was transferred once again  to the tribunal.  On remand, the tribunal took up for consideration  the matter all over again in R.P.   No.910/77 and  other  connected matters.  In this bout of  litigation, the   tribunal  framed  the   following  questions  for  its consideration :

     The main points on which there is controversy between Andhra and Telangana Region Officers are as follows:

     (A) Whether appointments of the Andhra Engineers under Rule  10(a)(i)(1)  of  Madras/Andhra State  and  Subordinate Service  Rules  prior  to  1.11.1956  were  a  stop-gap  and fortuitous arrangement;

     (B)  Whether the retrospective regularisation of the services  of  the Andhra Engineers referred to in  item  (A) ordered by the Andhra Government after 1.11.1956 was valid;

     (C)  Whether  those  of  the  Andhra  Engineers  whose services  were  so  regularised could be  allowed  to  count temporary  service as Junior Engineers, Draughtsmen for  the purpose of eligibility to be promoted as Assistant Engineers as  required  in Rule 5 of the Special Rules for the  Madras Engineering  Service and where the claim that Rule 6 of  the Special  Rules  which  authorised the  State  Government  to promote  officers  who had not completed 5 years service  as Junior  Engineers  could  be availed of in the case  of  the concerned Andhra Engineers;

     (D)  The  Telangana Officers have also questioned  the final  decision of the Central Government on the question of equation of posts.

     The  question  of regularisation of  temporary  Andhra Engineers transferred to the new State of Andhra Pradesh was discussed  by the tribunal in this round of litigation  with regard  to all its facets as it was argued before it and  in regard  to the points which arose for its consideration, the tribunal  considered  the arguments elaborately and came  to the  following conclusion and issued appropriate  directions :-

     To  sum  up,  our  findings  on  the  various  issues discussed  earlier  in  this part are as  follows:   (1)  As regard  the question whether the appointments of the  Andhra Officers  who  were  appointed  temporarily  under  Rule  10

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

(a)(i)(1) of the Madras/Andhra State and Subordinate Service Rules were a stop-gap and fortuitous arrangements, it is our opinion   that  the  temporary   appointments  made   before 1.11.1956  of  only  those  officers   who  were  not  fully qualified  for  appointment by 1.11.1956 and in whose  case, therefore,  it  would not have been possible for  the  State Government  without  relaxation  of the  rules  relating  to probation  and length of service to make a reference to  the Public  Service Commission before 1.11.1956 for approval  of their  temporary  appointments, should be treated as  having been  made  as  a stop-gap or  fortuitous  arrangement.   We consider that the findings of the Central Government in this respect should be implemented with the modification that the services  of  those Andhra Officers who  had  satisfactorily completed  their probation and also had the required  length of  service  in  lower rank before 1.11.1956 should  not  be treated  as  having  been made as a stop-gap  or  fortuitous appointment  even  if  the approval for the  Public  Service Commission  had  not  been  obtained in  their  case  before 1.11.1956.    The  common  gradation   lists  of   Assistant Engineers,  Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers should be finalised on the basis of the Central Governments finding with the modification mentioned above.  If there are any gaps in the period of temporary service before 1.11.1956 and  if  on examination of such gaps it is  discovered  that they  were due to reasons which could show that the  earlier period of appointment was purely stop-gap or fortuitous then such  earlier  periods  should be excluded from  the  period which  could be counted for seniority.  (2) We consider that the  retrospective regularisation by the State Government of the  services  put in by the Andhra Engineers who  had  been appointed   temporarily   under   Rule  10(a)(i)(1)   before 1.11.1956  should  be treated as provisional and  should  be reviewed  after  the  finalisation of the  common  gradation lists  in  the manner stated above and if it  is  discovered that  any particular Telangana Officers are entitled, on the basis  of their seniority in the common gradation lists,  to be  considered  for appointment to any vacancies  which  had occurred  before  1.11.1956,  the  State  Government  should revise  the  retrospective  regularisation   orders  of  the concerned  Andhra  Officers  so  as to  make  room  for  the Telangana  Officers who might have any claim to be appointed in  such  vacancies.   (3) We are of the  opinion  that  the Central  Governments  finding  that   for  the  purpose  of counting  the  minimum necessary service in the  lower  rank required  for  acquiring eligibility to be promoted  to  the next  higher  rank, only regular service in the  lower  rank should  be  taken into consideration is quite equitable  and fair.  We also consider that the provisions of Rule 6 of the Special  Rules,  which permits the State Government to  make appointments  to  the  posts of Asst.   Engineers  of  those persons  who had not satisfied the requirements of Rule 5 of the  Special  Rules is only enabling provision and does  not make  the  provisions of Rule 5 redundant.  Hence, it  would not  be  correct  to  state  that  all  those  appointed  as Assistant  Engineers  without satisfying the requirement  of Rule  5 could be treated as having been appointed under Rule 6.   (4) We consider that in regard to the equation of posts the  decision  of the Central Government does not  need  any re-examination.

     While  coming to this conclusion, it observed that all services  under  Rule 10(a)(i)(1) are not necessarily  of  a stop  gap  and  fortuitous  nature  although  initially  the appointments  in  some  cases may have been intended  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

temporary  in  nature  and the  concerned  authorities  have subsequently  examined  the  nature of  service  during  the period  in  which  a person held the appointment  under  the abovesaid  Rule and have regularised such portions of  their services as is considered by them to be neither stop-gap nor fortuitous.   It  also held that it is quite clear that  the temporary  appointment  of Andhra officers before  1.11.1956 could  not  have  been  a part of  stop  gap  or  fortuitous arrangement  because the arrangement was in most case, of  a long  term  nature and that it is clear that the  length  of service  put  in by the Andhra officers in any  category  in consequence  of the temporary appointments before  1.11.1956 cannot be summarily excluded for the purpose of counting the length of continuous service put in by them in that category as   being  made  in  a   purely  stop  gap  or   fortuitous arrangement.   It  further  held  that in  its  opinion  the temporary  appointments  of  all   Andhra  officers  who  by 1.11.1956  had  satisfied all the requirements of the  Rules regarding  compulsory completion of probation and completion of length of service in the lower rank have to be treated as not   having  been  made  as  a  stop  gap   or   fortuitous arrangement.  In regard to the equation of posts, it came to the  conclusion  that  the  said   exercise  is  purely   an administrative  function  and in the ordinary course, it  is not  open  to the court to consider whether the equation  of posts made by the Central Government is right or wrong.  The area  available for judicial interference in such  executive action,  according to the tribunal, was to find out  whether the  four  principles agreed upon at the Chief  Secretaries Conference  have  been properly taken into account  or  not. Apart from this narrow area, it held that the courts have no jurisdiction  to  re-assess the decision arrived at  by  the Central  Government, thus upheld the equation undertaken  by the Central Government.

     It  also  rejected  the   argument  of  the  Telangana Engineers that by retrospective regularisation of the Andhra officers, there has been any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of  the  Constitution,  and  further  held  that  the  State Government  concerned  was  competent  to  issue  the   said regularisation  order as per the prevailing Rules.  It  also rejected  the contention of the Telangana Engineers that the act  of regularisation of Andhra officers was opposed to the States  Reorganisation  Act.   It,  however,  held  that  as decided  by  the Central Government, these Andhra  Engineers were  not  entitled to count the temporary service  for  the purpose  of  Rule 5 of the special Rules and such  temporary period cannot be counted for seniority in the gradation list of  the Andhra and Telangana officers.  But for this limited exclusion  the Andhra Engineers were held to be entitled  to count  their seniority from the date of their initial  entry into  service in the erstwhile State of Andhra.  Against the said decision of the tribunal delivered in RP No.910/77, the aggrieved  parties preferred Special Leave Petitions  before this  Court.   In  the said petitions, this Court  vide  its order dated 26.10.1987 held thus :-

     Andhra  Pradesh  Administrative Tribunal  rendered  a decision  in  1982  (R.P.No.910/77 and 1051/78) by  a  three member  Bench in regard to employees of the State Government in the category of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers. In  the  absence  of any challenge to the  Judgment  of  the Administrative  Tribunal,  it  became final  and  the  State became obliged to give effect to it in due course.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

     In  1984 a coordinate bench of the Tribunal adopted  a differential view in regard to the same matter.  A challenge has  been  raised against that decisions and the  matter  is pending  in  this  Court.   The  question  that  arises  for consideration  now  is whether the decision of  1982,  which became  final, should or should not be implemented.  In  the absence of any impediment in the matter of implementation of the  1982  decision,  we see no  reason  why  implementation should  be delayed.  After all the decision has become final and  is  binding on parties including the State  Government. No  contrary  direction has been given by this Court in  the other matter, which is still pending.

     In  the circumstances, we do not want to entertain the special leave petitions and would like to reiterate that the decision  of the Tribunal rendered in 1982 be enforced  only subject  to  any other direction that may be given  by  this court  while  disposing  of the pending matter.   The  State Government  is directed to fully implement the order of 1982 as indicated above within a period of six months from today. We  hope  and  trust that this order will be allowed  to  be implemented  and no order may be made by any other court  to restrain the implementation of this order.

     Thus, we notice that the order made by the tribunal in RP  No.910/77  came to be approved by this Court  as  having become  final.  After the orders of this Court in the  above Special  Leave  Petitions and taking into consideration  the directions  of the Tribunal in R.P.No.910/77 the  Government of  Andhra  Pradesh  prepared  a  fresh  provisional  common gradation  list  dated 3.10.1985 of the Assistant  Engineers and  called  for  objections.   It   is  stated  that  after considering the objections and receiving the approval of the State  Government,  it finalised a common gradation list  in the  category of Assistant Engineers and the same was issued on  22.5.1989.  Subsequently, as it was found that there was some  mistake  in  regard to 11 Assistant Engineers  in  the abovementioned  list,  a supplementary list dated  22.8.1992 was  issued.   Similarly, a final common gradation  list  in respect of juniors/supervisors was also issued on 21.9.1992. Having  not  been  satisfied with the  said  gradation  list prepared consequent to the directions issued by the tribunal in R.P.  No.910/77, as approved by this Court, the Telangana officers  came  back to the tribunal once again by way of  a batch   of  petitions  numbered  as  R.P.   No.2089/89   and connected matters seeking quashing of the impugned gradation list  and  praying for consequential benefits.  It is to  be noted that by the time these petitions were preferred before the  tribunal,  nearly  33  years had already  gone  by  and naturally  most  of  the Engineers who were  in  service  on 1.11.1956  had retired by then and the object of  litigation had boiled down to the entitlement of consequential benefits only.   In  this  batch of petitions  before  the  tribunal, almost  similar  contentions  as  those  raised  before  the tribunal  in RP No.910/77 were again raised.  Primarily,  it was  contended that the retrospective regularisation of  the services  of  Andhra  Engineers  was   bad  in  law,  hence, seniority  assigned  to them in the impugned gradation  list based  on such regularisation is unsustainable in law.  They also  questioned the non-equation of Telangana sub-Engineers with  the  Assistant  Engineers  of   Andha.   It  was  also contended  that there was phenomenal delay in preparation of these   gradation  lists.   Consequently,   many  of   their promotions were denied to them.  It was also the argument on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

behalf of Telangana Engineers that as per the existing Rules of  Madras  Engineering  Service, the  appointments  of  the Andhra  Engineers who stood transferred to the new State  of Andhra  Pradesh, not having been regularised at the time  of merger,  the  said  appointments  were  only  temporary  and fortuitous,  hence  they  could  not have  been  treated  as permanent  Engineers for which reliance was placed on  Rules 10 and 39 of the abovesaid Rules.

     In  the impugned judgment before us now, the  tribunal came to the conclusion that the finding given by the earlier Bench  in  RP  No.910/77  was  only  provisional,  hence  it proceeded  to  reconsider  all those  questions  once  again independently  and  came  to the conclusion that  the  power conferred  under  Rules 10 and 39 of the Madras Rules  is  a power  coupled  with a duty to act reasonably and fairly  on relevant  material.   It held that the said power cannot  be exercised  to alter the list of approved candidates prepared by  the Public Service Commission for direct recruitment  or even  recruitment by transfer by giving any earlier date  of commencement  of  probation  to those lower in  the  ranking list.   It also held that the said power cannot be exercised for  affecting the rights of persons already on probation in the  service.  It reiterated that the power conferred on the Government   cannot  be  exercised  to   give  a   date   of commencement of probation without the existence of a vacancy in  the cadre to be filled up from that particular source of appointment,  namely,  the various categories  mentioned  in Rule  2  in  the  ratio prescribed.  It  also  came  to  the conclusion   that   without   these  essential   ingredients existing,   the   theory   of    power   of    retrospective regularisation  of the services will sabotage the scheme  of Rules  and  also the concept of seniority and also  violates Articles  14  and  16 of the Constitution.  With  the  above finding,  the tribunal by the impugned judgment held that in view  of  the prevailing circumstances, the occasion to  the Government  to  exercise the jurisdiction under Article  23A did  not  arise, and inspite of the same the Government  did exercise  the  power  under  Rule  23  giving  retrospective regularisation  of services of Andhra Engineers which is not contemplated  by  any statutory provision.  It held that  by retrospective  regularisation,  all   Junior  Engineers  and Supervisors  in the feeder category coming only from  Andhra State  stood to benefit by which process the Government  had ignored   the  rights  of   Telangana  Engineers  and  this, according  to  the  tribunal, was contrary  to  the  earlier judgment  in R.P.  No.910/77.  It levelled a serious  charge on  the State Government for delaying the preparation of the common  gradation list.  On the above basis, it came to  the specific  conclusion  that  the Andhra  Engineers  who  were transferred to the new State of Andhra Pradesh on its merger on  1.11.1956  who came in as temporary Engineers could  not have  had the benefit of regularisation of their services by the   successor  State  since   they  were  persons  holding temporary,  ad hoc and fortuitous posts.  It held that under the  existing Rules, the Governments concerned did not  have the  power  to  make such retrospective  regularisation  and those  regularisations,  when  effected,  would  affect  the rights  of other allottees to that State and also will be in violation  of  Articles 14 and 16 of the  Constitution.   It also  specifically held that the Sub-Engineers of  Telangana ought  to have been equated with the Assistant Engineers  of Andhra.

     Having  found that the quashing of the lists based  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

the  above  finding  would be futile, the  tribunal  by  the impugned     order     directed       to     promote     the applicant/petitioner-Engineers  before  it  from a  date  on which  the  Andhra  Engineers   whose  regularisations  were challenged before it, were so promoted to different posts in the  hierarchy of PWD.  It also directed that they should be paid  all consequential monetary benefits with 10%  interest on such amount payable.  It also issued different directions in  the connected matters based on its findings in the  main matter.

     Being  aggrieved by the said judgment of the  tribunal dated 14.7.1985 made in R.P.  No.2089/89 and other connected matters,  the  State  of Andhra Pradesh  has  preferred  the abovenoted  civil  appeals by leave of this Court.  We  have heard   Shri  P.P.Rao,  learned   Senior  Advocate  for  the appellant,  Shri Subodh Markandeya, learned senior  Advocate for  some of the contesting respondents, Shri K.Anant  Reddy and  some other respondents-in-person.  We had permitted the parties to submit written submissions which have been filed. In   the  written  submissions  filed   on  behalf  of   the respondents  appearing  in person, a statement is made  that they were not heard sufficiently by us.  We must record that this  statement is factually incorrect.  After we heard  the learned  counsel  for  the  appellant,   we  did  hear   the individual respondents-in-person to the extent we thought it necessary.   It  is  only when we found that  the  arguments addressed were not to the point and there was digression, we restricted  the arguments of the parties in person but  gave them  opportunity to file their written submissions which we have  perused.   Mr.   P.P.   Rao,  learned  senior  counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh contended that the tribunal by the impugned order has practically sat in review against  the  judgment  delivered by an  earlier  coordinate Bench  of  the  same tribunal which he contends  is  without jurisdiction  inasmuch as the points which have been finally decided  by the tribunal in R.P.  No.910/77 having  attained finality, same could not have been reopened by the successor Bench.   He also contended that the tribunal by the impugned order erred in issuing a mandamus to the State Government to straightaway  grant  pro forma promotions to the  applicants before   the   tribunal  and   further  direct  payment   of retrospective monetary benefits with interest.  He contended that  courts  normally do not have such power  of  directing promotions.   He also contended that the various  directions issued  in other connected matters are based on the question of  retrospective regularisation granted to Andhra Engineers and  based  on  the erroneous equation of  Sub-Engineers  of Telangana.  Hence, if his argument in regard to these points is  correct,  none of these applicants/petitioners  will  be entitled  to any such direction.  On the contrary on  behalf of  the  respondents, it was contended that the tribunal  in the  impugned  order  was  justified  in  holding  that  the retrospective  regularisation  of the Andhra  Engineers  was illegal, without authority of law and opposed to Articles 14 and  16  of  the Constitution.  It was further  argued  that various directions issued by this Court in the earlier cases were  ignored  by the Government in preparing the  gradation list  and by the ranking assigned to the Telangana Engineers in the gradation list, great injustice is caused to them and all their promotional prospects were destroyed and they were put  to  great  humiliation of having to  work  under  their juniors.  They contended that it was because of the enormous delay  caused  in preparing the gradation list that many  of them  could  not get timely promotions, hence had to  retire

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

without the legitimately due promotions, so the tribunal was justified in directing the pro forma promotions and also the issuance  of  direction  to pay the  consequential  monetary benefits.   In deciding the question whether the tribunal in the  impugned order was justified in reopening the  question earlier  decided  by the tribunal in R.P.No.910/77, we  will have to first decide the question whether the finding of the tribunal  in R.P.910/77 was final or not, and if so, to what extent.   In this process even at the cost of repetition, we will  have  to  consider  what   exactly  the  tribunal   in R.P.No.910/77  decided  and  what  is  the  finding  of  the tribunal  in  the impugned order.  The tribunal as  per  its earlier  order in R.P.910/77 came to the specific conclusion that  the temporary appointments of the Andhra Officers made before  1.11.1956 could not have been a part of stop-gap  or fortuitous  arrangement.   It  also held to so  treat  these appointments  would  be  discriminatory merely  because  the State  Government did not obtain the approval of the  Public Service   Commission  for  these   appointments   prior   to 1.11.1956.   Therefore, the tribunal in that case was of the final  opinion  that those temporary Andhra Officers who  by 1.11.1956  satisfied  all  the  requirements  of  the  rules regarding completion of probation should be treated not as a stop-gap and fortuitous arrangement.  The tribunal also held that  it  was  satisfied  that  it  would  be  perfectly  in accordance  with  the  principles  laid down  at  the  Chief Secretaries Conference to count for seniority the temporary services rendered by such officers.  It was also the opinion that  such  regularisation  was in no way  contrary  to  the States  Reorganisation Act and that such regularisation  was necessary  in the interest of equity and justice.  In regard to  the question of equation of posts involved, it held that the  decision of the Central Government did not require  any interference,  but  to a limited extent, the  said  tribunal held  that as and when the gradation list was finalised,  if it  was discovered that the Telangana Officers were entitled to  be  considered for appointment to any vacancy which  had occurred  before  1.11.1956,  the  State  Government  should revise  the  retrospective  regularisation  orders  of  such Andhra  Officers  so  as  to make  room  for  the  Telangana officers  who  may  have  a claim to be  appointed  to  such vacancies  on  the  basis of their seniority in  the  common gradation list.  In our opinion, by this finding the earlier Bench   of   the  tribunal   specifically  held   that   the regularisation of the temporary services of qualified Andhra Officers  with retrospective effect was legally valid.   It, however,  left open the question of fixing the seniority  of Andhra  Engineers vis-a-vis Telangana Engineers taking  into consideration  the fact whether Telangana Engineers had  any claim  to  be  appointed to any vacancy prior  to  1.11.1956 based  on  the  ranking  obtained  by  them  in  the  common gradation  list.  The tribunal by the impugned order took  a totally   divergent  view  as  to   the  validity  of   such retrospective  regularisation.  It held that the power under Rules  10,  23(a) and 30 of the Madras Rules which  governed the  situation at the relevant point of time did not provide for  retrospective regularisation.  It held that these rules which  confer power are coupled with duty to act reasonably. Based  on  the above conclusion, this Bench of the  tribunal held:   Without  these essential ingredients existing,  the theory  of power of retrospective regularisation of services will  sabotage  the scheme of the rules and also concept  of seniority  and also violating the articles 14 and 16 of  the Constitution.  It also held the Government guilty of  delay in  preparation  of gradation list.  These findings  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

subsequent  Bench  of the tribunal in the impugned  judgment were rendered proceeding on a basis that the earlier finding of  the  tribunal  was only provisional.   We  have  already noticed  that there is no room for coming to such conclusion and  that  the finding of the earlier Bench of the  tribunal was a conclusive finding and what was said to be provisional in  that  judgment  was only the question  of  applying  the effects  of  the  said  retrospective  regularisation  while considering the allotment of seniority in the gradation list to  be  prepared.   In other words, with reference  to  such Telangana  Engineers who had not acquired any right to  hold any  particular post prior to 1.11.1956, they will be placed below  the Andhra Engineers who got an earlier date of entry into  service  because of the retrospective  regularisation.       Therefore, in our opinion, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal   could  not  have   reopened  the  main  judgment. question  of  retrospective regularisation by  the  impugned Consistency  is  the  cornerstone of the  administration  of justice.   It is consistency which creates confidence in the system  and  this consistency can never be achieved  without respect  to  the  rule of finality.  It is with  a  view  to achieve  consistency in judicial pronouncements, the  courts have  evolved  the  rule of precedents, principle  of  stare decisis etc.  These rules and principles are based on public policy  and  if these are not followed by courts then  there will be chaos in the administration of justice, which we see in  plenty  in  this case.  This Court in the case  of  S.I. Rooplal   and  Anr.   vs.    Lt.   Governor  through   Chief Secretary, Delhi & Ors.  (1999 7 Scale 466) held thus :

     At   the   outset,  we   must  express  our   serious dissatisfaction  in  regard  to  the   manner  in  which   a Coordinate  Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in  effect, an  earlier judgment of another Coordinate Bench of the same tribunal.   This  is opposed to all principles  of  judicial discipline.  If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was  of  the  opinion  that the earlier view  taken  by  the Coordinate  Bench  of  the same tribunal was  incorrect,  it ought  to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two Coordinate Benches on  the same point could have been avoided.  It is not as if the  latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench  but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the  said judgment  against all known rules of precedents.  Precedents which  enunciate  rules  of  law   form  the  foundation  of administration  of  justice  under our system.   This  is  a fundamental  principle  which every Presiding Officer  of  a Judicial   Forum   ought  to   know,  for   consistency   in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our  judicial  system.   This Court has laid down  time  and again  precedent  law  must be followed  by  all  concerned; deviation  from the same should be only on a procedure known to  law.  A subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law  made  by the superior courts.  A Coordinate Bench of  a Court  cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration  of law made by another Bench.  It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement.

     Applying  the above principle to the facts of the case in  hand,  in  our  opinion, the tribunal  in  the  impugned judgment   has   erred   in   reopening  the   question   of retrospective  regularisation  of   Andhra  Engineers.   The tribunal,  in  this case, after holding  that  retrospective regularisation of Andhra Engineers to be erroneous committed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

another  error  in  proceeding  to   grant  relief  to   the respondents  without  quashing the gradation list.  In  this regard, it held in view of the fact that the respondents had already  retired, no purpose will be served by quashing  the list,  therefore,  it directed the Government to  treat  the Telangana  Engineers  as seniors to the Andhra Engineers  of the  same cadre and issued a further direction to give these Telangana  Engineers pro forma promotions at various  stages which  were  given to their Andhra counterparts and then  to pay all consequential monetary benefits with interest @ 10%. These  directions, in our opinion, are without jurisdiction. Under  the service conditions applicable to the respondents, there  is no absolute right to them for promotion from stage to  stage.   They only had right to be considered  for  such promotion  as  and  when  a  vacancy  arose.   Assuming  for arguments  sake that the tribunal in the impugned  judgment was  justified in holding that the respondents were entitled to  seniority  over their Andhra counterparts even  then  it could  not  have straightaway directed their  promotion  and granted  them all consequential monetary benefits, that  too with  interest.   This Court has held in a number  of  cases that  the courts cannot issue a mandamus to promote.  In the case  of State of Mysore & Anr.  vs.  P.N.Nanjundiah &  Anr. (1969  3  SCC 633), this Court held as follows:  As to  the issuance of mandamus by the High Court, the High Court ought not to issue writs directing the State Government to promote the  aggrieved  officers  with  retrospective  effect.   The correct  procedure for the High Court was to issue a writ to the  State Government compelling it to perform its duty  and to  consider  whether  having regard to  his  seniority  and fitness  the 1st respondent should have been promoted on the relevant  date and so what consequential benefits should  be allowed  to  him.  This   decision  has  been  consistently followed  by this Court in a catena of other cases.  We  are sorry  to  note  that  the  tribunal  did  not  apply  these principles  in  the instant case.  Therefore, we are of  the opinion  that  the  tribunal by the impugned  order  grossly erred in directing the promotions of the respondents as also the  payment of consequential monetary benefits.  We  having held   the  retrospective  regularisation   of  the   Andhra Engineers  as  valid, the gradation lists prepared  on  that basis,  therefore, must be held to be valid gradation lists. The  impugned order of the tribunal holding otherwise has to be  set  aside.   In  view  of this  finding  of  ours,  the consequential  relief granted to the applicants in the  main batch  of  petitions  has to be quashed, and it  is  ordered accordingly.   The  Tribunal has also issued  some  specific directions  in  favour  of  the   applicants  in  O.A.   No. 37144/90 and other connected matters considered by it in the impugned  judgment.   These  directions   are  also   issued consequent  to  its finding in the main issue,  namely,  the retrospective  regularisation  of Andhra Engineers.  If  the said  retrospective regularisation is valid, as held by  us, then  the applicants in the above connected cases also  will not  be entitled to any such directions as have been  issued in the impugned orders.  Therefore, the directions issued in these  cases  also will have to be set aside so far as  they are   dependent   on    the    question   of   retrospective regularisation   of   the    concerned   Andhra   Engineers. Accordingly,  these  appeals are allowed, the  judgment  and orders  impugned  in  these appeals are set  aside  and  the applications/petitions  from  which these appeals arise  are dismissed.    No   order   as    to   costs.

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