# ( ' .,,_. B. VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS ETC v. STATB OF ANDHRA ~RADESH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1983] 3 S.C.R. 545
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1983-08-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1652 to 1657 of 1978
- **Bench:** V. v. CHANDRACHUD, A. Varadarajan Ano ' Amarendra Nath Sen
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/b-venkata-reddy-and-others-etc-v-statb-of-andhra-radesh-and-others-8381
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

S4S
(Andhra Pradesh) Adhoc Rules, 1973 framed in G.O. Ms. 939, Education,
dated 19-9-1973-lnterpretation of-Rule 13(1)-lnartistica/ly worded-must be
read with Rule 3(1) & (2) otherwi1t thisrule /eads to disharmony.
(Andhra Pradesh) Adhoe Rules, 1974/ramed In G.O. Ms. 502, Education
dated 19·6-1974, Rule 6-Va/idity of.
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Ru/18-Rule 35(c)-
Scope of.
Pursuant to tho policy decision taken by the Andhra Pradesh Government in 1964 that the secondary school duration should b~ 10 years instead of
11 years and it should be followed by a two years' intermediate course, the
Government decided in G.0. Ms. 1920, Education, dated 25.10.1968 that
in the existing colleges the two years' intermediate course should be intro·
duced and laid down in G.O. Ms. 2063, Education, dated 25.8.69 the staff
pattern and pay scales of staff 1n Junior Colleges started for the two years'
intermediate course. In G.O. Ms. 2186, Education, dated 17.9.1969 the
Government issued instructions regardina: the absorption of Post .Graduate
teachers in Junior Colleges on the basis of the Post-Graduate degree and th1
number of years of service rendered by them. It was stated in that G.O. that
all the existing Post Graduates who will be absorbed as Junior Lecturers in
Junior Colleges will be appointed temporarily as Junior Lecturers pendina
framing of adhoc rules in due course. The Government ordered in G.O. Ms_.
1147, Education, dated 4.6.1970 that in the common seniority list first rank
should be given only to those who have secured first and second class Post·
Graduatedegree. On 19.9.1973 the Government framed Adhoc Rules, 1973
with retrospective effect Crom 1.8.1969 for the temporary post of Junior
Lecturers in Junior Colleges. Rule 13 of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 says that
seniority of Post Graduate Assistants appointed as Junior Lecturers shall.bi
· determined with reference to the dates of their actual appointment as Post
Graduate Assistants. Rule 3 ·states that post-graduates with first Or second
class degree! are to be given preference over PoSt-Graduates · holding third
class degrees. On 19.6.1974 the Government framed Adhoc Rules, 1974 for
the temporary posts of principals of Junior Colleges with retrospective effect
from 1.8.1969. Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 prescribes ·first or second
class Post·Graduate degree for promotion of Junior Lecturers to the posts of
Principals of Junior Colleges. Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rules 1974 says that a
person who held the post of Prjncipal of a Juniof Colle~ immediateJr befo~
A·
c
rJ
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1983i 3 s.c.!l.
the issue of these Rules shall be continued as Principal and given option either
i\
to continue in t~e post of Priricipal or to re"'.ert to his original post.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
The appellants in Civil Appeals l652-J659 of 1978 who were working as
Post-Graduate Assistants and were, first or second class Post-Graduate degree
holders were ·appointed as Junior lecturers in 1969. Soon after the Adhoc
Rules, 1973 were framed the second respondent, Joint Director of Higher
Education, prepared a silbjectwiSe seniority list in 1974 and on the basis of
their seniorjty in that seniority list all the appellants except one were proqioted
as Principals of different Junior Colleges. The first respondent State, under
the directions of the High Court ·in a separate proceeding to prepare the
seniority list as per Rule 13(1) of ~the Adhoc Rules, 1973, prepared a revised
seniority Jist in 1976 in which respondents 3 ·to 8, who were third c1ass Post·
Graduate degree holaers and were appointed as Junior Lecturers in 1970 and
1975 were pi aced as seniors to the appellants. The appellants as petitioners
filed petitions in the Administrative Tribunal for quashing the revised seniority
list of 1976 and restoring the earlier seniority list of 1974 or in the alternative
for declaring that Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 is Violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution. ·The pe

## Text

_Characters 0–39,930 of 74,984. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39930 for what follows._

(
'
.,,_.
B. VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS ETC.
v.
STATB OF ANDHRA ~RADESH AND OTHERS
August 8, 1983
[V. v. CHANDRACHUD, c. J., A. VARADARAJAN ANO
'
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.J
S4S
(Andhra Pradesh) Adhoc Rules, 1973 framed in G.O. Ms. 939, Education,
dated 19-9-1973-lnterpretation of-Rule 13(1)-lnartistica/ly worded-must be
read with Rule 3(1) & (2) otherwi1t thisrule /eads to disharmony.
(Andhra Pradesh) Adhoe Rules, 1974/ramed In G.O. Ms. 502, Education
dated 19·6-1974, Rule 6-Va/idity of.
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Ru/18-Rule 35(c)-
Scope of.
Pursuant to tho policy decision taken by the Andhra Pradesh Government in 1964 that the secondary school duration should b~ 10 years instead of
11 years and it should be followed by a two years' intermediate course, the
Government decided in G.0. Ms. 1920, Education, dated 25.10.1968 that
in the existing colleges the two years' intermediate course should be intro·
duced and laid down in G.O. Ms. 2063, Education, dated 25.8.69 the staff
pattern and pay scales of staff 1n Junior Colleges started for the two years'
intermediate course. In G.O. Ms. 2186, Education, dated 17.9.1969 the
Government issued instructions regardina: the absorption of Post .Graduate
teachers in Junior Colleges on the basis of the Post-Graduate degree and th1
number of years of service rendered by them. It was stated in that G.O. that
all the existing Post Graduates who will be absorbed as Junior Lecturers in
Junior Colleges will be appointed temporarily as Junior Lecturers pendina
framing of adhoc rules in due course. The Government ordered in G.O. Ms_.
1147, Education, dated 4.6.1970 that in the common seniority list first rank
should be given only to those who have secured first and second class Post·
Graduatedegree. On 19.9.1973 the Government framed Adhoc Rules, 1973
with retrospective effect Crom 1.8.1969 for the temporary post of Junior
Lecturers in Junior Colleges. Rule 13 of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 says that
seniority of Post Graduate Assistants appointed as Junior Lecturers shall.bi
· determined with reference to the dates of their actual appointment as Post
Graduate Assistants. Rule 3 ·states that post-graduates with first Or second
class degree! are to be given preference over PoSt-Graduates · holding third
class degrees. On 19.6.1974 the Government framed Adhoc Rules, 1974 for
the temporary posts of principals of Junior Colleges with retrospective effect
from 1.8.1969. Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 prescribes ·first or second
class Post·Graduate degree for promotion of Junior Lecturers to the posts of
Principals of Junior Colleges. Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rules 1974 says that a
person who held the post of Prjncipal of a Juniof Colle~ immediateJr befo~
A·
c
rJ
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1983i 3 s.c.!l.
the issue of these Rules shall be continued as Principal and given option either
i\
to continue in t~e post of Priricipal or to re"'.ert to his original post.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
The appellants in Civil Appeals l652-J659 of 1978 who were working as
Post-Graduate Assistants and were, first or second class Post-Graduate degree
holders were ·appointed as Junior lecturers in 1969. Soon after the Adhoc
Rules, 1973 were framed the second respondent, Joint Director of Higher
Education, prepared a silbjectwiSe seniority list in 1974 and on the basis of
their seniorjty in that seniority list all the appellants except one were proqioted
as Principals of different Junior Colleges. The first respondent State, under
the directions of the High Court ·in a separate proceeding to prepare the
seniority list as per Rule 13(1) of ~the Adhoc Rules, 1973, prepared a revised
seniority Jist in 1976 in which respondents 3 ·to 8, who were third c1ass Post·
Graduate degree holaers and were appointed as Junior Lecturers in 1970 and
1975 were pi aced as seniors to the appellants. The appellants as petitioners
filed petitions in the Administrative Tribunal for quashing the revised seniority
list of 1976 and restoring the earlier seniority list of 1974 or in the alternative
for declaring that Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 is Violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution. ·The petitioners contended· that under the
Adhoc Rules Post-Graduate .Assistants with first clod second class PostGraduate degrees should be treated as one group and as senior to PostGraduate Assistants With third class Post-Graduate degrees~ The Tribunal·
held that the seniority list of 1976 framed as per Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc
Rides, 1973.having precedence over the earlier executive instruction is valid
and as the petitioners and respondents 3 to 8 belonged
to the san1e
category of Post-Graduate Assistants, there is no question of violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The appellants. in Civil Appeal 415Of1979 who weie working as School
As,istants in Higher Secondary Schools and were thi1 d class Post Graduates
were appointed as Junior. Lecturers in Junior Colleges in terms of Rule 3 of
the Adhoc Rules, 1973. Pending the fran1ing of Adhoc RuleS for the temporary posts of Principals of Junior Colleges, the second respondent Director of
Public Tnstru~tions, issued proceedings dated 14.3.1974 promotin~ under Rule
lO(a) (i) of the State and ·Subordinate Services Rules ·seven tlurd class Post
Graduate Junior Lecturers as Principals of Junior Colleges. The appellants
as petitioners challenged in the Administrative Tribunal these Adhoc promotions. They also challenged the validity of Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974
on the ground that it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The
Tribunal held that. Rule 6 does not contravene Articles 14 and ·16 of the
Constitution. The Tribunal found nothing objectionable in Rule 8 of the
Adhoc Rules, 1974 which protects the right of third class Post Gtaduate degree
holders who had been promoted under Rule IO(a) (i) of tho State and
Subordinate Services Rules pending framing of Adhoc Rules.
Allowing Civil AppealS 1652-59 ar.d di~missing Civil Appeal415,
HELD : There is no need to quash Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules,
t973 which bas to be ~nterpreted in the {Ilanner indicated i.n the .Judgment and
)
'" .. (
.>.
,.....
B.V. REDDY V. ANiiHRA PRADESH
547
seniority has to be fi.ed accordingly. The soniority list of 1976 i1 quuhea
and the.seniority list of 1974 is restored. Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rule•, 1974
I\.
·is valid.
[571 H, 572 A]
There is no reason to think that the Government intended by Rule 13(1)
of the Adhoc Rules. 1973 · to take away ffom first and second class Po!t~
Graduate Junior Lecturers the preference shown to them over third class
Post~Graduate Junior Lecturers in the executive instructions especially G.O.
Ms.1147, Education, dated 4,6.1970 and even in Rule 3(1) and (2) ·of the
Adhoc Rules, 1973. Rules3(1) and (2) and 13(1) have to be read together.
Only thf:n there· will be harmony between those rules.·· If Rule 13(1) is read
without reference to Rule 3(1) and (2) the consequence will be disharmony
and the first and second class Post-Graduate Juni_or Lecturers who were given
preference over third class Post· Graduate Junior Lecturers will be placed in a
less advantageous and inferior position as compared with third class Postw
Graduate Junior Lecturers as regards seniority alone, which will not even help
them in the matter of promotion as .Principals of Junior Colleges in view of
Rule 6 of Adho-c Rules, 1974 so long ·as they do not improve their academic
attainment by obtaining a first-or second class Post-Graduate Degree. Every
rule i'n the Adhoc Rules must be given its full, natural and legal effect. There
is no doubt that Rule 13(1) is inartisticaIIy worded though when read with
Rule 3(1) and (2) it would be clear that the principle laid down in it has to h•
applied separately to ~ach of the three categories of Junior Lecturers mentioned
in Rule 3(1) and (2). Each of these three categories forms a distinct- and
aeparate categOry. The first category consisls of- first· and. second class Post~
Graduates, and on their appointment as Junior Lectur~rs their inter se seniority .
has to be fixed under Rule 13(1) with reference to the dates of their original
appointment as Post Graduate School Assistants. When Post-Graduates with
not less than five years of service, working as Post Graduate School Assistants
are appointed as Junior LS!cturers t}icir inter se seniority has to be fixed likewise under Rule 13(1) on the basis of the dates of their original appointment
as Post-Graduate School AssLtUnts. Similarly, when
Post-Graduates with
less than five years of service, working as Post Graduate School Assistants are
appointed as Junior Lecturer~their inter se seniority has to be fixed on the
basis of the dates of their. original appointment as Post-Graduate School
Assistants. If Rule 13(1) is inierpret_ed in this manner, no disharmony will
result from applying all the adhoc rules. It is only by constructing Rule 13(1)
in this manner the Government framed the seniority list of 1974.
. [569 D-H, 570 A-FJ
The object of achieving excellence in t:ducational institutions like Junior
Colleges is a laudable one, and excellence in academic attainments of heads
of such institutions is a relevant fact. Promotion of Junior Lecturers as
Principals is based only on merit judged by their academic distinction which
cannot be said to be discriminatory. Prescribing a first or second class PostGraduate Degree for the head of an educational institution has a direct nexus
with the object of excellence sought to be achieved, and it cannot be said to be
discriminatory. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that Rule 6 of the Adhoc
Jlules, 1974 is l_iabJC to b"e st~uck down as being discriminatory and illegal.
(572 G-H, 573 AJ
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
54g
SUPRl!Mll COURT REPOllTS ,
S. M, Pandit v. Stat• ofG•farat .• 1972 S.L.R. 79 not applicable.
~o promotions of seven third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers as
Principals were irregular having regard to the fact that even for appointment
as JuniOr Lecturers preference has to be given to first and second class PostGraduate School Assistants.
The irregularity has been sought to be
overlooked by providing a saving clause by way of Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rule1,
1974. It is not possible to think that ¢here could have been any valid necessity
to continue those adhoc promotions made ~ven after, the Adhoc Rules, 1974 .
were framed within about three months of those promotions. There is no
meaning in proViding for thC option in that rule as it is not likely that a person
who has been promoted as Principal Would voluntarily opt for reverting to his
original post of Junior Lecturer. However, having regard to the long lapse of
time it is not desirable to declare those appointm1nts as illeaal.
[573 E-H, 574 A]
Rule 33(c) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules
applies to persons who were transferred from one class or category of service to
another class or category of the same service and would not apply to the facts
of the present case where Junior Lecturers have been appointed by selection
amongst Post Graduate School Assistants in the manner indicated in Rule 3(1)
D
and (2) of the Adhoc Rules and there is no question of transfer of Post·
Graduate School Assistants as Junior Lecturers. [571 C-E]
E
F
G
H
Reserve Bank of India v. N. C. Paliwal, A.LR. 1976 S.C. 2342 not
applicable.
-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1652 to
1657 of 1978.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 31st August, 1978 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribu'nal in Representation Petitions Nos. 595 and 985 of 1977 and
· 340, 289, 466 and ,533 of 1978.
• ·
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 1658 and 1659 of 1978.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 8th September, 1978 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal in Representation Petitions Nos. 561 and 59 of 1978. ·
AND
Civil Appeal No. 415of1979.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 31st August,
1978 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Transferred
Writ Petition No. 941 of 1976.
;
,.,. ..
1
B.V. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, J.)
549
'
M. N. Phadke, M. R. K. Choudhary, B. Kanta Rao and Miss
Nalini, for the Appellants in CA. Nos. 1652-59/78.
S. N. Kacker ·and B. Parthasarthi, for the Appellants in CA
415.
T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer,
K. Ramkumar and Mrs. J. Ramachandran, for RR. 3, 5, 8 and 9 ·
in CAS. 1652·59/78.
•,
P. Ram Reddy, and G. Narayana Rao for. RR. 1 and 2 in CA.
A
·B
1652-59 and 415 of 1979.
.
C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
v Al\ADARAJAN, J .' These appeals by special leave are directed
against the Judgments of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Representation Petitions 595 of 1977 and batch and
, transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976. C. As. Nos. 1652 to 1659 of
1978 have been filed against the common judgment dated 31.8.1978
in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 and batch in which common
issues arose for consideration while C.A. No. 415 of 1979 has been
filed against the separate judgment, dated 31.8.1978 in Transferred
Writ Petition 941 of 1976. All these appeals by the petitioners before
the Tribun~I were heard together in this Court and will be disposed
of by a common judgment.
The main judgment of the Tribunal in Represeniation Petition
595 of 1977 and batch is in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 in
accordance with which tlie other Representation Petitions in the
batch have been disposed of as stated elsewhere in this judgment.
Repr('sentation Petition 595 of 1977 was filed by seven petitioners of
whom petitioners Nos I to 6 were worki~g as Principals of Junior
Colleges at various places while the seventh petitioner was working
as a Junior Lecturer in Government College, Srikakulam in An\ihra
Pradesh and claimed to be ripe for promotion as Principal of Junior
College on the basis of his original seniority among junior Lecturers.
We will refers to the parties in these appeals as arrayed before the
· Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
·
The seven pettioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977
who were working as Post-Graduate Assistants or Headmasters 'ii\
D
E
F
G
H
A .
B
c
D
E
F'
j•
G
H
$50
. SUPRBMll COURT RBPORTS
· (1983) 3 s.c.n. •
t)l;e ~~la Parishad Higher Secondary Schools ·at different places were
appointed as junior Lecturers in 1969 as they were all Post-Graduates
who had passed in the first or second class-with 50% marks and above
and werefully eligible for appointment as Junior Lecturers. The
( \•.
j
"
\j
'
petitioners' contention is that under the Adhoc Rules governin2
Junior Lecturers they being Post-Graduates who had passed in first
or~second- class, should be placed in the seniority list above PostGraduate Assistants who · hold only third class Post-Graduate
degrees. The second respondent, joint Director of Higher Education,
Andhrli Pradesh, prepared a subject-wise ;eniority list in 1974 as per
the rules,, placing the seven petitioners in . Representation Petiiion
595 of 1977 at Nos. 17, 15, 20, 21, 23, 40 and 41 respectively.· On
• ~ !
1
'
'
'
'
•
'
.
the basis of that seniority Junior Lecturers upto the ran)<: of 40 in that
list were promoted as Principals of various junior Colleges. The l st
respondent State of Andhra Pradesh, prepared a revised seniority
list as per the directions ·or the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petition No. 4358 of 1974 and Writ Appeal N6. 920 of 1975. In that
·revi'sed-seriiority list issued-in 1976 the petitioners in Representation
Petition 595 of 1977 have been placed at Nos. 380, 54, 390, 392, 406,
36'8 ~nd 374 respectively. The petitioners' contention was .that thirdciass Post-Graduate degree holders who were appointed for the .firs,t
time in 1970 and 1975 as junior Lecturers were shown in the .said
re-Vised seniority list as seniors to the petitioners though the petitioners
had 'an been appointed ·as junior Lecturers in 1969 itself and were
reglilarised' as early as in November 1969 and under the Adhoc Rules
framed by the Government, Post-Graduate Assistants with first and
second class Post-Graduate degrees should . be treated as one group
and as senior to Post-Graduate Assistants with third class PostGraduate degrees, who s_hould be treated as another group. The
'
I
'
-
•··'
.
petitioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977. prayed in these
circti.mstances for quashing the revised seniority list issued by the
first respondent State of Andhra Pradesh on 27.12.1976 so far as
they ~re concerned and for restoration of their old seniority as per
the ·earlier -seniority lisf of 1974 or in the alternative for· declaring
that Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 dealing wtth seniority of
Junior'Lecturers is violative ofArticles 14 anp 16 of the C'onsti tution.
.
·''
.
.
. Rule 13 (!) and (2) of the Adhoc Rules framed by the Government under Article 309. of the Constitution read as follows :
"Rule 13 (!)-The seniority of a person appointed
vri\ler ·clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (1) ofRule 3 shall b~
(
)
B.V. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, J.)
551
deter.mined with reference to the date. of his actual
appointment as a Post-Graduate ~ssistant of the probable
date on which he would have been appointed as Post·
Graduate Assistant but for his appointment or promotion_
to a ·higher post ;
.
(ii) The seniority ·of any person appointed under
clause (iii) of sub-rule (I) of Rule 3 shall be determined
with reference to the date of commencement of his
probation.
' A
Provided that no such person shall be senior to any person
"'
appointed under clause (i) or (ii) of sub-rule {I) of Rule 3 ;
'C
Provided further that no person appointed under sub-clause
(b), sub-clause (c) or clause (iii) of sub-rule (I) of Rule 3 shall bcJ
senior to a person appointed under sub-clause (a) of that clause .... "
Rule 3 of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 reads as follows :-·
"Rule 3 of Appointment:· (I) Appointment to this
class shall be .made as follows :
(i)
First by appointment of Post-Graduate Assistants
in Category I-A of Class II and Selection Grade
Assistants in Grade I of Category 2 of Class II
in the Andhra Pradesh Educational Sub-ordinate
<
/
Service or Headmasters of High Schools and
Post-Graduate Assistants in Zila Parishads High
Sch~ols ai1d such of the Municipal Schools as
are converted into Junior Colleges ;
(ii) Secondiy; if there are no suitable and qualified
·persons available for . appointment under clause
. (i) then by ap'pointrilent of Trained Graduates
possessing Post-Graduate Diploma in Physical
Sciences in the scale of pay admissible t9 Post
Graduate Assistants iritmedtately before the
commencement. of these rules ;
·{iii) Thirdly, if there are no suitable and qualified
persons available for appointment under sub- ·
clause (i) or sub-clausel(ii)-
E
F
G
H
SS2
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1983) 3 S.C.R.
(a) by recruitment from among the Headmasters
and Post-Graduate Assistants in recognised
Multipurpose or Higher Secondary Schools
under private management or under the
management of the Municipality which are
not converted into Junior Colleges ; or
(b) By transfer from School Assistants in Grade
n or Category 2 in Class II and PanditS
(including Hindi Pandits), Munshis Grade
I in Category I of Class III of the Andhra
Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or
by recruitment by transfer from any other
service; or
· (c) by direct recruitment.
(2) Preference shall be given for appointment under
clause (i) or sub-clause (a)' of clause (iii) of sub•
rule (l)(a) :
• •
(a) Firstly to persons ivith first or second class
Post Graduate degree ;
/ .
(b) Secondly to persons with a third class Post
Graduate degree with not less than five years
of service as a Post-Graduate Assistant or
Selection Grade Assistant in the Andhra
Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or
as a Headmasier of a Zila Parsshad High
School or a Post Graduate Assistant in a
school under the manage111ent of a Zila
, Parishad or a Municipality ;
(c) Thirdly to persons with a third classs Post
.Graduate degree with less than five years'
service as a Post Graduate Assistant or
Selection Grade Assistant in the Andhra
Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or
as a Headmaster of a High School or Post
Graduate Assistant in a School under the
management of a Zi)a p~ishad or a. Muni·
cipality ........ ;,"
)
--
\
(
r
(
l
)
il.\i. REDDY v. Al'iDHRA PRADESH ivaradarDjan, J)
ssj
The Andhra Pradesh Government decided in 1964 that the ,
Secondary School Education should be of 10 years' duration instead
of 11 years and that it should be followed by a. two-years' Intermediate Collegiate education in the plac,e of the then existing Higher
Secondary and Multi:purpose system commencing from 1969-70.
Accordingly, the Government decided in G.O.Ms 1920, Educat/on,
dated 25.10.1968 that in the existing colleges two-year. Intermediate
Course should be introduced in the place of one year P.U.C. The
staff pattern and pay scales of staff in junior Colleges started for the
, .two~year Intermediate Course were laid down by the Government in
G.O. Ms 2063, Education •. dated 25.8.1969. In G.O.Ms. 2186,
Education, "dated 17.9.1969 the Government issued the followina
instructions regarding the absoq,tion of Post-Graduate Teachers in
Junior Colleges :
"In regard to the appointment of Post Graduates as
Junior Lecturers in Junior Colleges, priority will be given
to those who are in the scales of pay of Rs. 180-350 and
who are suitable and willing to be absorbed as per seniority
as indicated below :
(a) First or second class.Post-Graduates working as
Post-Graduate Assistants :
(b) Third class Post-Graduati:s with not less than
5 years of service, working as Post-Graduate
Assistants ;
(c) Third class Post-Graduates with less than of 5
years of service, workini: as Post Graduate Assis·
tants.
A
B
c
D
F
and ( d) Lastly
Trained
Graduates
possessing Post
Graduate diploma in Physical Sciences, working
in the Post Graduate Assistant's ~cale.
G
It was stated in that G. 0. that all the existing Post Graduates
who will be absorbed as Junior L-Octurers in Junior Colleges will be
appoi,nted temporarily as Junior Lecturers pending framing of adhoc
rules in due course. The Government ordered in G,O.Ms. 1147,
Educati<in, dated 4.6.1970.that in the common seniority list first rank
should be given only to those who have secured first and second
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
!i983j 3 s.c.R.
class Post-Graduate degree wlth 50 per· cent mai:ks and above. These
G. Os. were all executive' instructions.
. .
~
.
#I
There is no.dispute that the petitioners are holders of first or
second class Post-Graduate degrees and that the private respondent§
3 to 8 in Reperesentation Petition 595 of.1977 who have been °placed
as their'se~iors in the impugned seniority list oi: 1976.are holders of
only third.class post-Graduate degrees. The petitioners relie<l heavily
on tbe above rule 3 of the Adhoc Rules, according to which persons
with' first or second class Post-Graduate degrees are to be.· given.,
preference over Post-Graduates holding third class degrees. and
cont~~ded that they sh.ould, therefore., be )liven seniority over.the
third class Post ·Gra<luate degree holders in, determining.the inter se
1 seniorit)iin th~ cadre of. Junior Lecturers 'in Junior Colleges as was ..
done in the seniority list prepared in 1974.
·
. The contention of the fir$1: respondent, State
of Andhra
Pradesh, was that the executive instructions given in Government
orders regardi~g appointments of Junior Lecturers pending the framing of Adtioc Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution ceased to
operative once those adhoc rules were framed and that under Adhoc
Rule 13 the seniority of Po3t-G•adu~te Assistants of former Higher
Secondary Schools and Multipurpose' Schools with first, second and
third class Post-Graduate degrees and Post Graduate diploma shall
have to be determined with refere11ce to the. actual date · of .appointment as J>ost-Gradnate Assistants. The Government denied that
Rule 13 (0 is viol~tive of Articles, 14 and 16 of the Constitution
and contended in the counter-affidavit that the Education Department followed the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
W.P. No. 4358 of 1974 ,and Writ Appeal 920 of 1975 and cancelled
the earlier seniority list of· 1974 and framed the revised seniority
list of 1976 according to ·Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules. Thus the
Government oppsed the Representation Petitions.
.
. '
The Tribunal has taken note in Pa,rl)grl\ph 9•of,its judgment of
the fact that the petitioners are first and second class Post-Graduate
degree holders whi.le respondents .3 to. 8 are only third class Post·
. Graduate degree hblders correctly, but it bas' wrongly observed that.
•
.
-
't
-
'
H
both the categories of Post-Graduate Assistants have been, apPQinted,
as Junior Lecturers under Rule 3 (I) (i) of the Adhoc Rules issued
in G.0.Ms 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973. It was not disputed
\
l
n.v. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarqjan,'J..)
SSS
before us. that the petitioners being ·first and second class. P~st~'
Graduates with 50 per cent and more· marks were appointed as.
Junior Lecturers in I 969 and that respondents 3 to 8 wlio are· third·
class Post-Graduates were appointed as~ Junior l:ecfofors only' in
.
~
1
~·
'
1970 and 1975.
Therefore, the petitioners and some of respondents
3 to 8 had been appointed in 1969a~d·1970 before the Adhoc' R'u/es ··
· were framed on 19.9.1973 and only some ofihe respondents 3 to'' 8
were appointed in 1975 under Rule 3 (I) (i) of those Adhoc Rule's;
The fact that the petitioners were appoinied ·as' Junior LeCttirers
earlier than the respondents was wnceded by Mr. Shiv Shankar · ,
before .the Tribunal as seem from paragraph 8 · of the Tribunal's
judgment. The Tribunal ,noted the following further facts :-
.
(1) That Government
bad decided ,in G.O.Ms.
2063,
,Education,
dated
25.8. 1969
that
first ·and
second
class
Post-Graduates would be given a 4igher starting pay of Rs. 260 in
in the scale of Rs. 200-500 ·and that third class Post:Graduates would.
B
c
be allowed only the pay drawn by them before they were appointed
D ·
as Junior Lecturers in the above scale;
(2) That the Government expressed the view in G.O.Ms. 1147,
Education, dated 4.6.1970 that in the common seniority lisi first
rank should be given only to those who have secured first or second
class Post-Graduate degrees with 50 percent marks and above whiCh
is the qualification prescribed for direct recuruitment of Juniot .
Lecturers; and (3) That in Rule 3 (I) (i) of the Adhoc Rules framed
on 19.9.1973 it is stipulated that at the time of appointment to the 1
category of'Junior Lecturers persons with.first or second class Post
Graduate degrees would have preference over persons with third
class Post ·Graduate degrees. ·
But the Tribunal relied heavily on the fact. that the Andlira
Pradesh High Court had directed in Writ Appeals 920 and. 938 of.
1975 that the seniority list sp.ould be prepared in' accordance with'
Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules,'1973 which have been given retrosr ' pective effect from 1.8.J.969 and.held.that the iQJpugned seniority list
framed as per Rule 13(1) of tp.e Adhoc Rules having :precedence over
the earlier execu'tive instruction is valid and that as the petitioners and
_respondents 3 to 8 belonged to the 'same ·category. of Post . Graduate
Assistants, there is no question of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution as Adhoc Rule 13 (I} says that seniority of Pos\
E
F
c·
Hi
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
' SUPREME COURT RBPoRTS
[1983) 3 s.c,ii..
Graduate Assistants appointed as Juni6r Lecturers shall b~ deter·
mined with reference to the dates of their actual appointment as
Post Graduate Assistants or the probable dates on which they would
have been, appointetd as Post Graduate Assistants but for their
appointment or promotion to higher posts. The Tribunal has
obsei;ved that if the intention of the Government was otherwise they
would have specifically provided
acco~dingly. In this view the
Tribunal rejected the petitioners' prayer for restoring the old seniority
list prepared in 1974 which in its opinion is contrary to Rule 13 (1)
of the Adhoc Rules. Accordingly the Tribunal dismissed Representa·
tion Petition 595 of 1977 and in view of its judgment in that Petiti()n
eit.her rejected or dismissed Representation Petitions 985 of 1977 and
289, 340, 446 and 553 of 1978. In Representation Petition 273 of
1978 the Tribtlnal observed, that the plea of the petitioners that first
and second· class Post Graduate degree holders should be given
preference over third class Post Graduate degree holders in the matter
of seniority as Junior Lec'turers is covered by its judgment
in
Representation Petition 59 5 of 1977 and that since the petitioners in
Representation Petition 273 of 1978 have already acquired B. Ed.
qualification, which is a pre-requisite for regular appointment as
Post Graduate
Assistants, 'the question of those petitioners'
regularisation in the posts -of Post Graduate Assistants should be
examined in accordance with the rules and their service should be
be regularised in. that category and thereafter their seniority as
Junior Lecturers should be determined in accordance with Rule I 3
(I) of the Adhgc Rul<!s,. ·1n Transferred Writ Petition 1246 of 1976
the Tribunal has stated in its judgment that in the judgment of the
High Court in Writ Appeals 920 and 938 of 1975, the High Court
has ordered that a fresh seniority list should be prepared in accor•
dance with Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules, that the relief prayed
for by the four petitioners in that Writ "Petition has already been
given and that Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. The
Tribunal has orderd that Transferred Writ Petition 7s of 1976 also
stands disposed of, presumably in the same manner as Transferred
Writ Petition 1246 of 1976 was disposed of, without specifically
indicating bow that Writ Petition is disposed of.
In Transferred W.P. 941of1976 out of which C.A. No. 415 of
1979 filed by 34 petitioners in that Petition has ariSel), the reliefs
prayed for were : (I) that a correct seniority list based on Rule 13
of the Adhoc.Rules 197,3 should be issued in respect of all the Junior
Lecturers, (2) that Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules framed in G.O.Ms.
l.
I
••
il.v. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, J.)
557
502, Education, dated 19.6.1974, under which first or second class
Post-Graduate degree has been prescribed as the qualification for
promotion to the posts of Principal of Junior Colleges should be
struck down as illegal and (3) that adhoc appointments of seven
third class Post-Graduate Junior Lectur~rs as Principals of Junior
Colleges made in the proceedings dated 14.3.1974 by. ~he second
respondent Director of Public Instruction, Andhra Pradesh should be
declared as illegal. Here also we shall refer to the parties as
arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience as stated
earlier.
The 14 petitioners .in this petition were working as School
Assistants in Higher Secondary schools in Andhra Pradesh. They
were subsequently appoined as. Junior Lecturers in junior colleges in
terms of Rule 3 of the Adhoc Rules which states that first preference.
for appointment as junior Lecturers in Junior Colleges should be
given to Post-Graduate Assistants in Category I-A of Class II and
Seletion Grade Assistants in Grade I of Category 2 of Class. II in the
Andhra Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or Headmasters of
High Schools and Post-Graduate Assistants in Zilla Parishad High
Schools and such of the Municipal Schools as are converted into
into Junior Colleges. The rule also provides that preference should
be given to persons with first or second class Post-Graduate degrees.
Rules 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules provi<\es that seniority is to be
determined with reference to the. date of their actilal appointment as
Post Graduate Assistants or the probable date on which they would
have . been appointed as . Post-Graduate Assistants but for their
appointment or promotion to higher posts. The. petitioners contendedtthat seniority of Junior. Lecturers, which is being maintained
subjectwise, Should be integrated and there should be a combined
seniority list and not subject-wise list. . In the Adhoc Rules framed
by the Government in G.O.Ms. 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973 there
were no rules regarding promotion of Junior Lecturers to the posts
of Principals ·of junior Colleges. Pending the framing of Aahoc
Rules in that regard the second respondent, Director of Public
Instruction, issued proceedings _in R.C. No. 775-Cl/2/74 dated
14.3:1973.promoting under Rule 10 (a) (i) ofthe 'St.ate and Subordi·
nate Service Rules, seven persons as Principals of Junior Colleges
though they did not hold first or secon\i clilss Post-Graduate degrees.
Subsequently, Adhoc Rules were framed. by the Government in
G.O.Ms: 502, Education, dated 19.6.1974 under the proviso to Rule
309 of the Constitution with retrospective effect from 1.8.1969
A
B
c
D
E
.F
G
H
B
c
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
i19S3) 3 s.c.R.
regarding promotion fo the posts of Principals of Junior Colleges.
Under these Rules Junior 'Lecturers holding· a first or second class'
Post-Graduate degrees who have put in a service of three years· as
Juuior Lecturers in the Educ1tional Subordinate Ser'vice are eligible
for promotiotion" as Principals of junior Colleges.
But Rule 8 of the
Adhoc Rules, 1974 which is a saving clause, reads as follows t
· . "Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules
a person who held a post of a Principal· of Ju-nior. College
immediately before the issue of these Rules shall be con- ·
' tinued as Principal and be given option either to continue
in the post of a Principal or_to·revert to-his original post".
!.
The tribunal affirmed in its judgment in this Transferred Writ
Petition its judgment in Representation Petition 5.95 of 1977 and
observed that that judgme1it would apply as regards the interpretation of Rule 13 in the matter of fhing inter se seniority among PostGraduate School Assistants appointed as Junior Lecturers under'
Rule 3 (I) (I) ofthe Adhoc Rules, !973, and•that seniority should be
determined with reference to the date of appointment as Post-·
Graduate School Assistants without reference to the nature of.the
1 Post-Graduate degrees, whether they are first, second or 'third '
class degrees. The Tribunal held . that subject to that provision
regarding fixing of over all seniority subject-wise seniority can also
be fixe\I and that for purposes of . promotion to the posts of
Principals the overall _seniority in the category of junior ·Lecturers
fixed in accordance with Rule 13 of the Adii.oc Rules should be ·
followed .. ·
<
It was submitted before the Tribunal on behalf of the Govern·
met\t that considering the nature of the duties of Principals there is
a reasonable classification between first and second class PostGraduate. School Assistants and such Assistants holding .only tliiid·
class Post-Graduate degrees, and there is no contravention of Articles
14 and !6 of the Constitution in prescribing first and second Class ,
Post-Graduate· degree for Junior ·Lecturers to be promoted' as
Principals of JUnior ·colleges .and that· clear distinction has been
maintained beiween holders of'first and second' class Post-Graduate
degrees and those holding only third class Post-Graduate degrees,,
and the former class of Post-Graduate degree holders have been
given advance increments on their appointment as-junior Lecturers
while the latter have been given only the pay they were drawing as
..
~\
(
\
B.V. REODY v. ANOHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, j,)
~59
Post Graduate School A;sistants when they were appointed as junior
Lecturers. It was also submitted . before the Tribunal that academic
qualification is germane in the educationaf field and that classification made on the basis of qualification for the post of Principal
cannot be termed as discriminatory.
A
On a perusal of G.O.Ms .. 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973 in
B
which Adhoc Ruels under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution· have been framed by the Government tlie Tribunal found that
weightage is to be given for first and second class Post-Graduate
degree holders over third class Post-Graduate degree holders. The
Tribunal accepted the contention of the Government that in academic
institutions excellence in academic attainments is a relevant considera-,
C
ti on. and that any discrimination based on excellence in academic
attainments has direct nexus with the object of achieving excellence
in a teaching institution and that it does' offend Articles 14 and 17
of the Constitution, more so when third. class Post-Graduate
degree holders are not permanently debarred from improving
their
D
standard of qualifications for bec;oming eligible to the .posts of
Principals of Junior Colleges. The Tribunal.thus rejected the second
prayer of the petitioners that the prescription of. first and second
class Post-Graduate degree as qualification for eligibility for promotion· to the posts of Princip~ls of Junior Colleges contravenes
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
E
The Tribunal found nothing objectionable in Rule ·s of the ' ·
Adhoc Rules 1974 referred to above- which protects the rights of
third class Post-Graduate degree 'holders who had been promoted
under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules 1
pending framing of Adhoc Rules which were actually framed subsequently on 19.6.1974.
On theee findings the Ttibunal dismissed Transferred Writ
Petition No. 941 of 1976.
Pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Andhra Pradesh
Government in 1964 that tire secondary school duration should be
JO years instead of 11 years and it should be followed by a tAlo yeais•
intermediate course in the place of then existing PUC instead· of the
then prevailing Higher Secondary' and .Multi-purpose system, com•
mellcing from the academic years 1969-70 the Government decided ·
in G.O.Ms. 1920, Education, dated 25.10.1968 that in the existing
F
G
H
SUPREMB COURT REPORTS
. l1983J 3 s.c.&.
colleges the two years' intermediate course. should be introduced
A
instead of the one year PUC, and laid down in 0.0.Ms., 2063, :
Education, dated· 25.8.1969 tbe. staff .. pattern and pay scales of:
staff in junior Colleges started for the two. years' intermediate course. ·:
In implementing this scheme Post-Graduates Assistants in. certain .
categories of schools were appointed as Junior Lecturers in Junior ·
B
· Colleges. The petitioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 and··
· batch, out of which Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659of1978 have arisen .
and Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976, out of·which Civil Appeal .
415 of 1979. has arisen. and those in certain other. Representation
Petitions and Transferred Writ.Petitions 785 and 1246 of 1976·were.
appointed as Junior Lecturers •.. Prior to . their appointment as.
C ·
Junior Lecturers they were ·au Post-Graduate. School, Assistants
or· Headmasters .. in· various · schools.· . The private respondents
, in Representation Petitions: 595 'of. 1977
and batch and • the
petitioners in Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976 were seniors as.·.
Post-Graduate School Assistants to the petitioners in Representation.
595 of 1977 and batch and the private respondents in ·Transferred
D ·
Writ Petition 941 of 1976 ... The said senior Post-Graduate Assistants
are ali third class Post:Graduate degree holders whereas the. said
Junior Post-Graduate School Assistants are all first or second class
• · Post Graduate ·degree , holders. Based on their superior academic. ·
-qualification those first and second class Post-Graduate School -
E: · Assistants were· given priority and treated. as seniors to the-said third .
class Post-graduate School Assistants in. the seniority list prepared in
1974 "after th~y were appointed• as Junior Lecturers. · .. The petitioners·
in Representation .