1

IN THE SUPEREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3030-3033 OF 2007

I.APPA RAO & ORS. ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS  

GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

The appellants were appointed as LDCs (Junior Assistants) on temporary

basis  between 5.12.1973  to  14.12.1974  in the Commercial Tax Department in the

Srikakulam District of  Visakhapatnam Division.   According to them they were so

appointed in clear vacancies and that their names were sponsored by an Employment

Exchange. They, however, did not undergo any selection process and according to

them  their  temporary  appointment  was  under  Rule  10(a)(i)  of  the  AP  State

Subordinate Service Rules which provided for such temporary appointments subject

to the condition that the person on such temporary appointment shall not be regarded

as on regular employment nor be entitled for any future appointment.  The appellants

subsequently appeared in the selections held in October 1976 by the District Selection

Committee Srikakulam. They were selected and allotted by the Collector, Srikakulam

to the  Commercial Tax Department for regular appointment as LDCs and thereafter

the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,  Visakhapatnam by an order dated

2

30.11.1976 appointed them temporarily as LDCs. The service of appellants who were

being continued as temporary LDCs,  were  regularised with effect from 3.6.1975 as

per proceeding dated  9.1.1980  of  the  Deputy  Commissioner,  Commercial Taxes,

Visakhapatnam.  

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,  Visakhapatnam finalised

the integrated provisional seniority list of Junior Assistants in Zone-I as on 30.6.1994

vide notification dated 18.10.1994.  According to the appellants the persons who were

junior to them namely the non-official respondents were placed above them in the

said list. They, therefore, approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in

O.A.No.6834 of 1994 seeking the following reliefs : (a) to quash the final integrated

list dated 18.10.1994,  (b) a direction to the official respondents to prepare a fresh

seniority list in accordance with the regularisation order issued on 9.1.1980 or in the

alternative to direct them to determine their seniority from the date of their initial

appointment.  The said application was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated

20.4.1999.   The  Tribunal was  of  the  view that  there  was  some infirmity in  the

preparation of  the  merit  list  by  the  District  Selection  Committee,  Srikakulam in

regard to the October 1976 selections. Therefore, it set aside the integrated seniority

list dated 18.10.1994 insofar as it related to Junior Assistants/Typists/Stenographers

selected in the District Selection Committee selections of 1976 with a direction to the

official  respondents  to  prepare  the  seniority  list  of  Junior

Assistants/Typists/Stenographers  separately by  following  the  Rules  of  reservation

without reference to the ranking communicated by the Collector in its letter dated

3

24.12.1991 (the merit list  of District Selection Committee Srikakulam for October

1976 selections). The Tribunal further held that in the absence of any relative merit

amongst the candidates selected in District Selection Committee selections of 1976,

the  length of  temporary service,  if  any,  put  in  by  the  candidates  should  be  the

criterion for fixing  inter se seniority amongst the candidates belonging to a category

(SCS/BCs/SCs/STs)  and if the  length of service is same, age  has to be taken as

criterion. The Tribunal further held that  after preparing the seniority lists of Junior

Assistants/Typists/Steno-Typists separately a common integrated seniority list should

be prepared based on dates of regularisation.  

3. Some  of  the  appellants  also  filed  O.A.No.3955/1995  and  O.A.No.5588/1995

challenging  the  proceedings  dated  20.06.1995  of  the  Dy.  Commissioner  of

Commercial Taxes,  Visakhapatnam, by which he finalised the provisional seniority

list of Senior Assistants in Commercial Tax Department-Zone I.   The Tribunal

disposed  of  the  said  applications  by order dated  15.12.1999  directing the Dy.

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,  Visakhapatnam to revise the said seniority

list,  based  on  the  seniority  list  to  be  prepared  in  the  category  of  Junior

Assistants/Typists/ Stenographers as per the directions issued by the Tribunal in

O.A.No.6834/1994.  

4. The order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.6834/1994 was challenged by the

non-official respondents, in Civil Writ Petition  Nos.1247 and 7848  of 2000. The

order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.3955/1995 and O.A.No.5588/1995 was challenged

in Civil Writ Petition Nos. and 7268 & 7269 of 2001. The said writ petitions were

4

allowed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by a common

judgment dated 5.12.2001.  The High Court was of the view that the integrated

seniority list  prepared on the  basis  of  the  merit list  prepared by  the  District

Selection Committee in 1976  did not call for any interference. The High Court

found that the seniority list dated 18.10.1994 had been prepared keeping in view

the  guidelines/parameters  communicated  by  the  Commissioner  of  Commercial

Taxes (vide his circular dated 4.8.1994) which reads as under :

“ The seniority of junior assitants should be according to the  ranks  assigned  by  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Public  Service Commission/District Selection Committee or any other appointment authority in respect of Junior Assistants including Typists,  Junior Stenos and other equivalent posts.”

It,  therefore,  set  aside the order of  the Tribunal and consequently dismissed the

Original Applications filed by the appellants.  

5.   The said judgment  of the High Court is under challenge.  Learned counsel for

appellants submitted that where the initial appointment was only ad hoc  as a stop-

gap arrangement, and not according to any Rules, the officiation  in such post may

not  be  taken  into  account  for  considering  the  seniority.  But  where  the  initial

appointment through   ad hoc is made by following the Rules,  and the appointee

continues  in  the  post  uninterruptedly  till   the  regularisation   of  his  service  in

accordance with the  Rules,  the  period  of  officiating  service will  be  counted.  He

submitted that the decision of the Tribunal was in consonance with the said principle

laid  down  by  a   Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  in  Direct  Recruit  Class  II

Engineering Officers' Association vs.  State of Maharashtra and others, 1990(2)SCC

5

715.  

6.    The question that, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the High Court

was justified in interfering with the order of the Tribunal which had directed that the

seniority list  should be  prepared by  taking into account the length of temporary

service requires interference.  

7. We are not  concerned  with the  regularisation of   ad  hoc  or  stop  gap

appointments. In this case the initial appointments were on temporary basis without

undergoing selection process between 1973 to 1974 under Rule 10(a)(i) of A.P. State

Sub-ordinate Service Rules. Such temporary appointees  subsequently underwent the

selection process by the District Selection Committee in October 1976 and they were

again appointed on temporary basis and later regularised with effect from 3.6.1975.

The seniority list has been finalised on 18.10.1984 keeping in view the ranks assigned

in  the  merit  list  prepared  by  the  District  Selection  Committee.   Therefore  the

seniority list was in accordance with parameters prescribed by the Commissioner of

Commercial Taxes as also the settled principle of law.  The Tribunal thought it fit to

interfere with the seniority list not because in law it considered the temporary service

should be reckoned for the purposes of the seniority but  because it found that merit

list prepared by District Selection Committee, Srikakulam regarding October 1976

selections was not property done. It  found that in  the merit list prepared by the

District  Selection  Committee  for  Srikakulam District,  all  the  selected  candidates

except two have secured 65% marks and two candidates had secured 63% marks and

the merit list did not furnish any indication as to how the inter se merit of various

6

candidates who had secured 65%  was settled.  Therefore, the Tribunal was of the

view that the length of temporary service of the candidates should be considered as a

criterion for fixing  inter se  seniority amongst candidates belonging to a category

(OC/BC/SC/ST)  in  the  said  merit  list  relating  to  District  Selection  Committee

selections in Srikakulam.

8. But  the alleged defect in the merit list  that was pointed out and which

found acceptance by the Tribunal was only with reference to the merit list prepared

by the District Selection Committee, Srikakulam.  No such defect was found in the

merit lists prepared by other District Selection Committees. The merit list of October

1976  prepared by District  Selection Committee,  Srikakulam could  not  have been

interfered for two reasons. Firstly, all the candidates shown in the merit list were not

parties  before the  Tribunal.  Secondly,  the  validity of  merit  list  prepared by  the

District Selection Committee, Srikakulam was not in issue and therefore neither the

State Government nor the concerned District Collector had an opportunity to offer an

explanation as to the manner of preparation of the merit list. Though the 1976 merit

list that was considered by the Tribunal did not disclose the method adopted by the

District  Selection Committee for placing the various candidates  who had secured

65% marks in a particular order of merit, it is possible that they had adopted some

reasonable or relevant criteria  which would have been disclosed if an opportunity had

been  granted  to  explain.  Merit  list  prepared  in  1976  could  not  obviously  be

condemned  in  1999  without  any challenge   and  without  an  opportunity  to  the

authority    who prepared it to explain the manner of its preparation. It will be unjust

7

to ignore a merit list which was given effect for nearly  a quarter cnetury without any

challenge as it will unsettle settled positions regarding seniority and promotion.  Be

that as it may.   

9. In the first civil appeal we find that the respondents Nos. 5 to 9 (S.Venkata

Raju, MSVVK Patrdudu, GST Augustine, A. Sreeramulu and K.Rama Rao) are the

private respondents.  Any alleged irregularity in the seniority list  prepared by the

District Selection Committee for Srikakulam could not obviously be held against the

said respondents as they were  not from Srikakulam District and their names did  not

find a place in the merit list for Srikakulam. Therefore, even if any test suggested by

the Tribunal, for fixing  inter se  seniority, in respect of  Srikakulam candidates is

assumed to be proper and correct, it cannot operate  against  respondents who were

not selected from Srikakulam.  

10. Lastly,  we  find  that  the  High  Court  has  taken note  of  the  fact  that

G.O.No.711 dated 28.8.1996 which directed that the seniority of Junior Assistants

selected in the year 1976 should be fixed with reference to the date of their initial

entry into service, was quashed by the Tribunal and that decision had been upheld by

the High Court by judgment dated 5.12.2001  in Writ Petition No.28245/1998 (S.

Sabapathi vs. Govt. of AP).  Therefore, the said principle could not be the basis for

the purpose of finalising the seniority list. 11. For all these reasons, we do not

consider this case a fit one for interference with the order of the High Court.  These

appeals are accordingly dismissed.

8

..............................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

..............................J. ( DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA )

NEW DELHI, JUNE 24, 2008.