# GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR v. A.V. VENUGOPALA RAO

- **Citation:** [1994] Supp. 5 S.C.R. 473
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1994-11-14
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, N. Venka Tachala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-v-a-v-venugopala-rao-12721
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

B
SERVICE LAW-Promotion-Legality of provisional seniority list
challenged-Pending finalisation of seniority list, interim arrangement
made by State Government to avoid administrative hardship-Order of
administrative
Tribunal
upsetting
interim
arrangement-Whether C
sustainable-Held, No.
Pending finalisation of the seniority list, the Incharge arrangement
was made to keep s~nior most in the provisional list of the respective
divisions who were eligible for promotion to the post of Executive
Engineer as Incharge and that arrangement was being worked out D
satisfactorily. The Administrative Tribunal while upsetting the interim
arrangement directed that the direction issued by the Tribunal will not
preclude the authorities from putting an existing Executive Engineer in
additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer or an existing
Superintending Engineer similarly wherever required. Any incharge
arrangements to the posts of Executive Engineers, Superintending E
Engineers, or Chief Engineers made after interim order, were revoked
and they were divested of that charge. This part of the order of the
Tribunal was challenged before this Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : The Tribunal· was not justified in upsetting the· interim
arrangement which had got a rational and reasonable basis to avoid
administrative hardship or heart burning to the persons who claimed
F
to the posts of respective Executive Engineers, Superintending
Engineers and the Chief Engineers, as the case may be. Under the
circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the interim G
incharge arrangement made by the State Government would continue
till the disposal of the matter pending before the Tribunal.

## Text

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.
A
v.
A.V. VENUGOPALA RAO
NOVEMBER 14, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKA TACHALA, JJ.]
B
SERVICE LAW-Promotion-Legality of provisional seniority list
challenged-Pending finalisation of seniority list, interim arrangement
made by State Government to avoid administrative hardship-Order of
administrative
Tribunal
upsetting
interim
arrangement-Whether C
sustainable-Held, No.
Pending finalisation of the seniority list, the Incharge arrangement
was made to keep s~nior most in the provisional list of the respective
divisions who were eligible for promotion to the post of Executive
Engineer as Incharge and that arrangement was being worked out D
satisfactorily. The Administrative Tribunal while upsetting the interim
arrangement directed that the direction issued by the Tribunal will not
preclude the authorities from putting an existing Executive Engineer in
additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer or an existing
Superintending Engineer similarly wherever required. Any incharge
arrangements to the posts of Executive Engineers, Superintending E
Engineers, or Chief Engineers made after interim order, were revoked
and they were divested of that charge. This part of the order of the
Tribunal was challenged before this Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : The Tribunal· was not justified in upsetting the· interim
arrangement which had got a rational and reasonable basis to avoid
administrative hardship or heart burning to the persons who claimed
F
to the posts of respective Executive Engineers, Superintending
Engineers and the Chief Engineers, as the case may be. Under the
circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the interim G
incharge arrangement made by the State Government would continue
till the disposal of the matter pending before the Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1994.
473
(474-H, 475-A)
Civil Appeal No. 7828 of H
474
SUPREME COURT P.EPORTS
(1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.94 of the Andhra Pradesh
B
c
D
E
F
G
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 6190of1993.
K. Madhava Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the Appellants.
B. Kanta Rao for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
In th(l impugned order dated April 28, 1994, the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6190/93 directed that the direction
issued by the Tribunal "will not preclude the authorities from putting an
existing Executive Engineer in additional charge of the post of Executive
Engineer or an existing Superintending Engineer similarly wherever
required. The Committee also will examine the aspect that where there are
no controversies, the consideration ·of promotion of Executive Engineers
should be placed before: the Tribunal for any further directions. Any
incharge arrangements to the posts of Executive Engineers, Superintending
Engineers or Chief Engineers made after interim order, are revoked and
they stand divested of that charge, within one week." This part of the order
is now mainly assailed iri this appeal. Before issuing of notice to the
respondent by our proceedings dated July 13, 1994, Shri K. Madhava
Reddy, learned senior counsel had stated that pending finalisation of the
seniority list, the lncharges arrangement was made to keep senior most in
the provisional list of the respective divisions who are eligible for
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as incharge so as to avoid
heart burning among the officers and that arrangement is being worked out
satisfactorily. The impugned directions would create administrative
·problems. Therefore, when such statement was made we directed the
learned counsel to place on record of provisional seniority list and orders of
Incharge given to the stated senior most persons in the respective divisions.
Accordingly, they have placed on record the provisional seniority list and
also order of incharge arrangement from the respective divisions. This
position has not been controverted. However, the learned counsel for the
respondent in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of ti\e respondent has
controverted the correctness and legality of the provisional seniority list as
such. Since that matter is now pending adjudication in the Tribunal, we
direct the Tribunal to look into the matter.
As to what is done, is an interim arrangement of the Government for
H
smooth functioning of the department, we think that the Tribunal was not
'·
GOVERNMENT OF A. P. v. A.V. VENUGOPALA RAO
475
justified in upsetting the interim arrangement which has got a rational and A
reasonable basis to avoid administrative hardship or heart burning to the
persons who claimed to the posts of respective Executive Engineers,
Superintending Engineers and the Chief Engineers, as the case may be.
Under these circumstances, the above quoted order of the Tribunal is set
aside and the interim incharge arrangement made by the State Government
would continue till the disposal of O.As pending before the Tribunal. The B
· Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this
order. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
A.G.
Appeal allowed.