Full Judgment Text
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
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