# P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 212
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-02-13
- **Bench:** Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-rammohan-rao-v-k-srinivas-and-ors-etc-38222
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Issue arose whether the period of officiating service of the temporarily
appointed Assistant Executive Engineers-AEEs between 1990-1992
including the appellants should be taken into account for considering
their seniority over and above the 1997 batch of regularly appointed
candidates through APPSC-private respondents.
Headnotes†
Service Law - Seniority - Counting of the period of officiating
service - Appellants regularly appointed in 1990 as Work
Inspectors in the State Corporation - For the project-based
exigency, in 1992, the appellants and one other appointed
as temporary AEEs u/r.10(a)(i)(1) of the Rules - Private
respondents appointed as AEEs in 1997, after undergoing the
regular selection process through APPSC in accordance with
the Act of 1994 - Subsequently, services of appellant came
to be regularized by G.O.M No. 234 on 27.06.2005, and the
appellants placed below the last regularly selected candidate of
AEEs in terms of seniority - Subsequently, State Government
introduced a classification amongst temporarily appointed
AEEs based on their dates of appointment with reference to
the promulgation of Act of 1994 - Issuance of revised G.O.M
No. 262, dated 17.06.2006, stipulating that the temporary
AEEs appointed between 1990-1992 would be placed below
the last regular AEE appointed through the APPSC, prior to
the enactment of the Act of 1994 - Challenge to - High Court
quashed the G.O.M No. 262 dated 17.06.2006 - Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable - State Government fully justified in issuing
the revised G.O.M. No. 262 - Period of officiating service-period
between 1990 to 2005 of the appellants and the batch of the AEEs
appointed between 1990-1992 to be counted as regular service for
determining the seniority, entitling him/them to be placed above the
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1061
P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc.
1997 batch of regularly appointed candidates-private respondents in
the seniority list - At the time of the appointment of the appellants
and other similarly placed candidates as AEEs between the years
1990-1992, there was a vacuum in rules governing the appointment
of AEEs in the Panchayat Raj Department, as such it cannot be said
that these appointments were de hors the rules - Notwithstanding
the designation of the appointments of the appellants and similarly
situated candidates as being temporary, such appointments were
neither restricted by a fixed tenure nor conceived as a stop-gap
or ad-hoc arrangement - While characterized as temporary, these
appointments were not intended to address a transient or interim
requirement, rather, they were structured to ensure continuity and
stability within the workforce - Services of the appellants and other
similarly situated candidates were regularised in 2005, and the same
attained finality - Once the services of employees are regularised,
the ad-hoc or stop-gap nature of the appointment does not survive -
Since there were no selection rules in force in the Panchayat
Raj Department for appointment of the appellants as temporary
AEEs in 1992, the appellants clearly falls under Proposition (B) of
the Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association v. State of
Maharashtra's case, that if the initial appointment is not made by
following the procedure laid down by the rules but 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 - Furthermore, the rule-making power of
the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the
concept of functus officio - Reasoning assigned by the High Court
that the State Government became functus officio after issuance
of G.O.M. No. 234 dated 27.06.2005 and could not have issued
the revised G.O.M. No. 262 dated 17.06.2006 is untenable and
ultra vires the Constitution - Reasoning by the High Court that
the private respondents, as affected parties, were required to
be heard before the issuan

## Text

_Characters 0–39,975 of 66,844. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39975 for what follows._

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1060 : 2025 INSC 212
P. Rammohan Rao
v.
K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 2717-2719 of 2025)
13 February 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the period of officiating service of the temporarily
appointed Assistant Executive Engineers-AEEs between 1990-1992
including the appellants should be taken into account for considering
their seniority over and above the 1997 batch of regularly appointed
candidates through APPSC-private respondents.
Headnotes†
Service Law - Seniority - Counting of the period of officiating
service - Appellants regularly appointed in 1990 as Work
Inspectors in the State Corporation - For the project-based
exigency, in 1992, the appellants and one other appointed
as temporary AEEs u/r.10(a)(i)(1) of the Rules - Private
respondents appointed as AEEs in 1997, after undergoing the
regular selection process through APPSC in accordance with
the Act of 1994 - Subsequently, services of appellant came
to be regularized by G.O.M No. 234 on 27.06.2005, and the
appellants placed below the last regularly selected candidate of
AEEs in terms of seniority - Subsequently, State Government
introduced a classification amongst temporarily appointed
AEEs based on their dates of appointment with reference to
the promulgation of Act of 1994 - Issuance of revised G.O.M
No. 262, dated 17.06.2006, stipulating that the temporary
AEEs appointed between 1990-1992 would be placed below
the last regular AEE appointed through the APPSC, prior to
the enactment of the Act of 1994 - Challenge to - High Court
quashed the G.O.M No. 262 dated 17.06.2006 - Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable - State Government fully justified in issuing
the revised G.O.M. No. 262 - Period of officiating service-period
between 1990 to 2005 of the appellants and the batch of the AEEs
appointed between 1990-1992 to be counted as regular service for
determining the seniority, entitling him/them to be placed above the
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1061
P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc.
1997 batch of regularly appointed candidates-private respondents in
the seniority list - At the time of the appointment of the appellants
and other similarly placed candidates as AEEs between the years
1990-1992, there was a vacuum in rules governing the appointment
of AEEs in the Panchayat Raj Department, as such it cannot be said
that these appointments were de hors the rules - Notwithstanding
the designation of the appointments of the appellants and similarly
situated candidates as being temporary, such appointments were
neither restricted by a fixed tenure nor conceived as a stop-gap
or ad-hoc arrangement - While characterized as temporary, these
appointments were not intended to address a transient or interim
requirement, rather, they were structured to ensure continuity and
stability within the workforce - Services of the appellants and other
similarly situated candidates were regularised in 2005, and the same
attained finality - Once the services of employees are regularised,
the ad-hoc or stop-gap nature of the appointment does not survive -
Since there were no selection rules in force in the Panchayat
Raj Department for appointment of the appellants as temporary
AEEs in 1992, the appellants clearly falls under Proposition (B) of
the Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association v. State of
Maharashtra's case, that if the initial appointment is not made by
following the procedure laid down by the rules but 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 - Furthermore, the rule-making power of
the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the
concept of functus officio - Reasoning assigned by the High Court
that the State Government became functus officio after issuance
of G.O.M. No. 234 dated 27.06.2005 and could not have issued
the revised G.O.M. No. 262 dated 17.06.2006 is untenable and
ultra vires the Constitution - Reasoning by the High Court that
the private respondents, as affected parties, were required to
be heard before the issuance of the revised G.O.M. No. 262 is
unsustainable and contrary to the established legal principles - If
the State Government is compelled to afford an opportunity of
hearing to every individual or entity likely to be affected by its
administrative decision-making, its rule-making authority would
be severely constricted, defeating the very purpose of efficient
policy implementation and undermining its ability to discharge its
administrative duties - Thus, the order passed by the High Court
quashed and set aside - Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate
Service Rules - Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments
to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay
Structure) Act, 1994. [Paras 34, 35, 37, 38, 47]
1062
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Doctrines/Principles - Principle of functus officio - Application
of concept of functus officio on legislatures:
Held: Rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or
nullified by application of the concept of functus officio - Principle
of functus officio normally applies to a judicial forum or a quasijudicial authority and would have no application to the rule-making
authority which is within the domain of the State Government by
virtue of Art. 245 of the Constitution. [Para 42]
Case Law Cited
Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association v. State Of
Maharashtra [1990] 2 SCR 900 : (1990) 2 SCC 715 - followed.
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 131 : (1985)
3 SCC 398 - relied on.
Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. UOI [2023] 6
SCR 731 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 309; Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union
of India (2012) 11 SCC 257; Santosh Kumar v. State of A.P.
[2003] Supp. 1 SCR 264 : (2003) 5 SCC 511; Amarendra Kumar
Mohapatra v. State of Orissa and Ors. [2014] 2 SCR 1031 : (2014)
4 SCC 583 - referred to.
List of Acts
Andra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996;
Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services
and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act,
1994; Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj and Rural Development
Act; Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj and Rural Development
Rules.
List of Keywords
Seniority; Counting of the period of officiating service; Work
Inspectors; Temporary Assistant Executive Engineers-AEEs;
Regular selection process; De hors the rules; Stop-gap or ad-hoc
arrangement; Proposition (B) of the Direct Recruit Class II Engg.
Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra's case; Administrative
actions; Judicial review; Rule-making power; Administrative
duties; Principle of Functus Officio; Andhra Pradesh Schedule
Castes Cooperative Development Corporation; Judicial forum or
quasi-judicial authority; Panchayat Raj Department.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1063
P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No(s). 4036-4038 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2023 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP Nos. 3903, 3910
and 4173 of 2011
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 4596-4597 of 2024 and Civil
Appeal No(s). 2532-2541 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Gaurav Agarwal, B. Adinarayana Rao, Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Advs.,
Ms. Devina Sehgal, S. Uday Bhanu, Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Kumar
Shashank, Ms. Tatini Basu, Ms. Rao Vishwaja, P. Vamshi Rao Adv, P.
Mohith Rao, Ms. J Akshitha, Shaik Sohil Akthar, Eugene S Philomene.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Gaurav Agarwal, Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Advs., Dr. K. Lakshmi
Narasimha, Ms. Bina Madhavan, S. Uday Kumar Sagar, Ms.
Niharika Tannerce, M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, Ms. Devina Sehgal,
S Uday Bhanu.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 4036-4038 of 2024
Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 4596-4597 of 2024
1.
Heard.
2.
Leave granted.
3.
These appeals take exception to the final judgment and common
order dated 21st September, 2023 rendered by the High Court for
the State of Telangana at Hyderabad1 whereby the Division Bench
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as the 'High Court'.
1064
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
allowed the batch of writ petitions preferred by the private respondents
herein and quashed the Government Office Memorandum2 No. 262,
dated 17th June, 2006, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
4.
Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for the disposal of these
appeals are as under.
5.
The appellants who hold the qualification of B. Tech (Bachelor of
Technology) were selected and appointed as Work Inspectors in
the Andra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Development
Corporation3 on 1st January, 1990 and were serving in the said
department. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.M.
No. 89, dated 9th February, 1990, sanctioning posts of Assistant
Executive Engineers4 for achieving Phase-II of the Andhra Pradesh
Primary School Project,5 which was initiated in collaboration between
the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of United
Kingdom in the year 1983. The said project was time-bound and
hence, directions were issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh
to the Chief Engineer, to fill up the posts immediately from the list
available with the Andra Pradesh Public Service Commission,6 and
if the list was not adequate then the Chief Engineer was permitted
to recruit the candidates through the employment exchange.
6.
Since the list available with the APPSC was inadequate to fill the
posts required for the project, the Chief Engineer wrote to the
State Government, and in response thereof, G.O.M. No. 429,
dated 6th March, 1990, was issued by the Panchayat Raj and Rural
Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, directing
that these vacancies may be filled up from the Work Inspector/
Draughtsman/Tracers who were already serving in the Panchayat
Raj Department and possessed a graduation degree in Engineering
i.e. B.E./B.Tech. It was further clarified that the nature of these
appointments would be temporary under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Andra
2
Hereinafter, being referred to as the 'G.O.M.'
3
Hereinafter, being referred to as the 'Corporation'.
4
Hereinafter, being referred to as 'AEEs'.
5
To achieve the first objective 84 primary school building with improved designs were constructed in 11
selected project districts. In order to achieve phase-II of the project construction work needed to be
entrusted to the Panchayat Raj Engineering department and to have a separate class of engineer's staff
for undertaking construction of buildings of primary schools and teachers' centres.
6
Hereinafter, being referred to as 'APPSC'.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1065
P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc.
Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules7 pending amendment to the
Special Rules for Panchayat Raj Engineering Services. The said
G.O.M. also contained a direction to frame a formula for the promotion
of the above-mentioned candidates, taking into account the strength
of cadre and the retirement vacancies in the next two years as per
the rules. A Committee was also constituted to consider the proposal
for temporary appointments and for filling up the remaining vacancies.
7.
Thereafter, another G.O.M. No. 540, dated 30th August, 1990 was
issued by the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department,
whereby 386 posts of AEEs were sanctioned under the Cyclone
Emergency Reconstruction Project.8 The appellants herein and
one individual who were already serving as Work Inspectors were
appointed as temporary AEEs on 5th December, 1992 against these
vacancies. It is an undisputed fact that the appellants herein and
his peers were appointed against substantiate vacancies created
for the project.
8.
Subsequently, the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments
to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay
Structure) Act, 19949 came to be enacted on 15th January, 1994 to
streamline the recruitment process. The same was made effective
retrospectively from 25th November, 1993.
9.
Thereafter, the G.O.M. No. 391, dated 30th June, 1994, came to be
issued by the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department,
creating 729 posts of AEEs for taking up the works related to rural
water supply and sanitation.10 Under the said G.O.M., employment
assurance scheme and employment guarantee scheme were also
created.
10. In July, 1994, the Technical Grade-I Inspectors filed Original Application
No. 533 of 1994 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal,11
to consider their cases for appointment as AEEs against the project
based vacancies. The APAT vide order dated 4th July, 1994 disposed
of the O.A., wherein the State Government was directed to consider
7
Hereinafter, referred to as 'Service rules'.
8
Hereinafter, referred to as 'CERP'
9
Hereinafter, referred to as 'Act of 1994'.
10
'Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Scheme'.
11
Hereinafter, being referred to as 'APAT'.
1066
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the case of Work Inspectors for appointment to the posts of AEE
before notifying the vacancies to employment exchange.
11. In compliance with the aforesaid direction passed by APAT, G.O.M.
No. 1289, dated 10th August, 1994, came to be issued by the
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department in relation to the
appointments under the 'Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Scheme', permitting
the Chief Engineer to fill up the vacancies of AEEs which had been
created by way of G.O.M. No. 391, dated 30th June, 1994, from
eligible Work Inspector/Draughtsman/Tracers having the requisite
degree qualification. The aforesaid G.O.M. No. 1289 contained a
specific stipulation that the candidates would be appointed temporarily
subject to the condition that they should make an endeavour of
selection through the APPSC, failing which, they would be reverted
back to their original cadre of Work Inspector/Draughtsman/Tracers.
12. AEEs appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Service Rules from the
category of Work Inspector/Draughtsman/Tracers and the candidates,
who were selected from the list tendered by the employment
exchange between 2nd August, 1989 to 30th June, 1995, made several
representations requesting the State Government to regularize their
services as most of them had completed more than five years in
service.
13. In 1995, Notification No. 8 of 1995 came to be issued by the APPSC
inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment in various
posts including that of AEEs in the Panchayat Raj Department.
The recruitment process for the aforesaid appointment was to be
conducted under the Act of 1994. The aspiring candidates appeared
in the test conducted by the APPSC and as many as 627 posts were
filled and the successful candidates including the private respondents
herein were appointed in the year 1997, upon due selection by APPSC.
14. Being aggrieved by the non-consideration of their representations for
regularisation, the temporary AEEs (including the appellants herein),
who had been appointed between the years 1990-1995, filed Original
Application No. 5730 of 1995 and batch matters before the APAT,
seeking regularisation of their services as they had been working
on a temporary basis for several years. The APAT, vide order dated
19th February, 1996, disposed of these O.A.s, directing the State
Government to take a decision regarding the claim of regularisation
of services of temporarily appointed AEEs within a reasonable time.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1067
P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc.
The APAT, further, directed that till such decision was taken, the
services of the applicants therein shall not be terminated.
15. In compliance with the above direction, G.O.M. No. 997, dated 27th
July, 1996, was issued by the State Government rejecting the prayer
seeking regularisation of the temporarily appointed AEEs with the
observation that there was no provision in the extant service rules
for recruitment to the post of AEEs by promotion.
16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid G.O.M., the temporary AEEs, who were
appointed between 1990-1995, again approached the APAT via
various Original Applications.12 Initially, a stay was granted by the
APAT vide order dated 10th August, 1996, suspending the operation
of G.O.M. No. 997, dated 27th July, 1996, and a direction was issued
to the State Government, not to notify the vacancies occupied by the
applicants therein for the purpose of selection/appointment.
17. In the meantime, and during the pendency of the aforesaid Original
Applications,13 the Government issued another G.O.M. No. 234
dated 27th June, 2005, whereby the services of all temporary AEEs
appointed between 1990-1995 and continuing in service on that
date were regularised. It was further clarified that the services of
all the temporary AEEs, who were appointed between the years
1990-1995, shall be regularized below the last regularly selected
candidate of AEEs.
18. Pursuant to the issuance of the aforesaid G.O.M., the pending Original
Applications filed before the APAT were dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 13th December, 2006, and liberty was granted to
the applicants therein to work out their remedies, if they were still
aggrieved after the issuance of G.O.M. No. 234.
19. Though satisfied with the regularisation of their services, but aggrieved
by the denial of seniority under the G.O.M. No. 234, AEEs appointed
between 1990-1992, including the appellants herein, made various
representations to the State Government, claiming that they were
appointed before the promulgation of the Act of 1994, and thus they
were required to be treated as a different class from those appointed
between 1993-1995, which was after the promulgation of Act of
1994. It was asserted that G.O.M. No. 234, had caused significant
12
O.A. No. 4991 of 1996, O.A. No. 5547 of 1996, O.A. No. 4427 of 1997 and batch matters.
13
Id.
1068
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
prejudice and injustice as the Engineers appointed between 19901992 had been placed below the AEEs appointed during the year
1997 in the order of seniority, who had thereby lost nearly 10-15
years of continuous service. The State Government was requested to
regularize the services of this category of AEEs appointed between
1990-1992 from the date of joining the posts.
20. The State Government, after examining the representations and the
prolonged service of the temporary AEEs appointed between the
years 1990-1992, modified G.O.M. No. 234, dated 27th June, 2005,
and issued a revised G.O.M. No. 262, dated 17th June, 2006, which
inter alia provided that: -
"5. Accordingly, in partial modification of the orders issued
in the G.O. 1st read above, the Government hereby directs
the Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad to
regularize the services of the Assistant Executive Engineers
who were appointed during the period 1990-92 below the
last regular Assistant Executive Engineer appointed
through Andra Pradesh, Public Service Commission
prior to the promulgation of Act, 2/94."
(emphasis supplied)
21. In effect, the above G.O.M. directed that the temporary AEEs
appointed before promulgation of the Act of 1994 would retain their
seniority from the date of their initial induction on the posts.
22. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the revised G.O.M. No. 262, dated
17th June, 2006, the AEEs regularly appointed through the APPSC
Notification No. 8 of 1995, i.e., the private respondents herein, who
had joined service in the year 1997 and also, the AEEs appointed on
a temporary basis between 1993-1995, filed Original Applications14
before the APAT. In these batches of Original Application, the
State Government filed an affidavit specifically asserting that the
appointments made between 1990-1992 were not de hors the service
rules and there was no requirement of selection on these posts
through the APPSC as the same were exempted from the purview
of the Commission (APPSC).
14
O.A. No. 5818/2009, O.A. No. 10733/2009, O.A. No. 5933/2009, O.A. No. 6020 of 2009 and batch
matters.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1069
P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc.
23. Vide a common order dated 3rd February, 2011, the APAT dismissed
the Original Applications15 preferred by the 1997 Batch regularly
appointed candidates (private respondents herein) and allowed the
Original Applications16 preferred by the temporary AEEs selected
between 1993-1995. The APAT, while upholding the validity of G.O.M.
No. 262, dated 17th June, 2006, also held that the temporary AEEs
appointed between 1993-1995 were also entitled to a similar treatment
as extended to those appointed between 1990-1992 and that the
candidates regularly appointed through APPSC in 1997 (private
respondents herein) could not claim seniority over the candidates
whose regularisation was done in the year 2005.
24. The 1997 batch regularly appointed candidates (private respondents
herein) assailed the common order dated 3rd February, 2011 passed
by the APAT by filing writ petitions17 before the High Court. These
writ petitions came to be allowed by the learned Division Bench
vide final judgment and common order dated 21st September, 2023
which is subjected to challenge in these appeals by special leave.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants: -
25. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
advanced the following pertinent submissions assailing the impugned
judgment: -
(a) That the appellants hold the qualification of Bachelor in
Engineering. They were duly selected and appointed as
Work Inspectors on 1st January, 1990 in the Andhra Pradesh
Scheduled Castes Co-operative Development Corporation
against a sanctioned post.
(b) That the State Government felt an imminent need for qualified
engineers to carry out the Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction
Project (CERP) in the year 1990. The Panchayat Raj Department
issued G.O.M. No. 540, dated 30th August, 1990, sanctioning
another 386 posts of AEEs under the CERP. At that point in
15
O.A. No. 5018/2006, O.A. No. 5109/2006, O.A. No. 5789/2006, O.A. No. 6394/2006, O.A. No. 6423/2007,
O.A. No. 1892/2010 and O.A. No. 4056/2010.
16
O.A. No. 5818/2009, O.A. No. 5933/2009, O.A. No. 6020/2009, O.A. No. 6023/2009, O.A. No. 6038/2009,
O.A. No. 10733/2009 and O.A. No. 10897/2009.
17
Writ Petition Nos. 3903, 3910, 3954, 4173, 4434, 4435, 4437, 4439, 4441 and 22422 of 2011.
1070
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
time, no rules were in place for the appointment of Engineers
in the Panchayat Raj Department. To meet the exigency, the
appellants and one other who were already serving as Works
Inspectors in the Cooperative Department Corporation were
appointed as temporary AEEs under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of Andhra
Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules vide order dated
5th December, 1992. Their appointment was in no manner de
hors the rules or a backdoor appointment.
(c)
That no challenge was ever laid by the private respondents
to the G.O.M. No. 234 dated 27th June, 2005, vide which the
services of the appellants and other similarly situated candidates
were regularized and thus, the same has attained finality. He
urged that the services of the appellants and the similarly
situated candidates could not be regularized at an earlier point
in time due to the need for amendment of the Andhra Pradesh
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Act/Rules and for the
creation of a channel for the absorption of the appellants and
similarly placed persons. He urged that the delay in amending
the aforesaid rules cannot be attributed to the appellants and
they cannot be put to a disadvantage for this reason by placing
them below the last regularly appointed employee selected after
the promulgation of the Act of 1994.
(d) That the appellants and the other similarly situated candidates
are of the 1990-1992 batch and have continued to discharge
their functions uninterruptedly for the last 31 years while securing
periodic promotions. If the impugned order is not set aside,
they would be placed below the regularly recruited batch of
1997(private respondents herein) and thereby, they would lose
7 years of seniority. He further stated the appellants are due
to retire in January, 2026 and they will superannuate without
receiving the promotion to which they are rightfully entitled.
(e) The learned counsel tried to draw a clear distinction between
the G.O.M. No. 540, dated 30th August, 1990, vide which the
sanctioned posts under CERP were created and the appellants
were appointed as AEEs, and the G.O.M. No. 1289, dated 10th
August, 1994. He urged that G.O.M. No. 1289, which permitted
the department to fill up the further project-based vacancies to
the posts of AEEs, contained an express stipulation that the
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1071
P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc.
candidates were being appointed temporarily, subject to the
condition that they should seek selection by APPSC, failing
which, they would be reverted as Work Inspectors, whereas,
no such condition existed in G.O.M. No. 540 dated 30th August,
1990.
(f)
That though the terms of appointment would show that the
appointment of the appellants and the similarly situated
candidates was temporary, however, it was neither limited by
time, nor was it meant to be a stop-gap/ad hoc arrangement.
He drew the Court's attention to the G.O.M. No. 391, dated 30th
June, 1994, which dealt with Jawahar Rozgar Yojana Scheme
and urged that this G.O.M. contained a clause providing that
as and when the Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project/
Circles/Divisions are abolished, the persons working in these
Circles/Divisions/Sub-Divisions shall be posted in newly
sanctioned Circles and Divisions. The posts that were sanctioned
for the CERP in the office of the Chief Engineer, CERP would
stand abolished w.e.f. 30th June, 1994, but the staff would
continue to attend the residual work till the work is completed.
He urged that there was a clear intent on the part of the State
Government while issuing this G.O.M. that the persons working
in the Sub-divisions created under the CERP would be posted
to new Circles/Divisions/Sub-Divisions under the Panchayat Raj
Department and thus, for all practical purposes, the services of
the appellants and his peers who were appointed as AEEs under
the CERP were to be absorbed into the cadre of Panchayat
Raj Department upon the completion of the project.
(g) That the State Government had filed a counter affidavit in the
writ petitions18 filed before the Division Bench by the regularly
appointed 1997 batch recruits(private respondents herein)
challenging the G.O.M. No. 262, dated 17th June 2006, wherein
a specific plea was taken that the appointments to the post of
AEEs made between 1990-92 were not de hors the service
rules and at that point of time, there was no requirement for
these selections to be made through the APPSC as the same
were exempted from the purview of the Commission (APPSC).
18
Supra Note 16.
1072
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(h) That the Division Bench has passed the impugned order on an
erroneous assumption that once the State Government issued
G.O.M. No. 234 dated 27th June, 2005, it became 'functus
officio' and could not have modified the same by re-examining
the case of the temporary employees appointed between 19901995 and supersede the same by issuance of the G.O.M. No.
262, dated 17th June, 2006. He submitted that the doctrine of
'functus officio' is not applicable to administrative decisions
based on policy considerations and if such doctrine is made
applicable to the rule-making power of the Government, the
administrative setup would be virtually crippled. In this regard,
he placed reliance on Rule 25 of the Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and the judgment of this Court
in Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. UOI.19
(i)
That the reasoning given by the Division Bench for quashing the
G.O.M. No. 262, dated 17th June, 2006, vide which the benefit
was given to the temporary appointees (including the appellants
herein) that the same was issued without hearing the affected
persons i.e. the writ petitioners(private respondents herein)
is ex-facie misplaced. He urged that there is no requirement
in law for issuance of notice to the set of employees likely to
be affected where the Government takes a policy decision
of conferring the benefit of regularisation and fixing the date
from which the seniority is to be reckoned for a particular set
of employees.
(j)
That neither was the State Government denuded of the power
to amend the earlier G.O.M. nor was there any requirement of
hearing the candidates likely to be affected by the revised G.O.M.
before its issuance thereof. He urged that the rule-making power
of the State Government cannot be curtailed by the principle of
'Audi alteram partem' because such a view would virtually bind
the hands of the State Government, and it would lose the right
to exercise the rule-making power. In this regard, he placed
reliance on Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India.20
(k)
That the G.O.M. No. 262 was passed in consonance with the
19
2023 SCC OnLine SC 309.
20
(2012) 11 SCC 257.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1073
P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc.
extant rules and the procedural requirements. The representations
filed by the appellants and his peers pursuant to the issuance
of G.O.M. No. 234, dated 27th June, 2005, were objectively
considered by the State Government, and a well-considered
equitable policy decision was taken to count the services of the
candidates appointed between 1990-92 from the date of their
initial induction in service as temporary AEEs and as a sequel
thereto, the appellants were assigned seniority from the said date.
(l)
That the instant case falls under Proposition(B) enumerated
by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Direct
Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association v. State Of
Maharashtra,21 which lays down that "If the initial appointment
is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules
but 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 urged that no
rules were in force in the Panchayat Raj Department when
the appellants were appointed. They continued in his post till
regularisation in 2005, and thus, the period of the temporary
service (i.e. from 1990 to 2005) of the appellants before the
regularisation, has to be counted for determining their seniority.
He concluded his submissions by urging that the impugned judgment
has disturbed the settled seniority of the cadre posts which has been
in vogue for the past two decades, and as a result, the appellants
are placed below the private respondents who are more than seven
years junior to them at the fag end of their career and thus, deserves
to be set aside.
26. Learned senior counsel representing the State Government has
supported the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the appellants.
On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and the State implored the Court to allow the appeals, set aside the
impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench, and restore the
judgment passed by the Tribunal (APAT).
21
(1990) 2 SCC 715.
1074
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Submissions on behalf of the private respondents:
27. E-converso, learned senior counsel representing the private
respondents strenuously supported the impugned judgment. He
advanced the following submissions:-
(a) That the respondents were appointed as AEEs in 1997 after
undergoing a regular selection process in pursuance of
Notification No. 8 of 1995, dated 8th December, 1995 issued by
APPSC. On the other hand, the appellants and other similarly
situated candidates were appointed as AEEs purely on a
temporary basis during 1990-1995, either on promotion, on
recruitment by transfer or were sponsored by the employment
exchange.
(b) That the appellants and other similarly situated employees were
neither appointed with due adherence to any selection procedure
nor was their appointment made in accordance with any service
rules. He urged that the appellants were not even borne in the
cadre as on the date on which the respondents were regularly
selected as AEEs in the Panchayat Raj Department and thus,
the respondents who were directly recruited through APPSC are
entitled to be placed above the appellants and other similarly
situated temporary AEEs in the order of seniority.
(c)
That the APPSC published Notification No. 4 of 1990 calling
for applications from all persons aspiring to be appointed
as AEEs on a regular basis. Further, a second opportunity
was given vide another Notification No. 8 of 1995 calling for
applications for regular selection on the post of AEEs. He thus
urged that sufficient opportunities were given to the appellants
and similarly situated persons to get appointed via the direct
recruitment process conducted by the APPSC, but they did not
avail of the same.
(d) That vide G.O.M. No. 234, dated 27th June, 2005, a final decision
was taken and the services of the appellants and other similarly
situated employees were regularized. However, they were rightly
directed to be placed below the last regularly selected candidate
appointed through APPSC. He submitted that this G.O.M.
was a final policy decision taken by the State Government,
since it was issued after duly taking into consideration the
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1075
P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc.
recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee and the
General Administration Department and also the fact that the
appellants and other similarly situated candidates had rendered
more than 10 years of uninterrupted service and were working
against the sanctioned posts.
(e) The learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents
fairly submitted that the decision to regularise the services of the
appellants and other similarly situated candidates was justified.
He, however, urged that once a final decision had been taken
and orders were passed with respect to seniority vide G.O.M.
No. 234, the State Government became functus officio and could
not have re-examined and re-opened the issue of seniority on
the basis of representation made by the affected parties.
(f)
That vide the revised G.O.M. No. 262, dated 17th June, 2006,
one set of the employees who were appointed between 1990
and 1992(including the appellants herein) were placed above
the respondents in the seniority list. He urged that the revised
G.O.M. was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to
the respondents herein as no notice was given to them before
taking a decision adversely affecting their seniority, which is in
utter violation of principles of natural justice and thus, the same
was rightly struck down by the Division Bench.
(g) That the factors forming the basis for the issuance of the revised
G.O.M. No. 262 were evidently within the knowledge of the
State Government at the time of issuing the earlier G.O.M. No.
234. However, no sufficient explanation has been offered by
the State Government as to why these critical considerations
were overlooked during the formulation of the earlier G.O.M.,
thereby necessitating the subsequent revision.
(h) That the instant case falls under the corollary drawn to
Proposition(A) enumerated by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers'
Association(supra), which lays down that "where the initial
appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and
made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post
cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority."
He urged that the initial appointment of the appellants and
the similarly situated persons to the post of AEEs was ad-hoc
1076
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and not according to the rules prevailing in the Panchayat Raj
Department, and thus, the period of temporary service (i.e.
from 1990 to 2005) rendered by the appellants prior to their
regularisation cannot be counted for determining the seniority.
He concluded his submissions by urging that granting seniority to the
appellants over and above the respondents is totally unconstitutional
and de hors the rules, and, therefore, the High Court was wholly
justified in quashing the revised G.O.M. No. 262. He urged that the
view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court is unassailable
in the eyes of law and hence, the appeals merit rejection.
28. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgment
along with the material placed on record.
Discussion and Conclusion:
29. A few important facts which are not in dispute and require mention
for the adjudication of the present appeals are noted below:-
(i)
The appellants and his peers were holding the qualification
of B.E/B. Tech and were regularly appointed in the year 1990
as Work Inspectors in the Andhra Pradesh Schedules Castes
Cooperative Development Corporation.
(ii)
Vide G.O.M. No. 540, dated 30th August, 1990, the State
Government sanctioned 386 posts of AEEs under the Cyclone
Emergency Reconstruction Project (CERP) of the Panchayat
Raj Department with a purpose to carry out the project-based
reconstruction of the infrastructure including schools, etc., which
had been destroyed in a cyclone. The appellants and one
similarly placed candidate were transferred from the Corporation
and came to be appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers
(AEEs) on a temporary basis in the said project vide order dated
5th December, 1992. The relevant portion of the appointment
order is extracted below: -
"1. In pursuance of the orders issued in G.O. 3rd, 4th,
and 6th cited and basing on the recommendation of
the Committee, the candidates annexed to this order
who were appointed as Work Inspector/Draughtsman,
Tracer in S.C. Corporation, Tribal Welfare Department,
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1077
P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc.
weaker Section, Housing Scheme under Social
Welfare Department and Panchayati Raj Engineering
Department and possessing graduate qualification
in engineering are hereby appointed as Temporary
Assistant Executive Engineers in the zones mentioned
against their names in the annexure I to IV in
A.P.P.R.E.S. against the posts sanctioned under
Cyclone reconstruction Project (CERP) sanctioned in
G.O. 1st cited 2nd cited under rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the
General Rules for state and Sub Ordinate services
in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,330-60-1, 980-70-275/
with usual allowances as admissible under the rules
from the actual date of joining and allotted to Chief
Engineer (CERP) P.R. Hyderabad.
2. The appointment referred to in para (1) above
is purely temporary and does not confer any right
for regular appointment or otherwise liable to be
terminated at any time without prior notice or intimation
and without assigning any reasons therefore, since
the project is temporary."
Thus, it is clear that a specific reference was given while taking
the decision for these temporary appointments, that the said
appointments were being made under Rule 10(a)(i) of the
General Rules for State and Subordinate services i.e., Andhra
Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules. In this background, there is
no dispute that the appellants were appointed as AEEs against
the regularly sanctioned posts albeit on a temporary basis.
(iii) The private respondents were appointed as AEEs in 1997, after
undergoing the regular selection process through APPSC in
accordance with the Act of 1994.
(iv) The appellants and similarly situated employees continued to
serve as AEEs in the Panchayat Raj Department for almost
13 years before their prayer for regularisation was favourably
considered by the State Government vide G.O.M. No.