Full Judgment Text
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