# V. SREENIVASA REDDY AND ORS v. GOVT. OF AP. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1994] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 233
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1994-10-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6575-6580 of 1994
- **Bench:** K Ramaswamy, N. Venkatachala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-sreenivasa-reddy-and-ors-v-govt-of-ap-and-ors-12463
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

B
Service Law:
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules/Andhra Pradesh
Panchayati Raj Engineering Service Rules: Rules 3, 4, lO(a) (i) (1), 10(3), C
23(a), 33 Rule 5-Assistant Executive Enginee1"8"-Temporary appointments
mad~Subsequently regularised-f'laced below the PSC candidates who were
appointed prior to regularisation of the temporary appointees-!nter-se
seniority between-Held: the temporary appointees cannot claim seniority over
the PSC candidates.
D
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Article 14--/nter-se seniority between PSC candidates and temporarily
appointed candidates subsequently regularised after appointment of PSC,
candidates--Regularised temporary appointees placed below PSC candidates-Held: not arbitrary and hence not violative of equality clause.
E
The appellants were temporarily appointed between March 6 and
August 19, 1980 under Rule lO(a) (I) (1) of the Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Service Rules by the Chief Engineer to the Andhra Pradesh
Panchayat Raj Engineering Service.
F
In 1981 the A.P. Public Service Service Commission issued Notification inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant
Executive Engineers. Some persons appointed along with the appellants
had taken the written tests and become eligible for interview and were
interviewed in February and March, 1982.
G
The select list of 1981 direct recruits was prepared by the Service
Commission and sent to the Government. Pending verification of their
antecedents, the selected candidates were appointed and put on probation.
In response to various representations, Government ordered for a H
233
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
special qualifying test, but later withdrew the order. The temporary ap·
pointees continued as such.
B
In August 1983, the Government directed regularisation of the temporary appointees subject to certain conditions, the main among them
being that their regularisation would be from the date subsequent to the
last regular candidate or candidates appointed or allotted for appointment
from the list of successful candidates drawn by the Service Commission
based on the examination last held. Accordingly the Chief Engineer issued
orders regularising the service of the appellants.
C
The respondents-PSC candidates who were appointed on May 14,
1984 appealed to the Government contending that the Government order
was misunderstood by the Chief Engineer; that the Government intended
to give benefit to the PSC candidates last selected in 1981, but were appointed in 1984; and the respondents were entitled to seniority over the
appellants who were regularised with effect from June 11, 1984, whereas
D the respondents were appointed earlier i.e. on May 14, 1984. The Government acceded to the respondents' plea. The matter reached the Tribunal
and it upheld the Government Order giving seniority to the PSC candidates
over the temporary appointees. Hence these appeals.
E
F
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD: 1. The approved candidates within the meaning of Ruic 3(2)
of Part I of Andbra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules (the
Rules) are the Public Service Commission (PSC) candidates duly ap·
pointed to the Panchayat Raj Engineering Service under Rule 3(1) and they
become the members of the service from the date on which they started
discharging the duties of the post borne on the cadre of Panchayati Raj
Engineering Service. By operation of Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh
Panchayati Raj Engineering Service Rules (Special Rules), they were put
on probation and they become members of the service and on declaration
of probation, they become the approved probationers by operation of Rule
G 3(3) of Part I of the Rules awaiting appointment as full members.
[243-C, DJ
2. It is seen that under Rule 3(2) of Part I of the Rules, the approved
candidates from the list of candidates communicated by PSC, the PSC
candidates, by operation of Rule 3(1) of Part I, become persons appointed
H to the service

## Text

_Characters 0–39,753 of 50,553. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39753 for what follows._

V. SREENIVASA REDDY AND ORS.
A
v.
GOVT. OF AP. AND ORS.
OCTOBER 5, 1994
[K RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
B
Service Law:
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules/Andhra Pradesh
Panchayati Raj Engineering Service Rules: Rules 3, 4, lO(a) (i) (1), 10(3), C
23(a), 33 Rule 5-Assistant Executive Enginee1"8"-Temporary appointments
mad~Subsequently regularised-f'laced below the PSC candidates who were
appointed prior to regularisation of the temporary appointees-!nter-se
seniority between-Held: the temporary appointees cannot claim seniority over
the PSC candidates.
D
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Article 14--/nter-se seniority between PSC candidates and temporarily
appointed candidates subsequently regularised after appointment of PSC,
candidates--Regularised temporary appointees placed below PSC candidates-Held: not arbitrary and hence not violative of equality clause.
E
The appellants were temporarily appointed between March 6 and
August 19, 1980 under Rule lO(a) (I) (1) of the Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Service Rules by the Chief Engineer to the Andhra Pradesh
Panchayat Raj Engineering Service.
F
In 1981 the A.P. Public Service Service Commission issued Notification inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant
Executive Engineers. Some persons appointed along with the appellants
had taken the written tests and become eligible for interview and were
interviewed in February and March, 1982.
G
The select list of 1981 direct recruits was prepared by the Service
Commission and sent to the Government. Pending verification of their
antecedents, the selected candidates were appointed and put on probation.
In response to various representations, Government ordered for a H
233
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
special qualifying test, but later withdrew the order. The temporary ap·
pointees continued as such.
B
In August 1983, the Government directed regularisation of the temporary appointees subject to certain conditions, the main among them
being that their regularisation would be from the date subsequent to the
last regular candidate or candidates appointed or allotted for appointment
from the list of successful candidates drawn by the Service Commission
based on the examination last held. Accordingly the Chief Engineer issued
orders regularising the service of the appellants.
C
The respondents-PSC candidates who were appointed on May 14,
1984 appealed to the Government contending that the Government order
was misunderstood by the Chief Engineer; that the Government intended
to give benefit to the PSC candidates last selected in 1981, but were appointed in 1984; and the respondents were entitled to seniority over the
appellants who were regularised with effect from June 11, 1984, whereas
D the respondents were appointed earlier i.e. on May 14, 1984. The Government acceded to the respondents' plea. The matter reached the Tribunal
and it upheld the Government Order giving seniority to the PSC candidates
over the temporary appointees. Hence these appeals.
E
F
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD: 1. The approved candidates within the meaning of Ruic 3(2)
of Part I of Andbra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules (the
Rules) are the Public Service Commission (PSC) candidates duly ap·
pointed to the Panchayat Raj Engineering Service under Rule 3(1) and they
become the members of the service from the date on which they started
discharging the duties of the post borne on the cadre of Panchayati Raj
Engineering Service. By operation of Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh
Panchayati Raj Engineering Service Rules (Special Rules), they were put
on probation and they become members of the service and on declaration
of probation, they become the approved probationers by operation of Rule
G 3(3) of Part I of the Rules awaiting appointment as full members.
[243-C, DJ
2. It is seen that under Rule 3(2) of Part I of the Rules, the approved
candidates from the list of candidates communicated by PSC, the PSC
candidates, by operation of Rule 3(1) of Part I, become persons appointed
H to the service from the date on which they started discharging the duties
V.S. REDDY v. GOVT. OF AP.
235
of the posts bone on the cadre. They were appointed to the substantive post A
by operation of Rule 4 of tbe Rules in the order of merit prepared by the
PSC. On being put on probation under Rule 5 of the Special Rules and
declaration of successful completion of probation, they become approved
probationers under Rule 3(3) or Part I of the Rules. Under Rule 2 of the
Special Rules, appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer B
shall be made only by direct recruitment or by transfer from subordinate
service. No third mode is permissible under the Special Rules. By opera·
tion of Rule 2 of Part II orthe Rules, If any provision in the Rules contained
In Part II, it is repugnant to the provisions in the Special Rules applicable
to any particular Rules shall prevail over the Rules. [249-A to DJ
c
3. By operation of Special Rules and Rules, the PSC candidate gets his
seniority from the date on which he starts discharging his duties on the post
borne on the cadre and bis seniority shall be determined with effect from
that date while the temporary appointee under Rule lO(a)(i)(l) who is
subsequently appointed in accordance with the Rules, the temporary oervice D
rendered prior to bis appointment shall not be counted towards bis
seniority or the temporary service even if counted towards probation shall
not be counted for the purpose of seniority. Obviously to achieve the same
result clause (3) of G.O.Ms. No. 413 dated Augnst29, 1983 directed that the
temporary service of the temporary employee should be regnlarised from
the date subsequent to the last regular candidate or candidates 'appointed' E
or allotted for appointment from the list or successful candidates drawn by
PSC based on the examination last held. [249-F to H, 250-A)
Direct Recrnits Class II Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra,
[1992) 2 SCR 900, followed.
G.S. Venkat Reddy v. Govt. of A.P., [1993) Supp. 3 SCC 425, distin·
guished.
F
Defhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee v. R.K. Kashyap,
[1989] Supp. 1 SCC 194; Masood Akhatar Khan v. State of M.P., [1990) 4 G
SCC 24; D.N. Aggrawal v. State of M.P., [1990) 2 SCC 553; State of Tamil
v. E. Paripoomam, [1992) Supp. 1 SCC 420; R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India,
JT (1993) 2 SC 1; Elcise Commissioner, Kamataka v. V. Sreekonta, [1993)
Supp. 3 SCC 53; K.C. Joshi v. Union of India, [1992) Supp. 1 SCC 272;
Union of India v. S.K. Shanna, [1992) 2 SCC 772; Vijay Kumar Jain v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, [1992] 2 Supp. SCC 95; A.M. Sehgal v. Raja Ram, H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
(1992] Supp. 1 SCC 304 and State of West Bengal v. Gouri Nath Dey, [1993]
3 sec 371, relied on.
4. There was massive departure of direct recruitment in accordance
with the Special Rules to various services in the State of Andhra Pradesh
due to ban on recruitment and number of persons came to be temporarily
B appointed in disregard of the statutory rules. The appointments made
during ban period are allowed to rest in peace. Since the appointments of
the appellants made though due to administrative exigencies but were at a
time when there was no ban on recruitment, they cannot stand on the same
footing as those appointed during the period of the ban. (250-H, 251-A, CJ
c
IJ. Diwakar v. Government of A.P., (1982] 3 SCC 341 and G.S. Venkat
Reddy v. Govt. of A.P., (1993] Supp. 3 SCC 425, referred to.
5. It is true that Rule 33(a) speaks of length of service but a
temporary employee appointed under Rule lO(a)(i)(l), when bis services
D are sought to be regularised under Rule 23(a), the appointing authority
bas been invested with the discretion to Ox the date of initial appointment
or subsequent date as the commencement of the date of probation. In other
words, appointment to the service in accordance with the Special Rules is
a condition precedent and f1XBtion of the date for commencement of the
E probation of temporary appointees under Rule 23(a) should be done in
accordance with the rules. Therefore, when the competing interest of the
PSC candidates and the temporary appointees under Rule lO(a)(i)(l)
emerges, the appointing authority bas been given discretion to give later
date to the temporary appointees. Therefore the entire length of temporary
service cannot be computed for the purpose of determining seniority under
F
Rule 33(a). (251-C to F]
A.P.M. Mayankutty v. Secretary, Public Service Depaltment, ,(1977] 2
sec 360, relied on.
6. It is seen that the PSC candidates were recruited on recommenG dation by PSC and pending verification of the antecedents of the candidates they came to be appointed under Rule lO(a)(i)(l) but they were
put on probation since they were selected on regular basis. Being direct
recruits, their seniority counts from the date on which they started dis·
charging the duties of the post. The temporary appointees though have the
H insignia of the appointment under Rule lO(a)(i)(l), yet they are not
V.S. REDDY v. GOVf. OF AP.
237
members of the service until they are duly appointed on their service A
subsequently regularised, they get a date later to regular candidates appointed in accordance with the Roles and were accordingly regularised.
They are only temporary appointees not in accordance with the Rules
(Special Rules prescribed the procedure of recruitment by PSC and appointment by the State of the candidates recommended by PSC). Since the B
temporary appointees have not undergone that process they remain to be
outside the cadre. Their probation should be determined in accordance
with Rules 23(a) and 33. Till the Government exercised its power under
proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 and excluded the constitutional obligalion of the consultation of the PSC and then directed by an adhoc rule to C
regularise their services in the terms contained in G.O. Ms. 413, the
temporary appointees have -no right to the post. Clause(3) gives the state
the power to regularise the service and in terms thereof, they fnred the
seniority of temporary appointees after the PSC candidates. Both form two ·
distinct classes. The seniority of the appellants should rank under Rule
10(3) below the PSC candidates and their seniority should be from a date, D
later to PSC candidates. Even the regularisation order by the Chief Engineer also reserves that right to the State. The GAD which issued G.O.
Ms. 413 itself had explained its intention to give benefit of seniority to the
PSC candidates of 1981 batch vis-a-vis the temporary appointees. Thus,
the question of arbitrariness or unfairness or invidious discrimination E
violating Article 14, does not arise. [251-G-H, 252-A to F]
IJ. Diwakar v. Govt. of A.P., [1982] 3 SCC 341; G.S. Venkat Reddy v.
Govt. of A.P., [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 425; A.K Bhatnagar v. Union of India,
[1991] 1 SCC 544; State of Orissa v. S. Mahapatra, [1993] 2 SCC 486; J&K F
Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narendra Mohan, [1994] 2 SCC 630; R.N.
Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, [1972] 2 SCR 799; B.N. Nagarjan v. State of
Kamataka, [1979] 3 SCR 937; State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, JT (1992) 5
179 and A.P.M. Mayakutti v. Secretary, Public Service Department, [1977] 2
SCR 937, relied on.
G
7. Admittedly some of the temporary appointees bad appeared before
PSC and were selected on competitive basis by direct recruitment. Such
candidates were selected in the order of their merit. The temporary appointees cannot be put on a higher pedestal over the PSC candidates who
stood the test of.merit and became successful and secured ranking accord- H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A ing to the merit in the approved list of the candidates prepared by the PSC.
[252-F, G, 253-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6575-6580
of 1994.
B
From the Judgment and order dated 5.11.93 of the Andhra Pradesh
c
D
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in 0.A. No. 36875-76, 36881, 36882,
36883 and 36885 of 1990.
K. Madhava Reddy, K.R. Nagaraja, R.S. Krishnan and T.N. Rao for
the Appellants.
H.S. Gururaja Rao, J.R. Manohar Rao, B. Rajeshwar Rao and Mrs.
Rani Chhabra for the Respondents.
G. Prabhakar for the State.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. RAMASWAMY. J, Leave granted.
These appeals arise from the order of the Andhra Pradesh AdE ministrative Tribunal dated November 5, 1993 made in OA. Nos. 36875 of
1990 and batch. The appellants were temporarily appointed between
March 6, to August 19, 1980 under Rule lO(a)(i)(l) of the Andhra Pradesh
State and Subordinate Service Rules (for short 'the Rules') by the Chief
Engineer to the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Engineering Service as
Assistant Executive Engineer (Jr. Engineer, as the nomenclature then
F
stood). The A.P. Public Service Commission, (for short 'the PSC') issued
notification in 1981 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the posts
of Assistant Executive Engineers. Candidates including those appointed
with appellants (for short 'temporary appointees') had applied for and had
taken the written tests and had become eligible for interview, were interG viewed between February 18, 1982 and March 9, 1982. In the meanwhile,
some supervening events occurred, namely, the candidates who had applied for direct recruitment notified in the year 1978 had approached this
Court and assailed the direction given by the Administrative Tribunal to
the State Government to regularise the services of the temporary appoinH tees appointed during the years 1973 to 1978, otherwise then in accordance
V.S. REDDY v. GOVT. OFAP. [K. RAMASWAMY, J.]
239
with the process of direct recruitment. This Court granted stay on February A
8, 1982 which was vacated on August 2, 1982 and the judgment was
rendered on October 21, 1982 in IJ. Diwakar v. Govt. of A.P., (1982] 3 SCC
341. Therein this Court upheld the power of the Government exercised
under proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 dispensing consultation with the
PSC for the appointment by Direct recruitment and the relaxation given B
thereof. Consequently the government was directed to regularise the services of the temporary appointees under Rule lO(a)(i)(l) appointed during
the period of the ban on recruitment and to appoint direct recruits of 1978
batch and until then further recruitment was stayed.
The PSC had prepared the select list of 1981 recruits and communiC
cated to the government for appointment. Pending verification of their
antecedents, the selected direct recruits and the contesting respondents
(for short 'PSC candidates') were appointed on May 24, 1984 and were put
on probation under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Engineering Service Rules (for short 'the Special Rules'). At this juncture, it D
may be relevant to mention that there was no prohib.ition for the temporary
appointees to apply for and seek selection by direct recruitment. As a
· matter of fact, some of the temporary appointees had applied for and were
selected.
In the meanwhile, the service association and other persons made
innumerable representations to the government to exercise their power.
under Article 320(3) (proviso) to .relax_ the recruitment rule& and to
regularise their services. The government in G.O. Ms. 122, GAD 'dated
March 5, 1982 considered the representations and directed them to appear
for special qualifying test to be conducted by the· PSC in accord,ance with
E
F
the Special Rules made applicable to the respective services. But on further
representations by G.O. Ms. No. 411 August 29, 1983 the government
withdrew the orders that were made in G.O. Ms. No.122 dated March 5,
1982 and in G.O. Ms. No. 412 G.A.D. dated August 29, 1983. Because of
dispensation of consultation with PSC, under proviso to Clause (3) of G
Article 320 of the Constitution, it was not necessary for the PSC to be
consulted in temporary appointments made between August 10, 1979 and
March 5, 1992 and such temporary appointees continued as such. In that
situation, Government by G.0. Ms. No. 413 G.A.D., dated August 29, 1983
directed regularisation of services of temporary appointees subject to H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4S.C.R.
A
certain conditions of which condition (iii) is relevant for the purpose of this
case. It reads as under :
B
c
"(iii) the services of the temporary employees covered under (i)
and (ii) though appointed between August 10, 1979 and March 5,
1982 and are continuing in service as such as on March 5, 1982
should be regularised without subjecting to any tests written or
oral", should be regularised from the date subsequent to the last
regular candidate or candidates appointed or allotted for appointments from the list of successful candidate drawn by the Andhra
Pradesh Public Service Commission based on the examinations last
held in the concerned Department or from the date of their
temporary appointment, whichever is later."
The Chief Engineer, P.R. exercising the powers under condition (ii)
above, regularised the temporary services of the appellants in the
Panchayat Raj Engineering Service by his proceedings dated June 11, 1984
D with the five Conditions of which the relevant two conditions read as under:
E
F
"(b) The orders of regularisation of service now proposed to be
issued shall be purely provisional and subject to such modification
as may deem fit necessary in future and subject to relaxation of
rules as may deem fit necessary to be issued by the government in
future.
( d) They shall not be entitled to for any seniority in the category
of Asst!. Executive Engineers on the basis of their regular appointment and given them seniority from the date of initial appointment
between the dates afore-stated, namely, June 16, 1982 and August
19, 1980."
The respondents, PSC candidates, who were appointed on May 14,
1984, appealed to the government against regularisation of the appellants
G contending that condition (iii) in G.O.Ms. No. 413 was misunderstood by
the Chief Engineer; the government intended to give benefit to the PSC
candidates last selected in 1981 selection and that though they were appointed in 1984, they are entitled to seniority over the appellants, since the
latter became members of the service only on their regularisation on June
H
11, 1984, i.e. after their appointment on May 14, 1984 which found favour
V.S. REDDY v. GOVf. OF AP. [K. RAMASWAMY, J.]
2ll1
with the government and made it that the PSC candidates are entitled to A
seniority from the initial dates of their appointments and the temporary
appointees (appellants) be placed below them. The appellants questioned
before the Tribunal that order of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development
made in G.O. Ms No. 296 dated April 24, 1990 and the PSC candidates
challenged the appellants' regularisation order by the Chief Engineer B
Panchayat Raj.
The Tribunal in the impugned order expressed its unhappiness and
was right in holding that the exercise of the p0wer under proviso to clause
(3) of Article 320 of the Constitution and relaxation of recruitment by PSC
is bad and that all appointments should be made in accordance with the C
Special Rules conformable to the zonal regulation made by the President
exercising the power under Article 371-D of the Constitution. The Tribunal
also upheld the G.O. giving seniority to the PSC candidates over the
temporary appointees.
D
Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the
temporary appointees-appellants, contended that this Court in G.S. Venkat
Raddy v. Govt. of A.P., (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 425, held that the temporary
appointees are members of the service and that they rank below the PSC
candidates of 1978 as per the directions in Diwakar's case. The appointE
ments of the last direct recruits of 1978 notification, was made in May 14.
1984. In the light of the directions in Venkat Reddy's case, the appellants
would become seniors to the PSC candidates, as the temporary appointment made under Rule lO(a) (i) (1) is in accordance with the Rules. By
operation of Rules 23(a) read with Rule 33 of the Rules, their seniority is F
to be determined with effect from the date of the regular appointments so
that they would become seniors to the PSC candidates and below the last
candidate of Diwakar's batch 1978. The contesting respondents should,
thereby, become juniors to the appellants as the rules were made under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The appointment made under
Rule lO(a)(i)(l) though temporary, they are members of the service since G
they were qualified graduate Engineers and appointed to the vacancies in
the cadre borne on service and that, therefore, the ratio in Venkata
Reddy's case should. be extended. We find no force in the contention
inasmuch as its acceptance would be fraught with several incongruities. . "
That in Venkata Reddy's case the competing claims were not between H
242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A temporary appointees and the PSC candidates. There, it was a matter of
assigning seniority between temporary appointees and the promotees who
secured: B.E. qualification. The former were appointed during the period
of ban on recruitment. In that context, the State exercised its power under
proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 and relaxed the requirement of conB sultation with PSC for direct recruitment, the entire length of service was
given. Admittedly, though the appointments of the appellants were under
Rule lO(a)(i)(l), they were not made on the basis of selection by PSC and,
therefore, their appointments were made otherwise than in accordance
with the Special Rules. Therefore, they cannot be the members of the
C service unless they are appointed to the service in accordance with the
Special Rules.
Rule 1 of the Special Rules specifies the service consisting of (i) the
Chief Engineer, (ii) Superintendent Engineer, (iii) Executive Engineer, (iv)
Deputy Executive Engineer (formerly Assistant Engineer), (v) Assistant
D Executive Engineer. Rule 2 provides the method of appointment and to
the category (v) Asst!. Executive Engineer, (a) by direct recruitment or (b)
by transfer of Asst!. Engineer (formerly known as Supervisors) of the
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Engineering Subordinate Service. The
appellants are not drawn from this feeder service. Rule 4 prescribes
qnalifications, namely, for direct recruitment, a Degree in B.E. (Civil) or
E B.E. (Mechanical) and B.E. (Highways), of the recognised University. The
proviso is not necessary for the purpose of this case, hence omitted. Under
Rule 5( a), every person appointed as a Deputy Executive Engineer
(formerly Asst!. Engineers, rules provide ratio for direct recruitment) or
Asstt. Executive Engineer (formerly Junior Engineer) by direct recruitment
F shall be on probation for a period of two years to be spent on duty within
a continuous period of three years. Clause (b) and Note are not relevant
for the purpose of this case, hence omitted.
Rule 3 of part I of the Rules, gives definitions and Rule 3(1) defines
G 'Appointed to service', as :
'A person is said to be 'appointed to a service' when UJ.,accordance
with these rules or in accordance with the rules applicable at the
time, as the case may be, he discharges for the first time the duties
of a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences the
H
probation, instruction or training prescribed for members thereof.'
V.S. REDDY v. GOVT. OF AP. [K. RAMASWAMY,J.]
243
Explanation is not necessary for the purpose of this case, hence omitted.
A
Rule 3(2) defines 'Approved Candidate' means a candidate whose
name appears in an authoritative list of candidates approved for appointment to any service, class or category by the PSC.
Approved probationer has been defined in Rules 3(3). "Approved
Probationer" in a service, class or category means a member of that service,
class or category who has satisfactorily completed his probation and awaits
appointment as a full member of such service, class or category."
B
The approved candidates within the meaning of Rule 3(2) of Part 1 C
of the Rules are the PSC candidates duly appointed to the Panchayat Raj
Engineering service under Rule 3(1) and they become the members of the
service from the date on which they started discharging the duties of the
post borne on the cadre P.R.E. service. By operation of Rule 5 of the
Special Rules, they were put on probation and they became members of D
the service and on declaration of probation, they became the approved
probationers by operation of Rule 3(3) of Part I of the Rules awaiting
appointment as full members.
It is now well settled law that appointment/promotion must be in
accordance with the Rules, direct recruitee talces his seniority from the E
date on which he starts discharging the duty of the post borne on the cadre
while a temporary appointee appointed de hors the rules or on ad hoc basis
or to a fortuitous vacancy gets seniority from the date of regular appointment.
It is settled law by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Direct
Recruits Class II Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 2 SCR
900, that appointment in accordance with Rules is a condition precedent
to count seniority. Temporary or ad hoc or fortituous appointments etc.
F
are not appointments in accordance with the Rules and the .temporary
service cannot be counted towards the seniority. Delhi Water Supply and G
Sewage Disposal Committee v. R.K Kashyap, 1989 Supp 1 SCC 194, Masood
Akhatar Khan v. State of M.P., (1990) 4 SCC 24, D.N. Aggrawal v. State of
M.P., (1990) 2 SCC 553, State of Tamil Nadu v. E. Paripoomam, (1992)
Supp. 1 SCC 420, R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, JT (1993) 2 SC 1 and at
25, Excise Commissioner, Kamataka v. Sreekanta, (1993) 3 SCC 53.
H
A
B
c
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4S.C.R.
In KC. Joshi v. Union of India, [1992] Supp 1 SCC 272, the seniority
is to be counted from the date on which appointment was made to the post
in accordance with the rules. The previous temporary service should be
considered to be fortituous. In Union of India v. S.K. Shanna, [1992] 2 SCC
772, this Court held that the approval of the UPSC for continuation in ad
hoc post for the purpose of granting pay and allowances, would not amount
to regular appointment and ad hoc services cannot be counted for determining seniority by the selection by PSC vide Vijay Kumar Jain v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, [1992] 2 Supp. SCC 95. In KC. Joshi's case, this Court
held that employee would become a member of service only from the date
of his appointment according to rules. InA.M. Sehgal v. Raja Ram, [1992]
Supp. 1 SCC 304, this Court held that where statutory rules link seniority
with confirmation seniority cannot be fixed according to length of service
and confirmation to a post borne on the cadre is a condition to get
seniority. In State of West Bengal v. Gauri Nath Dey, (1993] 3 SCC 371, it
was held that if ad hoc service is followed by regular service, the benefit
D
of ad hoc service is not admissible if the appointment was in violation of
rules. In D.N. Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1990] 2 SCC 553, it was
held that seniority cannot relate back to the date of temporary appointment.
Under Rule lO(a)(i)(l) where it is necessary in the public interest to
E fill emergently a vacancy in the post borne on the cadre of a service, class
or category and if the filling of such vacancy in accordance with the rules
is likely to result in undue delay, the appointing authority may appoint a
person temporarily otherwise than in accordance with the said rules. Under
Sub-Rule (iv) of Rule 10(2), such temporary appointee shall not be
F
regarded as a probationer in such service, class or category or be entitled
by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future
appointments to such service, class or category. Rule 23(a) provides the
procedure for commencement of the date of probation of persons first
appointed temporarily as under :
G
H
If a person having been appointed temporarily under Sub-Rule
(a)(i)(l) or sub-rule (c) of Rule 10, a post borne on the cadre of
any service, class or category or having been appointed to any
service, class or category, otherwise then in accordance with the
Rules governing and appointed thereto is subsequently appointed
to any service, class or category in accordance with the Rules, he
y.S.REDDY v. GOVf.OFAP.[K.RAMASWAMY,J.]
245
shall commence his probation from the date of subsequent ap- A
pointment or such earlier date as appointing authority may determine."
The other clauses are not relevant for the purpose of this case,
hence omitted.
Rule 33 determines the seniority - (a) The seniority of a person in a
service, class or category or grade shal~ unless he has been reduced to a
lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. If any portion of the service
B
of such person does not count towards probation under rule 10 (a), (iv), C
lO(c), 16, 37 (d) or 42(d), his seniority shall be determined by the date of
commencement of his service which counts towards probation.
It is true that in Diwaker's case and in Venkata Reddy's case, this
Court upheld the exercise of the power by the Government under proviso
to Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution and in Venkata Reddy's D
case held that the temporary employees are appointed in accordance with
the rules. As stated earlier, those appointments came to be made during
ban period and remained in service for long period. In this case, there is
no ban on recruitment and the appellants were eligible to apply for and
seek direct recruitment. In Paripoomam's case , another bench of three E
Judges, considering the similar Madras Rules, held in paragraph 14, that
temporary appointments made under Rule lO(a)(i)(l) to fill in emergency
vacancies were otherwise than in accordance with the Rules and the
temporary service cannot be counted towards the seniority. Sarne is the
view held by another three Judges Bench inA.P.M. Mayankutt)iv. Secretary,
Public SeTVice Department, (1977) 2 SCC 360. In Diwaker's case and F
Venkata Reddy's case, this Court approved the validity of the exercise of
the power under proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320 owing to the ban on
the recruitment by the government and long lapse of time which had
elapsed from the date of the initial temporary appointments till the date
the decision was taken by the Government to regularise the services of such G
temporary appointments.
In A.K. Bhatnagar v. Union of India, [1991) 1 SCC 544, this Court
while deprecating the practice of the government giving a go-by to the
statutory rules or regulations, framed under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution making large scale departure, expressed thus :
H
A
B
c
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
"On more than on occasion this Court has indicated to the Union
and the State G.overnments that once they frame rules, their action
in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by the
rules. The rules framed in exercisee of powers conferred under
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are solemn rules
having binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary to the rules
does create problem and dislocation. Very often government themselves get trapped on account of their own mistakes or actions in
excess of what is provided in the rules. We take serious view of
these lapses and hope and trust that the government both at the
Centre and in the States would take note of this position and
refrain from acting in a manner not contemplated by their own
rules.''
It was reiterated in KC. Joshi's case and it is common experience
that it is a vicious circle that initially governments impose ban on recruitD ment and make massive ad hoc appointments de hors the rules giving a
go-by to make recruitment in accordance with the Rules and then resort
to regularisation of such appointments exercising the power under Article
320(3) proviso or Article 162 to make them the members of the service.
This practice not only violates the mandates of the Articles 14 and 16 but
E
F
also denies to all eligible candidates, their legitimate right to apply for and
stand for selection and get selected. In State of Orissa v. S. Mahapatra,
(1993] 2 SCC 486 and J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narendra
Mohan, (1994] 2 SCC 630, it was held that appointments made in violation
of recruitment rules violates Articles 14 and 16. Therefore, as stated earlier,
the Administrative Tribunal has rightly expressed unhappiness on the
exercise of the power by the State Government by resorting to proviso to
clause (3) of Article 320 to make massive departure to make recruitment
in accordance with the Rules. We agree with Shri Guru Raja Rao, the
learned counsel for PSC candidates that the PSCs must be made more
functional and its efficacy be streamlined appointing people of eminence,
experience and competence with undoubted integrity to recruit the canG didates in accordance with rules for appointment to the post and back door
entry by nepotism be put an end. Free play of exercise of the power under
proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 would undermine the efficacy of
constitutional institution i.e. PSCs. Be it as it may, we have to consider
whether the regularisation of the service of the temporary appointees is in
H
accordance with the special rules and the rules vis-a-vis condition (iii) of
v.s. REDDY v. oovr. OF AP. [K. RAMASWAMY, J.]
247
the Order under G.D. Ms. No.413, dated August 29, 1983.
In R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, [1972) SCR 799 at p.808,
Placitum C & D, dealing with the contention that Article 309 speaks of
rules for appointment and general conditions of service, held that
regularisation of appoiotment io exercise of executive power process notwithstandiog any rule cannot be a form or kind of appointment and if it is
io iofraction of the rules and if it has effect of the violation of the rules or
the constitution, illegality cannot be regularised. If it does not violate the
law, it would be permissible. Otherwise the rule itself gets criticised on the
ground that it is io violation of Articles 14 and 16 (1).
In B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Kamataka, [1979) 3 SCR 937, a bench
of three judges, held that regularisation in violation of the statutory rules
is not permissible, io exercise of the executive power of the State which
have the effect of overriding the rules framed under proviso to Article 309
A
B
c
of the Constitution and that, therefore, no regulations io exercise of the D
executive power under Article 162, in contravention of the statutory rules,
is permissible.
In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, JT 1992 (5) 179 at page 207-08,
paragraph 43; another three Judges bench held that "the normal rules, of
course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies E
of admioistration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appoiotment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replaced
such an ad hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as
early as possible. Such a temporary employees may also compete along with
others for such regular selection/appoiotment. If he gets selected, well and F
good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected
candidate. The appoiotment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be
withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary.
In Paripoomam's case, a bench of three Judges, of this Court held G
that the appellant, State Government, appoioted Junior Professors temporarily, exercising the power under Rule lO(a)(i) (1) of Madras State
Subordioate Services Rules. They subsequently appeared at the regular
selection test conducted by PSC and were recommended as per the approved list and order of merit of the appointment. The government
regularised the first set of Junior Professors with effect from the date of H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A their original appointments and were promoted as Professors in the Law
Colleges which was challenged in the writ petition. The High Conrt accepted the plea and quashed the promotion and directed the government
to make a proper order of promotion in the light of the view expressed in
this judgment. The High Court held that once they have been regularised
B
in the temporary service retrospectively, the temporary service rendered
under Rule lO(a)(i) (1) be reckoned by giving them the benefit of regular
service notwithstanding the ranking given in the approved list prepared by
PSC. This Court reversed the view of the High Court and held that under
Rule 23(a) (ii) read with Rule 35(a), (equivalent to Rule 33(a) of Rules)
the order of regularisation should be in the order of the list of approved
C candidates prepared by PSC in the order of merit and it should be the basis
to determine their inter se seniority. It is not open to the parties to claim
the temporary service as Junior Professors upon regularisation but should
not be counted for the purpose of determining the seniority in the cadre.
The appointment under Rule lO(a)(i)(l) is made otherwise then in accordD ance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules. The temporary
service has only limited purpose. The emergency appointment is an exception to the Rule.
In A.P.M. Mayakutti v. Secretary, Public Service Depllltment, (1977) 2
SCR 937, another bench of three Judges considered the same question.
E Therein the appellants were appointed under Rule lO(a)(i)(l) of Madras
S.S.S. Rules in the years 1950-51. They were subsequently selected by the
PSC. Their probation was commenced from March 15, 1953 to July 18,
1954. On the reorganisation of States, they were allotted to the State of
Kerala. They claimed their seniority from the date of their initial appointF ment under Rule lO(a)(i)(l). The High Conrt negatived the claim. On
appeal, this Court held that in the face of the provisions of the rules and
the express terms of their appointment therein, were appointed as an
emergency arrangement which services cannot be taken into account for
the purpose of seniority. Clause (iii) of Rule lO(a) made the provision clear
that they should be replaced by the approved candidates sent by the PSC.
G
Mere qualification to hold the post cannot entitled them to count for the
purpose of seniority. The period of temporary service governed by Rule
10( a)(i)(l) nor they be regarded as probationers. Their services shall be
liable to be terminated at any time without any notice or without assigning
any reasons. It was, therefore, held that "the appellants were appointed
H initially on a uniquely precarious tenure. Such tenures hardly even count
V.S. REDDY v. GOVT. OF AP. [K. RAMASWAMY, J.]
249
for seniority in any system of service jurisprudence."
It is seen that under Rule 3(2) of Part I of the Rules, the approved
candidates from the list of candidates communicated by PSC, the PSC
candidates, by operation of Rule 3(1) of Part I, become persons appointed
A
to the service from the date on which they started discharging the duties B
of the posts borne on the cadre. They were appointed to the substantive
. post by operation of Rule 4 of the Rules in the order of merit prepared by
the PSC. On being put on probation under Rule 5 of the Special Rules and
declaration of successful completion of probation, they became approved
probationers under Rule 3(3) of Part I of the Rules. Under Rule 2 of the
Special Rules, appointmeni to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer C
shall be made only by direct recruitment or by transfer from subordinate
service. No third mode is permissible under the Special Rules.