Supreme Court of India
B. VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS ETCversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 1983 INSC 89
- Decided
- 8 August 1983
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- Y V CHANDRACHUD
Holding
Rule 13(1) must be read together with Rule 3(1) and (2), giving separate seniority to each category of Junior Lecturers, and Rule 6 of the 1974 Adhoc Rules is constitutionally valid.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Rule 13(1) of the 1973 Adhoc Rules and Rule 6 of the 1974 Adhoc Rules governing seniority and promotion of Junior Lecturers in Andhra Pradesh junior colleges. Petitioners, who were first or second class post‑graduate degree holders, claimed that the 1976 seniority list, prepared under Rule 13(1), violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by placing them below third‑class degree holders. The Court held that Rule 13(1) must be read in harmony with Rule 3(1) and (2), giving separate seniority to each of the three categories of Junior Lecturers, thereby preserving the preference for first/second‑class degree holders. Consequently, the 1976 seniority list was quashed and the 1974 list restored, and Rule 6 of the 1974 Adhoc Rules, which requires a first or second class degree for promotion to Principal, was upheld as constitutionally valid. The Court dismissed the petitioners' challenge to the promotion criteria, finding no discrimination contrary to Articles 14 and 16. Civil Appeals 1652‑59 were allowed, while Civil Appeal 415 was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule 13(1) of the 1973 Adhoc Rules, read in isolation, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by depriving first/second‑class post‑graduate Junior Lecturers of seniority over third‑class degree holders.
- Whether Rule 6 of the 1974 Adhoc Rules, which restricts promotion to Principal of junior colleges to first or second class post‑graduate degree holders, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
- How Rule 13(1) should be interpreted in conjunction with Rule 3(1) and (2) to ensure harmonious application of the Adhoc Rules.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 309
Subjects
senioritypromotionArticles 14 and 16constitutional validityAdhoc Ruleseducationjunior lecturersprincipalsAndhra Pradeshinterpretation of rulesdiscrimination
Judgment
S4S
B. VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS ETC.
A·
v.
( STATB OF ANDHRA ~RADESH AND OTHERS
'
August 8, 1983
[V. v. CHANDRACHUD, c. J., A. VARADARAJAN ANO
' AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.J
(Andhra Pradesh) Adhoc Rules, 1973 framed in G.O. Ms. 939, Education,
dated 19-9-1973-lnterpretation of-Rule 13(1)-lnartistica/ly worded-must be
read with Rule 3(1) & (2) otherwi1t thisrule /eads to disharmony.
c
(Andhra Pradesh) Adhoe Rules, 1974/ramed In G.O. Ms. 502, Education
dated 19·6-1974, Rule 6-Va/idity of.
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Ru/18-Rule 35(c)-
Scope of.
rJ
Pursuant to tho policy decision taken by the Andhra Pradesh Govern-
ment in 1964 that the secondary school duration should b~ 10 years instead of
11 years and it should be followed by a two years' intermediate course, the
Government decided in G.0. Ms. 1920, Education, dated 25.10.1968 that
in the existing colleges the two years' intermediate course should be intro·
duced and laid down in G.O. Ms. 2063, Education, dated 25.8.69 the staff
pattern and pay scales of staff 1n Junior Colleges started for the two years' E
intermediate course. In G.O. Ms. 2186, Education, dated 17.9.1969 the
Government issued instructions regardina: the absorption of Post .Graduate
teachers in Junior Colleges on the basis of the Post-Graduate degree and th1
number of years of service rendered by them. It was stated in that G.O. that
all the existing Post Graduates who will be absorbed as Junior Lecturers in
Junior Colleges will be appointed temporarily as Junior Lecturers pendina F
framing of adhoc rules in due course. The Government ordered in G.O. Ms_.
1147, Education, dated 4.6.1970 that in the common seniority list first rank
should be given only to those who have secured first and second class Post·
Graduatedegree. On 19.9.1973 the Government framed Adhoc Rules, 1973
with retrospective effect Crom 1.8.1969 for the temporary post of Junior
.,,_. Lecturers in Junior Colleges. Rule 13 of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 says that
seniority of Post Graduate Assistants appointed as Junior Lecturers shall.bi G
· determined with reference to the dates of their actual appointment as Post
Graduate Assistants. Rule 3 ·states that post-graduates with first Or second
class degree! are to be given preference over PoSt-Graduates · holding third
class degrees. On 19.6.1974 the Government framed Adhoc Rules, 1974 for
the temporary posts of principals of Junior Colleges with retrospective effect
from 1.8.1969. Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 prescribes ·first or second H
class Post·Graduate degree for promotion of Junior Lecturers to the posts of
Principals of Junior Colleges. Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rules 1974 says that a
person who held the post of Prjncipal of a Juniof Colle~ immediateJr befo~
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983i 3 s.c.!l.
the issue of these Rules shall be continued as Principal and given option either
i\ to continue in t~e post of Priricipal or to re"'.ert to his original post.
The appellants in Civil Appeals l652-J659 of 1978 who were working as
Post-Graduate Assistants and were, first or second class Post-Graduate degree
holders were ·appointed as Junior lecturers in 1969. Soon after the Adhoc )
Rules, 1973 were framed the second respondent, Joint Director of Higher
Education, prepared a silbjectwiSe seniority list in 1974 and on the basis of
B their seniorjty in that seniority list all the appellants except one were proqioted
as Principals of different Junior Colleges. The first respondent State, under
the directions of the High Court ·in a separate proceeding to prepare the
seniority list as per Rule 13(1) of ~the Adhoc Rules, 1973, prepared a revised
seniority Jist in 1976 in which respondents 3 ·to 8, who were third c1ass Post·
Graduate degree holaers and were appointed as Junior Lecturers in 1970 and
c 1975 were pi aced as seniors to the appellants. The appellants as petitioners
filed petitions in the Administrative Tribunal for quashing the revised seniority
list of 1976 and restoring the earlier seniority list of 1974 or in the alternative
for declaring that Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 is Violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution. ·The petitioners contended· that under the
Adhoc Rules Post-Graduate .Assistants with first clod second class Post-
Graduate degrees should be treated as one group and as senior to Post-
D Graduate Assistants With third class Post-Graduate degrees~ The Tribunal·
held that the seniority list of 1976 framed as per Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc
Rides, 1973.having precedence over the earlier executive instruction is valid
and as the petitioners and respondents 3 to 8 belonged to the san1e
category of Post-Graduate Assistants, there is no question of violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
E
The appellants. in Civil Appeal 415Of1979 who weie working as School
As,istants in Higher Secondary Schools and were thi1 d class Post Graduates
were appointed as Junior. Lecturers in Junior Colleges in terms of Rule 3 of
the Adhoc Rules, 1973. Pending the fran1ing of Adhoc RuleS for the tempo-
rary posts of Principals of Junior Colleges, the second respondent Director of
F Public Tnstru~tions, issued proceedings dated 14.3.1974 promotin~ under Rule
lO(a) (i) of the State and ·Subordinate Services Rules ·seven tlurd class Post
Graduate Junior Lecturers as Principals of Junior Colleges. The appellants
as petitioners challenged in the Administrative Tribunal these Adhoc promo-
tions. They also challenged the validity of Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974
on the ground that it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The
Tribunal held that. Rule 6 does not contravene Articles 14 and ·16 of the
G Constitution. The Tribunal found nothing objectionable in Rule 8 of the
Adhoc Rules, 1974 which protects the right of third class Post Gtaduate degree
holders who had been promoted under Rule IO(a) (i) of tho State and
Subordinate Services Rules pending framing of Adhoc Rules.
H Allowing Civil AppealS 1652-59 ar.d di~missing Civil Appeal415,
HELD : There is no need to quash Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules,
t973 which bas to be ~nterpreted in the {Ilanner indicated i.n the .Judgment and
B.V. REDDY V. ANiiHRA PRADESH 547
seniority has to be fi.ed accordingly. The soniority list of 1976 i1 quuhea
and the.seniority list of 1974 is restored. Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rule•, 1974 I\.
·is valid. [571 H, 572 A]
There is no reason to think that the Government intended by Rule 13(1)
'" .. ( of the Adhoc Rules. 1973 · to take away ffom first and second class Po!t~
Graduate Junior Lecturers the preference shown to them over third class
.>.
Post~Graduate Junior Lecturers in the executive instructions especially G.O.
Ms.1147, Education, dated 4,6.1970 and even in Rule 3(1) and (2) ·of the
Adhoc Rules, 1973. Rules3(1) and (2) and 13(1) have to be read together.
Only thf:n there· will be harmony between those rules.·· If Rule 13(1) is read
without reference to Rule 3(1) and (2) the consequence will be disharmony
and the first and second class Post-Graduate Juni_or Lecturers who were given
preference over third class Post· Graduate Junior Lecturers will be placed in a
less advantageous and inferior position as compared with third class Postw
Graduate Junior Lecturers as regards seniority alone, which will not even help
c
them in the matter of promotion as .Principals of Junior Colleges in view of
Rule 6 of Adho-c Rules, 1974 so long ·as they do not improve their academic
attainment by obtaining a first-or second class Post-Graduate Degree. Every
rule i'n the Adhoc Rules must be given its full, natural and legal effect. There
is no doubt that Rule 13(1) is inartisticaIIy worded though when read with
Rule 3(1) and (2) it would be clear that the principle laid down in it has to h• D
applied separately to ~ach of the three categories of Junior Lecturers mentioned
in Rule 3(1) and (2). Each of these three categories forms a distinct- and
aeparate categOry. The first category consisls of- first· and. second class Post~
Graduates, and on their appointment as Junior Lectur~rs their inter se seniority .
has to be fixed under Rule 13(1) with reference to the dates of their original
appointment as Post Graduate School Assistants. When Post-Graduates with
E
not less than five years of service, working as Post Graduate School Assistants
are appointed as Junior LS!cturers t}icir inter se seniority has to be fixed like-
wise under Rule 13(1) on the basis of the dates of their original appointment
as Post-Graduate School AssLtUnts. Similarly, when Post-Graduates with
less than five years of service, working as Post Graduate School Assistants are
appointed as Junior Lecturer~their inter se seniority has to be fixed on the
basis of the dates of their. original appointment as Post-Graduate School F
Assistants. If Rule 13(1) is inierpret_ed in this manner, no disharmony will
result from applying all the adhoc rules. It is only by constructing Rule 13(1)
in this manner the Government framed the seniority list of 1974.
. [569 D-H, 570 A-FJ
,..... The object of achieving excellence in t:ducational institutions like Junior G
Colleges is a laudable one, and excellence in academic attainments of heads
of such institutions is a relevant fact. Promotion of Junior Lecturers as
Principals is based only on merit judged by their academic distinction which
cannot be said to be discriminatory. Prescribing a first or second class Post-
Graduate Degree for the head of an educational institution has a direct nexus
with the object of excellence sought to be achieved, and it cannot be said to be H
discriminatory. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that Rule 6 of the Adhoc
Jlules, 1974 is l_iabJC to b"e st~uck down as being discriminatory and illegal.
(572 G-H, 573 AJ
54g SUPRl!Mll COURT REPOllTS ,
S. M, Pandit v. Stat• ofG•farat.• 1972 S.L.R. 79 not applicable.
A
~o promotions of seven third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers as
Principals were irregular having regard to the fact that even for appointment
as JuniOr Lecturers preference has to be given to first and second class Post-
Graduate School Assistants. The irregularity has been sought to be
overlooked by providing a saving clause by way of Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rule1,
1974. It is not possible to think that ¢here could have been any valid necessity
B to continue those adhoc promotions made ~ven after, the Adhoc Rules, 1974 .
were framed within about three months of those promotions. There is no
meaning in proViding for thC option in that rule as it is not likely that a person
who has been promoted as Principal Would voluntarily opt for reverting to his
original post of Junior Lecturer. However, having regard to the long lapse of
time it is not desirable to declare those appointm1nts as illeaal.
c [573 E-H, 574 A]
Rule 33(c) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules
applies to persons who were transferred from one class or category of service to
another class or category of the same service and would not apply to the facts
of the present case where Junior Lecturers have been appointed by selection
amongst Post Graduate School Assistants in the manner indicated in Rule 3(1)
D and (2) of the Adhoc Rules and there is no question of transfer of Post·
Graduate School Assistants as Junior Lecturers. [571 C-E]
Reserve Bank of India v. N. C. Paliwal, A.LR. 1976 S.C. 2342 not
applicable.
-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1652 to
E 1657 of 1978.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 31st August, 1978 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribu'nal in Representation Petitions Nos. 595 and 985 of 1977 and
· 340, 289, 466 and ,533 of 1978. •·
F
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 1658 and 1659 of 1978.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
G the 8th September, 1978 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal in Representation Petitions Nos. 561 and 59 of 1978. ·
AND
Civil Appeal No. 415of1979.
H
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 31st August,
1978 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Transferred
Writ Petition No. 941 of 1976.
B.V. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, J.) 549
'
M. N. Phadke, M. R. K. Choudhary, B. Kanta Rao and Miss
Nalini, for the Appellants in CA. Nos. 1652-59/78. A
S. N. Kacker ·and B. Parthasarthi, for the Appellants in CA
415.
T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer,
·B
K. Ramkumar and Mrs. J. Ramachandran, for RR. 3, 5, 8 and 9 ·
in CAS. 1652·59/78.
•,
P. Ram Reddy, and G. Narayana Rao for. RR. 1 and 2 in CA.
1652-59 and 415 of 1979. . C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
vAl\ADARAJAN, J .' These appeals by special leave are directed
against the Judgments of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribu-
nal, Hyderabad in Representation Petitions 595 of 1977 and batch and D
, transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976. C. As. Nos. 1652 to 1659 of
; 1978 have been filed against the common judgment dated 31.8.1978
in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 and batch in which common
issues arose for consideration while C.A. No. 415 of 1979 has been
filed against the separate judgment, dated 31.8.1978 in Transferred
Writ Petition 941 of 1976. All these appeals by the petitioners before
E
the Tribun~I were heard together in this Court and will be disposed
of by a common judgment.
The main judgment of the Tribunal in Represeniation Petition
595 of 1977 and batch is in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 in F
accordance with which tlie other Representation Petitions in the
batch have been disposed of as stated elsewhere in this judgment.
Repr('sentation Petition 595 of 1977 was filed by seven petitioners of
whom petitioners Nos I to 6 were worki~g as Principals of Junior
Colleges at various places while the seventh petitioner was working
,.,... a
as Junior Lecturer in Government College, Srikakulam in An\ihra G
Pradesh and claimed to be ripe for promotion as Principal of Junior
College on the basis of his original seniority among junior Lecturers.
1 We will refers to the parties in these appeals as arrayed before the
· Tribunal for the sake of convenience. ·
H
The seven pettioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977
who were working as Post-Graduate Assistants or Headmasters 'ii\
$50 . SUPRBMll COURT RBPORTS · (1983) 3 s.c.n.•
t)l;e ~~la Parishad Higher Secondary Schools ·at different places were
.
A appointed as junior Lecturers in 1969 as they were all Post-Graduates
who had passed in the first or second class-with 50% marks and above
and
( \•.
werefully
j " \j
eligible for appointment as Junior Lecturers. The
'
petitioners' contention is that under the Adhoc Rules governin2
Junior Lecturers they being Post-Graduates who had passed in first
or~second- class, should be placed in the seniority list above Post-
B
Graduate Assistants who · hold only third class Post-Graduate
degrees. The second respondent, joint Director of Higher Education,
Andhrli Pradesh, prepared a subject-wise ;eniority list in 1974 as per
the rules,, placing the seven petitioners in . Representation Petiiion
595 of 1977 at 'Nos. 17, '15, 20, 21, 23, 40 and 41. respectively.· On
c • ~ ! 1 ' ' • '
the basis of that seniority Junior Lecturers upto the ran)<: of 40 in that
list were promoted as Principals of various junior Colleges. The l st
respondent State of Andhra Pradesh, prepared a revised seniority
list as per the directions ·or the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petition No. 4358 of 1974 and Writ Appeal N6. 920 of 1975. In that
·revi'sed-seriiority list issued-in 1976 the petitioners in Representation
D Petition 595 of 1977 have been placed at Nos. 380, 54, 390, 392, 406,
36'8 ~nd 374 respectively. The petitioners' contention was .that third-
ciass Post-Graduate degree holders who were appointed for the .firs,t
time in 1970 and 1975 as junior Lecturers were shown in the .said
re-Vised seniority list as seniors to the petitioners though the petitioners
E had 'an been appointed ·as junior Lecturers in 1969 itself and were
reglilarised' as early as in November 1969 and under the Adhoc Rules
framed by the Government, Post-Graduate Assistants with first and
second class Post-Graduate degrees should . be treated as one group
and as senior to Post-Graduate Assistants with third class Post-
Graduate degrees, who s_hould be treated as another group. The
F'j• ' I ' - •··' .
petitioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977. prayed in these
circti.mstances for quashing the revised seniority list issued by the
first respondent State of Andhra Pradesh on 27.12.1976 so far as
they ~re concerned and for restoration of their old seniority as per
the ·earlier -seniority lisf of 1974 or in the alternative for· declaring
G that Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 dealing wtth seniority of
. .
Junior'Lecturers is violative ofArticles 14 anp 16 of the C'onsti tution.
·'' .
. Rule 13 (!) and (2) of the Adhoc Rules framed by the Govern-
ment under Article 309. of the Constitution read as follows :
H
"Rule 13 (!)-The seniority of a person appointed
vri\ler ·clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (1) ofRule 3 shall b~
B.V. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, J.) 551
deter.mined with reference to the date. of his actual
appointment as a Post-Graduate ~ssistant of the probable
'
A
date on which he would have been appointed as Post·
Graduate Assistant but for his appointment or promotion_
to a ·higher post ;
(
. (ii) The seniority ·of any person appointed under
clause (iii) of sub-rule (I) of Rule 3 shall be determined
with reference to the date of commencement of his
probation.
Provided that no such person shall be senior to any person "'
appointed under clause (i) or (ii) of sub-rule {I) of Rule 3 ; 'C
Provided further that no person appointed under sub-clause
(b), sub-clause (c) or clause (iii) of sub-rule (I) of Rule 3 shall bcJ
senior to a person appointed under sub-clause (a) of that clause ...."
Rule 3 of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 reads as follows :-·
"Rule 3 of Appointment:· (I) Appointment to this
class shall be .made as follows :
(i) First by appointment of Post-Graduate Assistants / E
in Category I-A of Class II and Selection Grade
Assistants in Grade I of Category 2 of Class II
in the Andhra Pradesh< Educational Sub-ordinate
Service or Headmasters of High Schools and
Post-Graduate Assistants in Zila Parishads High
Sch~ols ai1d such of the Municipal Schools as F
are converted into Junior Colleges ;
(ii) Secondiy; if there are no suitable and qualified
·persons available for .appointment under clause
. (i) then by ap'pointrilent of Trained Graduates
G
possessing Post-Graduate Diploma in Physical
Sciences in the scale of pay admissible t9 Post
) Graduate Assistants iritmedtately before the
commencement. of these rules ;
·{iii) Thirdly, if there are no suitable and qualified
H
persons available for appointment under sub- ·
clause (i) or sub-clausel(ii)-
SS2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 3 S.C.R.
(a) by recruitment from among the Headmasters
A and Post-Graduate Assistants in recognised
Multipurpose or Higher Secondary Schools
under private management or under the
management of the Municipality which are
not converted into Junior Colleges ; or )
B (b) By transfer from School Assistants in Grade
n or Category 2 in Class II and PanditS
(including Hindi Pandits), Munshis Grade
I in Category I of Class III of the Andhra
Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or
c by recruitment by transfer from any other
service; or
· (c) by direct recruitment.
(2) Preference shall be given for appointment under
D clause (i) or sub-clause (a)' of clause (iii) of sub•
rule (l)(a) :
• •
(a) Firstly to persons ivith first or second class
Post Graduate degree ;
E / .
(b) Secondly to persons with a third class Post
Graduate degree with not less than five years
of service as a Post-Graduate Assistant or
Selection Grade Assistant in the Andhra
Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or
F as a Headmasier of a Zila Parsshad High
School or a Post Graduate Assistant in a
school under the manage111ent of a Zila
, Parishad or a Municipality ;
--
G (c) Thirdly to persons with a third classs Post
.Graduate degree with less than five years'
service as a Post Graduate Assistant or
Selection Grade Assistant in the Andhra
Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or \
H as a Headmaster of a High School or Post
Graduate Assistant in a School under the
management of a Zi)a p~ishad or a. Muni·
cipality ........;,"
il.\i. REDDY v. Al'iDHRA PRADESH ivaradarDjan, J) ssj
(
The Andhra Pradesh Government decided in 1964 that the ,
r Secondary School Education should be of 10 years' duration instead A
of 11 years and that it should be followed by a. two-years' Inter-
mediate Collegiate education in the plac,e of the then existing Higher
Secondary and Multi:purpose system commencing from 1969-70.
Accordingly, the Government decided in G.O.Ms 1920, Educat/on,
dated 25.10.1968 that in the existing colleges two-year. Intermediate
B
Course should be introduced in the place of one year P.U.C. The
staff pattern and pay scales of staff in junior Colleges started for the
, .two~year Intermediate Course were laid down by the Government in
G.O. Ms 2063, Education •. dated 25.8.1969. In G.O.Ms. 2186,
Education, "dated 17.9.1969 the Government issued the followina
instructions regarding the absoq,tion of Post-Graduate Teachers in c
Junior Colleges :
"In regard to the appointment of Post Graduates as
Junior Lecturers in Junior Colleges, priority will be given
to those who are in the scales of pay of Rs. 180-350 and
who are suitable and willing to be absorbed as per seniority D
( as indicated below :
(a) First or second class.Post-Graduates working as
Post-Graduate Assistants :
(b) Third class Post-Graduati:s with not less than
5 years of service, working as Post-Graduate
Assistants ;
l
(c) Third class Post-Graduates with less than of 5
years of service, workini: as Post Graduate Assis· F
tants.
and (d) Lastly Trained Graduates possessing Post
Graduate diploma in Physical Sciences, working
in the Post Graduate Assistant's ~cale. G
) It was stated in that G. 0. that all the existing Post Graduates
who will be absorbed as Junior L-Octurers in Junior Colleges will be
appoi,nted temporarily as Junior Lecturers pending framing of adhoc
rules in due course. The Government ordered in G,O.Ms. 1147, H
Educati<in, dated 4.6.1970.that in the common seniority list first rank
should be given only to those who have secured first and second
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS !i983j 3 s.c.R.
class Post-Graduate degree wlth 50 per· cent mai:ks and above. These
A G. Os. were all executive' instructions.
~ .
. .
#I
There is no.dispute that the petitioners are holders of first or
second class Post-Graduate degrees and that the private respondent§
3 to 8 in Reperesentation Petition 595 of.1977 who have been °placed
B as their'se~iors in the impugned seniority list oi: 1976.are holders of
only third.class post-Graduate degrees. The petitioners relie<l heavily
on tbe above rule 3 of the Adhoc Rules, according to which persons
with' first or second class Post-Graduate degrees are to be.· given.,
preference over Post-Graduates holding third class degrees. and
cont~~ded that they sh.ould, therefore., be )liven seniority over.the
c third class Post ·Gra<luate degree holders in, determining.the inter se
1 seniorit)iin th~ cadre of. Junior Lecturers 'in Junior Colleges as was ..
done in the seniority list prepared in 1974. ·
. The contention of the fir$1: respondent, State of Andhra
D Pradesh, was that the executive instructions given in Government
orders regardi~g appointments of Junior Lecturers pending the fram-
ing of Adtioc Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution ceased to
operative once those adhoc rules were framed and that under Adhoc
Rule 13 the seniority of Po3t-G•adu~te Assistants of former Higher
Secondary Schools and Multipurpose' Schools with first, second and
E third class Post-Graduate degrees and Post Graduate diploma shall
have to be determined with refere11ce to the. actual date · of .appoint-
ment as J>ost-Gradnate Assistants. The Government denied that
Rule 13 (0 is viol~tive of Articles, 14 and 16 of the Constitution
and contended in the counter-affidavit that the Education Depart-
F ment followed the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
W.P. No. 4358 of 1974 ,and Writ Appeal 920 of 1975 and cancelled
the earlier seniority list of· 1974 and framed the revised seniority
list of 1976 according to ·Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules. Thus the
Government oppsed the Representation
. . '
Petitions.
The Tribunal has taken note in Pa,rl)grl\ph 9•of,its judgment of
the fact that the petitioners are first and second class Post-Graduate
degree holders whi.le respondents .3 to. 8 are only third class Post·
. Graduate degree hblders correctly, but it bas' wrongly observed that.
\
• . - 't - '
H both the categories of Post-Graduate Assistants have been, apPQinted,
as Junior Lecturers under Rule 3 (I) (i) of the Adhoc Rules issued
in G.0.Ms 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973. It was not disputed
n.v. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarqjan,'J..) SSS
before us. that the petitioners being ·first and second class. P~st~'
Graduates with 50 per cent and more· marks were appointed as.
Junior Lecturers in I 969 and that respondents 3 to 8 wlio are· third·
class Post-Graduates were appointed as~ Junior l:ecfofors only' in
. ~ 1 ~· '
1970 and 1975. Therefore, the petitioners and some of respondents
l 3 to 8 had been appointed in 1969a~d·1970 before the Adhoc' R'u/es ··
· were framed on 19.9.1973 and only some ofihe respondents 3 to'' 8
B
were appointed in 1975 under Rule 3 (I) (i) of those Adhoc Rule's;
The fact that the petitioners were appoinied ·as' Junior LeCttirers
earlier than the respondents was wnceded by Mr. Shiv Shankar · ,
before .the Tribunal as seem from paragraph 8 · of the Tribunal's
judgment. The Tribunal ,noted the following further facts :-
. c
(1) That Government bad decided ,in G.O.Ms. 2063,
,Education, dated 25.8. 1969 that first ·and second class
Post-Graduates would be given a 4igher starting pay of Rs. 260 in
in the scale of Rs. 200-500 ·and that third class Post:Graduates would.
be allowed only the pay drawn by them before they were appointed D·
as Junior Lecturers in the above scale;
(2) That the Government expressed the view in G.O.Ms. 1147,
Education, dated 4.6.1970 that in the common seniority lisi first
rank should be given only to those who have secured first or second E
class Post-Graduate degrees with 50 percent marks and above whiCh
is the qualification prescribed for direct recuruitment of Juniot .
Lecturers; and (3) That in Rule 3 (I) (i) of the Adhoc Rules framed
on 19.9.1973 it is stipulated that at the time of appointment to the 1
category of'Junior Lecturers persons with.first or second class Post
Graduate degrees would have preference over persons with third F
class Post ·Graduate degrees. ·
But the Tribunal relied heavily on the fact. that the Andlira
Pradesh High Court had directed in Writ Appeals 920 and. 938 of.
1975 that the seniority list sp.ould be prepared in' accordance with'
c·
Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules,'1973 which have been given retros-
r ' pective effect from 1.8.J.969 and.held.that the iQJpugned seniority list
framed as per Rule 13(1) of tp.e Adhoc Rules having :precedence over
the earlier execu'tive instruction is valid and that as the petitioners and Hi
_respondents 3 to 8 belonged to the 'same ·category. of Post . Graduate
Assistants, there is no question of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution as Adhoc Rule 13 (I} says that seniority of Pos\
•
' SUPREME COURT RBPoRTS [1983) 3 s.c,ii..
Graduate Assistants appointed as Juni6r Lecturers shall b~ deter·
mined with reference to the dates of their actual appointment as
A Post Graduate Assistants or the probable dates on which they would
have been, appointetd as Post Graduate Assistants but for their
appointment or promotion to higher posts. The Tribunal has
obsei;ved that if the intention of the Government was otherwise they
would have specifically provided acco~dingly. In this view the l.
B Tribunal rejected the petitioners' prayer for restoring the old seniority
list prepared in 1974 which in its opinion is contrary to Rule 13 (1)
of the Adhoc Rules. Accordingly the Tribunal dismissed Representa·
tion Petition 595 of 1977 and in view of its judgment in that Petiti()n
eit.her rejected or dismissed Representation Petitions 985 of 1977 and
289, 340, 446 and 553 of 1978. In Representation Petition 273 of
c 1978 the Tribtlnal observed, that the plea of the petitioners that first
and second· class Post Graduate degree holders should be given
preference over third class Post Graduate degree holders in the matter
of seniority as Junior Lec'turers is covered by its judgment in
D Representation Petition 59 5 of 1977 and that since the petitioners in
Representation Petition 273 of 1978 have already acquired B. Ed.
qualification, which is a pre-requisite for regular appointment as
Post Graduate Assistants, 'the question of those petitioners'
regularisation in the posts -of Post Graduate Assistants should be
examined in accordance with the rules and their service should be
E be regularised in. that category and thereafter their seniority as
Junior Lecturers should be determined in accordance with Rule I 3
(I) of the Adhgc Rul<!s,. ·1n Transferred Writ Petition 1246 of 1976
the Tribunal has stated in its judgment that in the judgment of the
High Court in Writ Appeals 920 and 938 of 1975, the High Court
has ordered that a fresh seniority list should be prepared in accor•
F dance with Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules, that the relief prayed
for by the four petitioners in that Writ "Petition has already been
given and that Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. The
Tribunal has orderd that Transferred Writ Petition 7s of 1976 also
stands disposed of, presumably in the same manner as Transferred
G Writ Petition 1246 of 1976 was disposed of, without specifically
indicating bow that Writ Petition is disposed of.
In Transferred W.P. 941of1976 out of which C.A. No. 415 of
1979 filed by 34 petitioners in that Petition has ariSel), the reliefs
H prayed for were : (I) that a correct seniority list based on Rule 13
of the Adhoc.Rules 197,3 should be issued in respect of all the Junior
Lecturers, (2) that Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules framed in G.O.Ms.
il.v. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, J.) 557
I
502, Education, dated 19.6.1974, under which first or second class
Post-Graduate degree has been prescribed as the qualification for A
promotion to the posts of Principal of Junior Colleges should be
struck down as illegal and (3) that adhoc appointments of seven
third class Post-Graduate Junior Lectur~rs as Principals of Junior
Colleges made in the proceedings dated 14.3.1974 by. ~he second
respondent Director of Public Instruction, Andhra Pradesh should be B
declared as illegal. Here also we shall refer to the parties as
arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience as stated
earlier.
The 14 petitioners .in this petition were working as School
Assistants in Higher Secondary schools in Andhra Pradesh. They
c
were subsequently appoined as. Junior Lecturers in junior colleges in
terms of Rule 3 of the Adhoc Rules which states that first preference.
for appointment as junior Lecturers in Junior Colleges should be
given to Post-Graduate Assistants in Category I-A of Class II and
Seletion Grade Assistants in Grade I of Category 2 of Class. II in the D
Andhra Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service or Headmasters of
High Schools and Post-Graduate Assistants in Zilla Parishad High
Schools and such of the Municipal Schools as are converted into
into Junior Colleges. The rule also provides that preference should
be given to persons with first or second class Post-Graduate degrees.
Rules 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules provi<\es that seniority is to be E
determined with reference to the. date of their actilal appointment as
Post Graduate Assistants or the probable date on which they would
have .been appointed as .Post-Graduate Assistants but for their
appointment or promotion to higher posts. The. petitioners conten-
dedtthat seniority of Junior. Lecturers, which is being maintained .F
subjectwise, Should be integrated and there should be a combined
seniority list and not subject-wise list. .In the Adhoc Rules framed
by the Government in G.O.Ms. 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973 there
were no rules regarding promotion of Junior Lecturers to the posts
of Principals ·of junior Colleges. Pending the framing of Aahoc
G
Rules in that regard the second respondent, Director of Public
•• Instruction, issued proceedings _in R.C. No. 775-Cl/2/74 dated
14.3:1973.promoting under Rule 10 (a) (i) ofthe 'St.ate and Subordi·
nate Service Rules, seven persons as Principals of Junior Colleges
though they did not hold first or secon\i clilss Post-Graduate degrees. H
Subsequently, Adhoc Rules were framed. by the Government in
G.O.Ms: 502, Education, dated 19.6.1974 under the proviso to Rule
309 of the Constitution with retrospective effect from 1.8.1969
SUPREME COURT REPORTS i19S3) 3 s.c.R.
regarding promotion fo the posts of Principals of Junior Colleges.
Under these Rules Junior 'Lecturers holding· a first or second class'
Post-Graduate degrees who have put in a service of three years· as
Juuior Lecturers in the Educ1tional Subordinate Ser'vice are eligible
for promotiotion" as Principals of junior Colleges. But Rule 8 of the
Adhoc Rules, 1974 which is a saving clause, reads as follows t
B
· . "Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules
a person who held a post of a Principal· of Ju-nior. College
immediately before the issue of these Rules shall be con- ·
' tinued as Principal and be given option either to continue
in the post of a Principal or_to·revert to-his original post".
c !.
The tribunal affirmed in its judgment in this Transferred Writ
Petition its judgment in Representation Petition 5.95 of 1977 and
observed that that judgme1it would apply as regards the interpreta-
tion of Rule 13 in the matter of fhing inter se seniority among Post-
Graduate School Assistants appointed as Junior Lecturers under'
Rule 3 (I) (I) ofthe Adhoc Rules, !973, and•that seniority should be
determined with reference to the date of appointment as Post-·
Graduate School Assistants without reference to the nature of.the
1 Post-Graduate degrees, whether they are first, second or 'third '
class degrees. The Tribunal held . that subject to that provision
regarding fixing of over all seniority subject-wise seniority can also
be fixe\I and that for purposes of . promotion to the posts of
Principals the overall _seniority in the category of junior ·Lecturers
fixed in accordance with Rule 13 of the Adii.oc Rules should be ·
followed .. · ..
F <
It was submitted before the Tribunal on behalf of the Govern·
met\t that considering the nature of the duties of Principals there is
a reasonable classification between first and second class Post-
Graduate. School Assistants and such Assistants holding .only tliiid·
class Post-Graduate degrees, and there is no contravention of Articles
G 14 and !6 of the Constitution in prescribing first and second Class ,
Post-Graduate· degree for Junior ·Lecturers to be promoted' as
Principals of JUnior ·colleges .and that· clear distinction has been
~\
maintained beiween holders of'first and second' class Post-Graduate
degrees and those holding only third class Post-Graduate degrees,,
H and the former class of Post-Graduate degree holders have been
given advance increments on their appointment as-junior Lecturers
while the latter have been given only the pay they were drawing as
B.V. REODY v. ANOHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, j,) ~59
(
Post Graduate School A;sistants when they were appointed as junior
Lecturers. It was also submitted . before the Tribunal that academic A
qualification is germane in the educationaf field and that classifica-
tion made on the basis of qualification for the post of Principal
cannot be termed as discriminatory.
\ On a perusal of G.O.Ms .. 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973 in B
which Adhoc Ruels under the proviso to Article 309 of the Consti-
tution· have been framed by the Government tlie Tribunal found that
weightage is to be given for first and second class Post-Graduate
degree holders over third class Post-Graduate degree holders. The
Tribunal accepted the contention of the Government that in academic
institutions excellence in academic attainments is a relevant considera-, C
ti on. and that any discrimination based on excellence in academic
attainments has direct nexus with the object of achieving excellence
in a teaching institution and that it does' offend Articles 14 and 17
of the Constitution, more so when third. class Post-Graduate
degree holders are not permanently debarred from improving their D
standard of qualifications for bec;oming eligible to the .posts of
Principals of Junior Colleges. The Tribunal.thus rejected the second
prayer of the petitioners that the prescription of. first and second
class Post-Graduate degree as qualification for eligibility for pro-
motion· to the posts of Princip~ls of Junior Colleges contravenes
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. E
The Tribunal found nothing objectionable in Rule ·s of the ' ·
Adhoc Rules 1974 referred to above- which protects the rights of
third class Post-Graduate degree 'holders who had been promoted
under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules 1
F
pending framing of Adhoc Rules which were actually framed subse-
quently on 19.6.1974.
On theee findings the Ttibunal dismissed Transferred Writ
Petition No. 941 of 1976.
G
Pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Andhra Pradesh
Government in 1964 that tire secondary school duration should be
JO years instead of 11 years and it should be followed by a tAlo yeais•
intermediate course in the place of then existing PUC instead· of the
then prevailing Higher Secondary' and .Multi-purpose system, com• H
mellcing from the academic years 1969-70 the Government decided ·
in G.O.Ms. 1920, Education, dated 25.10.1968 that in the existing
SUPREMB COURT REPORTS . l1983J 3 s.c.&.
colleges the two years' intermediate course. should be introduced
A instead of the one year PUC, and laid down in 0.0.Ms., 2063, :
Education, dated· 25.8.1969 tbe. staff . pattern and pay scales of:
staff in junior Colleges started for the two. years' intermediate course. ·:
In implementing this scheme Post-Graduates Assistants in. certain .
categories of schools were appointed as Junior Lecturers in Junior ·
B · Colleges. The petitioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 and··
· batch, out of which Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659of1978 have arisen .
and Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976, out of·which Civil Appeal .
415 of 1979. has arisen. and those in certain other. Representation
Petitions and Transferred Writ.Petitions 785 and 1246 of 1976·were.
appointed as Junior Lecturers•.. Prior to .their appointment as.
C · Junior Lecturers they were ·au Post-Graduate. School, Assistants
or· Headmasters .. in· various · schools.· .The private respondents
, in Representation Petitions: 595 'of. 1977 and batch and • the
petitioners in Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976 were seniors as.·.
Post-Graduate School Assistants to the petitioners in Representation.
595 of 1977 and batch and the private respondents in ·Transferred
D· Writ Petition 941 of 1976 ... The said senior Post-Graduate Assistants
are ali third class Post:Graduate degree holders whereas the. said
Junior Post-Graduate School Assistants are all first or second class
• · Post Graduate ·degree , holders. Based on their superior academic. ·
-qualification those first and second class Post-Graduate School -
E: · Assistants were· given priority and treated. as seniors to the- said third .
class Post-graduate School Assistants in. the seniority list prepared in
1974 "after th~y were appointed• as Junior Lecturers. ·. The petitioners·
in Representation . Petitions 595 of 1977 and batch and the
petitioners in Transferred Writ Petition 941 'of 1976 were appoint-
ed in 1969;, 1970 and .1975 as. Junior .Lecturers. In Writ Appeals.
·F; · 920 and 938of1975 the Andhra Pradesh High Court gave directions. 7'
.'to prepare a c<immon· seniority list of junior Lecturers ill accordance
with Rule 13(1) of the Adhoe Rules framed by the Govemn'.ient in
G.O.Ms. 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973. Pursuant ·to that direction
a revised seniority list of Junior Lecturers was issued by the Govern- ·
G '· ment on 27.12.1976. · In the seniority list of I 974 the petitioners in
.Representation Petition 595 ofJ977 had been placed at Nos. 17, 15,
· 20, 2..' • 23"40 and 4 I respectively, and on the basis of that seniority.
junior Lecturers up to the rank of 40 in that list had been promoted·
. . as Principals of hrious'junior Colleges and the' seventh petitioner in•
H; · Representation Petition 595of1977 who had been placed at· No. 41 ·
in that list \vas· awaiting his promotion as Principal of junior College.-'
But in the revised seniority lj~t of 1976 those petitioners have been '
t- • '·· ' • • • • • l ' ~
'b,V. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, J.) 561
.....-
/
placed at Nos. 380, 54, 390, 392, 406, 368 and 374 respectively and
the private respondents in that Representation Petition have all been A
placed above them as their seniors. the seniority of the petitioners
in the other Representation Petitions in the batch was also disturbed
to their disadvantage in the revised seniority list of 1976. the
Representation Petitions were therefore ·filed for quashing the revised
seniority list issued by the first respondent State of Andhra Pradesh
in 1976 so far as the petitioners are concerned and for restoration of B
their ~Id seniority as per the earlier seniority list . of 1974 or in the
alternative for declaring that Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 ·
dealing with seniority of junior Lecturers is violative of Articles 14
and 16 ·.of the Constitution. The only question arising for con·
sideration in Representation Petition 595 of. 1977 and batch out
of which Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978 have arisen
c
is the question of s~niority of the Petitioners in those petitions
(appellants in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978). Though in -
Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976 out of which Civil Appeal 415
of 1979 has ariseu three reliefs were prayed for viz. (I) that an inte·
grated seniority list based on Rule 13 of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 should D
be issued in respect of all Juniqr Lecturers ; (2) that Rule 6 of the
--• Adhoc Rules framed in G.0.Ms. 502, Education, dated 19.6.1974 by
which first and second class post-graduate degree has been prescribed
for promotion of junior Lecturers as ·Principals .of Junior Colleges
should be struch down as being illegal and (3) that adhoc appoint· E
of
ments seven third class Post-Graduate degree holders as Principals
of Junior Colleges made in proceedings dated 14.3.1974 of the second
respondent, Director of Public Jmtructions should be declared illegal,
Mr. S.N. Kackar, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants in
Civil Appeal 415of1979 confined bis arguments to the second prayer
alone viz. the attack on Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules framed G.O.Ms. F
502, Education, dated 19.6.1974 which prescribes first or second class
Post-Graduate degree for promotion' of Junior Lecturers as Principals
of Junior Colleges, which has been dealt wtth by the· Tribunal in
paragraph 6 of its judgment in Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976.
We shall consider these two questions in this common judgme~t. We
,
...... G
shall also consider briefly the third prayer made in Transferred Writ
Petition 941 of 1976 which has been negatived by the Tribunal. We
may state that the first prayer made in Transferred Writ Petition 94i
of 1976 will be covered by, our finding on the only point arising for
consideration in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978. H
Mr. M.N. Phadke, Senior Advocate appearing for tlie appellants
in, Civil Appeals 1(\52 to 1~59 of 197~ qrew our attention to the
562 SUPREMJ(COURT <REPORTS '
' 'specialprovisi~Xs in var'iolls G~vernme~~ Orders w'hich ;.;.e· eiecutivc
·A instructionsissu~d beforetheAdhoc Rules'were framed under the·
proviso to Article 309 of the ConstitutiOn on '19.9.1973 and 'to· ·some
,Special provisions ,made even: in• those adhoc' rules sh/>wing prefe'rence
and priority for P-ost-Gradiiate School Assistants 'holdiiig first and
· second·· class· 'Post!Grad'uate . degrees over such· Assistants· holding _:
. only thiid dass Post~Graduate d!grees in the -matter: of appofotment
.·as JuniOt Lectur~rs in Junior Colleges and .of· promotion of Junior·
. tecturesrs as .'Principals:·
- ,. ,., '..- _-
of .'Junior
' .
Colleges and - .,submitted
'-" . : - ' - --- _,
. fixing seniority of Junior Lecturers holding· first and 'second Glass
. '
'that '
• Post-GradJate degree;, f()mii~g one group and of those holding third
· ,'class'~ost-Graduate degi-~es; rorming anot~er group,•oi{ the basis· of -
. C 'the-dates of their 'original appointment ·as Post;Graduatc' School
- - ~-A~sistai:itsis arbitary anl therefore _the impugned seniority list· of· ~
.
_1976 should be quashed_ and the seniority of
the petitioners in' the
·· 'Reprsentation Petitions {appellants in Civil Appeals f65? to· 1659 'of
. - "i978) fixed in tb.e list 'of. 1974 'should be restored.' "But Mr.' T.S.
!D - , krishqa MoortY. Tyer Senior Adv~cate :. appearing_: for.the· con testing . , .-
· _._ private respondents ·3, 5; 8 and 9 in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 to ·
Jns argued that before their appointment' as 'Jllnior Lecturers ·Post_
' . • • '. " ~ . '' - , . t • • " - . - , -
Graduate Ass15tants holdmg first, second. and third class Post-
Graduat~ Degrees were:doing the sa~e'work and drawi~g -the same ._' ':..
. : scale of pay. 'Jie submitted that though in G.O.Ms. 20~,' Education, .
0
.'---.:__
E " dated 25.8.1969 !twas stated thit first or second Class Post·Gcaduates
a
--- will be given higher start of Rs: 260 in the pay scale of Rs. 200-15-
- . 320·20-500 and third class Post-Graduates will be allowed. only ·the .
pay dtawn by them -before their appointment as Junior· Lecturers in.
the pay scale of Rs: 200-500 if their. pay-was more than ihe. minimnm , · - • -
'of the new. seaie on th~ir'appoiniment as Junior Le</turers, nothing
F is mentioned in the Adhoc Rules, 1973 about salary; and this .would
show that ·under tlie Adhoc Rules rio · new· service was 'created but
only the previous
se~ice created by <the executive instructions. was
ccmtinued ind 'that in all fairness and justice the private respondents
in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of l978 who had been appointed as .
G Post-Gradllaie. School· ·Assistants' prior to - the appellants in those ·
· ·appeals should be regarded as ·their - seniors. as h_ad -heen . done - in ·
• the impugned seniority list' of 1976 prepared in accordance with the
•directions given by' the AlldhraPradesh-High Court in· its jUdginent ·
in' Writ Appeals ~20 and 938 of 1975. Mr. P. Rama'. Reddy, Senior '
H_- -Advocate appearing for the official respondents in all the civil appeals
supported the impugned judgment of the Tribunal sayiiig that the
first; second and third class Post-Graduate Assistants ·before 'they
~; . ~' -. -: .~ . .
- -.:
B.V. REDDY v. ANDERA PRADESH (Varadarajan, J.) 563
' . -
' were appointed as Junior Lecturers belonged to the same class and
were drawing the same pay and doing the same kind of work and
that seniority after their appointment as Junior Lecturers should be
fixed on the basis o_f the dates of their original appointment as Post
Graduate School Assistants, as has been done in the impugned
seniority list of 1976.
B
As stated above, in G.O.Ms. 2063, Education, dated 25.8.1969 .
Government ordered that first or second class Post-Graduates will be
given a higher. start of Rs. 260 in. the new Junior Lecturers' pay
scale of Rs. 200-15-320-20-500 and third class Post-Graduates
will be allowed only the pay dw,rn by them 'before their -appoint
ment as Junior Lecturers in the scale of Rs. 200-500 if their c
pay was more than the minimum of the new ·scale of Rs. 200-15-
320-20,500. In G.O.Ms. 2186, Education, dated 17.9.1969 Govern-_
meat decided that all the existing Post-Graduate teachers who will
be absorbed in Junior Colleges will -be appointed temporarily as
Junior Lecturers pending framing of adh0c rules in due course D
and that in regard to appointmept of Post-Gradi.Jaks as Junior
Lecturers fn Junior Colleges priority will be given to those who
are in the scale of pay of Rs. 180-350 and are suitable and
willing .to be absorbed as per seniority as indicated below :
(a) First and second class Post-Graduates working as E
• Post-Graduate Assistants:
(b) Third class Post Graduates with not -less then five
years of service, working ·as Post Graduate
Assistants; F
(c) Third class Post Graduates with less than five years
of service, working as Post Graduate Assistants;
(d) Lastly, trained graduates possessing Post Graduate
, Diploma in Physical Sciences, working in- the Post -G
Graduate Assistants' scale.
/'" In G.O.Ms. 1147, Education, dated 4.6.1970 Government.
reiterated the aforesaid decision taken in G.O.Ms. 2186, Education
dated 17.9.1969 regarding priority to be given to first and second H
class Post-Graduates ·over third class Post-Graduates, based on the
r~eommendatio11:s of the Vice Chancellors' Conference and stateq
.
564 SUPREME COURT REPORT [1983] 3 s.c.R.
that they consider that in the common seniority list first rank should
A be !iiven only to those who have secured first or second class with
50 marks and above and thrid class Post-Graduates should be given
rank with reference to their services viz. those with five years of
service, working as Post-Graduate Assistans, next to the first and
second class Post-Graduates, working as Post-Graduates Assistants
. I)
B and thereafter those with less than: five years of service, working· as
Post Graduate Assistants. Government have observed in that
G.0. that this manner ofcreating seniority is reasonable. · These
orders are all no doubt in the nature of executive instructions.
The Adhoc Rules were framed under the proviso to Article
c 309 of the Constitution with retrospective effect from 1.8.1969 in
G.O.Ms. 939, Education, dated 19.9.1973 for the temporary posts of
Junior Lecturers in Government Degree and Junior Colleges in
. Andhra Pradesh. Rule 3 (I) and (2) of those rules reads as
follows:-
D . "3, Appointment :- (I) Appointments . to this class
shall be made as follows :-
(i) firstly by appointment of Post Graduate Assistants in
Category I-A of Clause II and Selection· Grade
Assistants in Grade I. of Category 2 of Class II of
E The Andhra Pradesh Educational Subordinate
Service, or Head Masters of High Schools and Post
Graduate Assistants in Zilla Parishad High Schools
and such of the Municipal Schools as are converted
into Junior Colleges.
,._
F,
(ii) Secondly, if there are no suitable and qualified
persons available for ..appointment under clause (i); .
then, by appointment of trained Graduates possessing
Post Graduate Diploma lo Physical Sciences in the
scale of pay admissible to Post Graduate Assistants
G immediately before the commence.men! of these
rules.
'
(iii) Thirdly, if there are no suitable and qulified persons
. available for appointment under ~uh-clause (i) or
H .sub-clause (ii) :-
(a) By recruitment from among the Head Masters
alld Post Graduate Assistants in recognised
"
B,V. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, J.) 565
Multi-purpose or Higher Secondary Schools
under private management or under the manage- A
ment of a Municipality which are not con-
verted into Junior Colleges; or
i
l, (b) By transfer from School Assistants in Grade ii
Category 2 in Class II and· Pandits (including B
Hindi pandits), Munshis Grade I in Category I
of Class III of the Andhra Pradesh Educational
Subordinate Service or by recruitment by transfer
from any other service; or
(c) By direct recruitment: c
(2) Preference shall be given for appointment under
clause (I) or sub-clause (a) of Clause (iii) of sub-clause
I - . • . .·
'. ,.- D
(a) Firstly tq persons with First or Second class P.G.
Degree; '
•
(b) Secondly to persons with a third class Post Graduate
Degree with not less than five Y.ealS .of service as
Post Graduate Assistants or Seleciion Grade Assis- E
tants in the Andhta ·Pradesh Educational Subordinate
Service or as a Head Master of a Zilla Parishad High
School or as a Post Graduate Assistant in a School
.' under the management of a Zilla Parishad or a
Municipality; ·F
.. (cl Thirdly to person with a third class Post Graduate
Degree with less than five years of service as a Post
Graduate Assistant or a Selection Grade Assistant i~
the Andhra Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service G
or as a Head Master of a High School or Post
Graduate Assistant in a school under the
management of a Zilla Parishad cir of Municipality.
t
..................................... " ..................." . H
It is not disputed before .us·. that the petitioners in ·11-epresen-
ntation: Petition 595 of 1977 and batch (app~llants in Civil Appeals
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19.83] 3 s.c.R.
1652 to 1659 of 1978) fall under the above preferred clause (a)
and that· the contesting priviate respondents in' those appeals
and the appellants in Civil Appeal 415 of 1979 fall under the
above clause (b) or clause (c) and they would have come up for
consideration for appointment as Junior Lecturers only after those
falling under the above seccfud clause (a). Thus, the preference
given to first and second class Post Graduate Assistants in the matter
of appointment as Junior ·Lecturers in G.0.Ms. 2186, Education
dated 17.9.1969 has. been maintained even in the Adhoc Rules,
1973.
As submitted by Mr. T.S. Krishna Moorthy Iyer there is
nothing in the Adhoc Rules, 1973 regarding the salary of first and
second class Post Graduate Assistants on the one hand and of third
class Post Graduate School Assistants on the other on their appoint·
ment as Junior Lecturers. Therefore, G.0.Ms. 2063, Education,
dated 25.8.1969 by which first and second class Post Graduates are
given a higher start of Rs. 215t inthe new Junior Lecturers' pay scale
)
of Rs. 200-15-320-20-500 and third class Post Graduates are given .
only the pay drawn by them before their appointments as Junior
Lecturers in the scale of Rs. 200-500 if their pay was· more than. the
minimum of the new scale of Rs. 200-15-320-20-500 continues to
govern the matter of pay. This position is not disputed before us.
Thus, in the matter of ~ay also first and second class Post-Graduate
Assistants who are appointed as Junior Lecturers are placed in a
better and. preferential position than third class Post "Graduate
Assistants who are appointed as fonior Lecturers.
Some time after the Adhoc Rules were framed· on 19.9.1973, '-
F Government framed Adhoc Rules under the· proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution in G.O;Ms. 502, Education, dated 19.6.1974 for
the tempo~ary posts of Principals of Junior Colleges in Andhra
Pradesh with retrospective effect from 1.8,1969. According to ·those
rules the posts of Principals of Junior Colleges form a separate class
in the administrative section of the Andhra Pradesh Educational
G
Service, and appointment to that class should be made; (a) by
' -i.
recruitment by transfer from Junior Lecturers in the Andhra Pradesh
Educational Subordinate Service who have opted or are deemed to
have opted to remain as Junior Lecturers, or (b) by recruitment by-
.H transfer of.Schools Assistants in Grade I and Deputy Inspectors: of
Schools Grade I in Category 2 of clause II of the Andhra Pradesh •
Educational Subordinate Service. ·Rule 6 of those Rules states that
no person shall be eligibl.e for appointment to 'this class unless he
n.v. REDDY. v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, J,) 567
holds a first or second cfass Post·Gra"duate degree'··Of M.A;; M. Sc.,
M. Com., B.A (Hons.), B. Sc. (Hons.), or ·B. Com (Hons.) of a A
University in India established or incorporated by or under a
Central Act. or· a .l'rov\ncial, Act, or a ,State, Act .or institutions
' .1. . \ tecongnised by the University Grants Commission. This rule which
isJmpugne!l_in Civj] Appea\ 415of1979.prescri!ies a_ fi,rst qr second
~lass Pqsi~Graduate degree.for promotion .of.Junior Lecturers .to ·the
B
P.O.~ts ,of Principals of ~uniqt Cpll~ges., .!Jnqer .t)lis. ,,rule .third . class
f9st Graduate,J~njor Lect\i.r.ers ;are. not _eligii?!e. for.. proiµoti_on as
frincipa}~ of}ul\iO! C.o.l,leges. Thµ_s, even,in the matter ,of_pron)(lc
!i()n,as.Pfincipals of Jµ.n_ior 1...\:olleg~~ •. first amt 5ecoµd, cl1J.ss P()$t•
Gr~ill!ate JunJqr Lecturer~ have'. priority. a_nd preferen~ over. third
class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers who are _not ~ligible at all: 1for c
p~omotion as Principals .on acco.unt. of the inferiority of their
qcade_m_ic attainments so long as they remain only third class Post
G,raduates.
1
~·-:fJ' ft
,.,.,
,.• 1. Now
'"·· l•h_"tl••• '·"'1f11. "l ''
Rule 13 dealing with seniority of junior Lecturers reads as
I'•! If.
D
' ~ '"
follows:-
~- 13. Senfoiity : (i) the seniority of a person appointed
under clause (i) and (ii) of Sub-rule (l) of :Rule 3 shali
be determined with reference to the· date of the ictual E
• appointment as a Post Graduate Assistant or the
probable date on which he would have been appointed
. .., as a Post Graduate Assistanf but" for his appoint-
ment or promotion to a higher post; (2) The
seniopty qf jlllY per1<1n app9ip~ed ,under .yl;ms,e, (iiJ ?f
s11b:111le, (l) , of ,)~ul~ 3,,,~h,a.J.l )e .... <\e,termirwd ,_Vl(ith,
F
rcfesence to the date -0f commencement .of his proba-
tion;
Provided that n~. such person shail be· se'nfor. to any
...
person appointed utider 'clause (ij or (ii). of sub-rule (I)
B
of Rule J.
. .• . ·- ••• 1.
' I
. Provided. further_ that no person appointed under sub-
clause (b) 9r ,sub'.clause (c) of clause (iii) of sub-.rule II) G
of _Ru)~ .3. shall be" .senior .to a person appointed uncler
sub-clause (a) of that clause",
S68. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983) 3 s.c.R.
It was submitted before us that these two provisos to sub-rule
(2) of Ruie 13 have been struck down by the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal.
The main question for consideration is whethe'r in spite ·of the
aforesaid provisions in· the executive instructions and adhoc rules
B 'providing for preferential treatment and position to hojders of first
and second class Post-Graduate Degrees in the matter of appoint•
ment as Junior becturers, their starting pay and subsequent promotion
as Principals of Junior Colleges, particularly· (I) G.0.Ms. 1147,
Education, dated 4.6.1970 in which Government considered and
decided that in the common seniority list first rank should be given
c only two those who have secured first or second class Post-Graduate
degree with 50 per cent marks and above and third class Post•
Graduate Degree holders with not less than five years of service,
working as Post Graduate Assistants should be ranked next and third
class Post Graduate Degree holders with less than five years of service,
D 'YOrking as Post Graduate Assisiants, should rank next, and (2) Rule
('
3(1) (i) and (2) of the Adhoc Rules,. 1973 according to which in the
appointment of Junior Lecturers preference has to be given firstly to
persons with first or second class Pos_t Graduate Degrees, secondly
to persons with third class Post Graduate Degrees with not less than
five years of service as Post Graduate Assistants and thirdly to persons
E with third class Post Graduate Degrees with less than five years of
service as Post Graduate Assistants, Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules
confers seniority on third class Post Graduate Junior Lecturers over •
first and second class Post Graduate Junior Lecturers based on their
earlier appointment as Post Graduate Assistants.
F
There is nothing on record to show that while framing Rule
13(1) of the Adhoc Rules Government intended to depart from the
'policy earlier enunciated in G.0.Ms. 1147, Education, dated 4.6.1970
as regards conferment of seniority on first and second class Post-
Graduate School Assistants appointed as Junior Lecturers and Rule
G 3(1) (i) and (2) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 as regards preference of
first and second class Post-Graduate School Assistants over third
class Post-Graduate School Assistants. On the other hand, thefact
that in the seniority list prepared in 1975 _so soon after the Adhoc
Rules were framed on 19.9.1973 higher places were given to first and
H second class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers over third class Post-
Graduate Junior Lecturers although the first' and second class Junior
{Acturer~ wer~ Juniors to the thir4 ~1<1,ss P<;>st.Graduate Junior
il.v. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarqjan, J.) S69
--f
Lecturers when they were all-Post-Graduate School Assistants would
indicate that the Government who framed the Adhoc Rules themselves A
interpreted Rule 13(1) in the manner in which. the appellants in (:ivil
Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978 invite us to do, giving full effect to the
priority laid down in Rule 3(1) and (2) of the Adhoc Rules which
follows· the policy laid down in that regard in G.O.Ms .. 1147,
Education, dated 4.6.1970. It is true that we cannot base our - B
decision on this question on that fact alone especially having regard
to the stand now taken before us and the Tribunal by the Govern-
ment as regards the interpretation of Rule 13(1) which perhaps they
are obliged to take in view of the direction given by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeals .920 to 938 of 1975 whichis
binding on them to prepare a fesh seniority list as has been done c
by them subsequently in 1976 whichis impugned in Civil Appeal~
1652 to 1659 of 1978. As stated earlier there is no material on record
to show that the Government had any reason, policy or otherwise,
when they fr;imed the Adhoc Rules, 1973 to depart from what they
had decided in G.0.Ms. 1147, Education, dated 4.6.1970 about how D
· seniority should be accorded. There is no reason to think that the
_Government intended by Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules to take away
-~ from the first and second class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers the
preference shown to them over third class Post-Graduate Junior
Lecturers in the executive instructions especially G.0.Ms. 1147, Edu-
cation, dated 4.6.1970 and even in Rule 3(1) and (2) of the Adhoc E·
Rules, 1973. As contended by the appellants in Civil Appeals 1652
to 1659 of 1978 Rules 3(1) and (2) and 13(1) have to be read together.
Only then there will be harmony between those rules. If Rule 13(1)
is read without reference to Rule 3( 1) arid (2) the consequence will be
disharmony and the first and the second class Post-Graduate Junior
Lecturers who were given preference over third class Post-Graduate F
Junior Lecturers by the other provisions mentioned above, will be
placed in a Jess advantageous and inferior position as compared with
third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers as regards seniorit~ alone,
whi_ch will not even help them in the matter of promotion as
Principals of Junior Colleges in view of Rule 6 of Adhoc Rules, 1974 G
so long as they do not improve their academic attainment by obtain-
-~
ing a first or second class Post Graduate Degree. Every · rule in
the Adhoc Rules must be given its full, natural and legal effect.
There 1s no doubt that Rule 13(1) is inartistically worded though
when read Rule 3(1) and (2) it would be clear that the principal laid H
down in it has to be applied separately to each of the three categories
of Junior Lecturers mentioned in Rule 3(1) and (2) viz. 1) first and
s7o SUPREME COURT "· ~ [19S3j 3 s.c.~.
second class-Post Graduates, (2) third class Post-Graduates with not
· less than five years of service, working as Post Graduate School
Assistants, and (3) third class Post Graduates with less than five years
·of service, working as Post-Graduate School Assistants . according to
the order in' which they have to be selected for appointment as Junior
·Lecturers. Each of these three categories forms a distinct and sepa~
B rate category. The first category consists of first ·and second class
. Post·Graduate, and on their appointment as Junior Lecturers their
'inter se· seniority has to he fixed urider Rule 13(1 J with reference to
'the dates of their original- appohitment as Post Graduate School
Assistants. · When PostcGraduates with not ·less than five years 'Of
. 1'ervice working as Post' Graduate ·school ·Assistants are appointed as
c "Junior Lecturers their inter se ·seniority has ·fo be fixed likewise under
·Rule 13{i) ·oh the basis <if the dates ·of their original appointment as
·'Post Graduates School'Assistants. Similarly, when Post Graduates
·with less than five ye;us of service; working ·as Post Graduate School
Assistants are appointed as Junior:Lecturers their inter 'se seniority
D ..has to be fixed on the basis of the da.tes of their original appointment
as 'Post-Graduate .School Assistants. If Rule 13(11 is interpreted
·in this ·manner,. no. 'disharmony will ·result in the consequences
of applying all 'the adhoc 'rules · We think that only· by construing
'Rule 13(1) in this 'manner 'the Government frarned the seniority _ ·
1ist of 1974 soon after'framing .the Adhoc Rules, 1973 by according ·.~
E ·.'seniority · to.' the 'first 'and second '·class Post:. Graduate Junior
"Lecturers :over' the ·third class 'Post-Graduate ·:Junior Lecturers
. - · who·were senior to them when •all 'of them ~ere working as Post
'Graduate' School Assistants before they 'were· appointed as 'Junior .
-LeCturers.
F
'· As stated earlier, before the ·Tribunal it· was argued for the
p;iv~te respondents 3 to 8 in Representation Petitfon ·.595 of 1977
·that th~ prayer for quashing Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules' has to
'be negatived in veiw of the High Court's judgments in Writ Petition
~4358 of 1974 and Writ 0Appeals 920 and 938 of 1975 and that-it 'is
'G rnot ihe contention of the petitioners in that petition that the
'impugned revised seniority list of 1976 ·is Contrary to the directions '
given in. 'tliose jndgnients. :In ·the view •we take •regarding the
interpretation of Rule 13 (I) there is ·no need for quashing that :nlle.
·It is true that the petitioners in Representation Petition. 595 ·of ·1977
H
have ;,_otcontended that the impugned seniority ·list 'of '1976 is not
in accordance with 1he directions given in the Hi&h ·Court's Judg-
ments in those Writ Petition and Writ Appeals. The petitioners in .
il:V· REDDY v. ANDHRA P)tADESH (Va!'!.darajan, J.). S11
Representation Petition 595 of 1977 haye .contende,d that !pose
judgnieilis relate to the 1969 b~tch and that they belong to 1960.
batcli and would not be affected by them. Whatever this may mean,
it inust be noted that it' has not been contended by th~ respo,ndents
in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978 that the appellant~ in those
appelas were parties to those judgments and they constitjite res
judicata and are binding on them. Therefore, there is 'no substance
in this contention of the private respondents in Representation
Petition 595 of 1977.
Next it was contende.d. before the Tribunal by the private
responqen!s in Representati9n Petitiou.595 of 1977 that, they.; were
appqi11ted earlier as· Post Graduate School; Assistants than ·the. c
pe\itioriers in that 'Petition and were. qualif\ed to be appointed; as
Junior Lecturers when.the petitioners in that petition were. appointed
as sµch, but were not ava(lable for )l<!sting, and .that under Rule. 3J
(c) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Sub0r4inate. Service Rules
they are entitled to seniorjty. T)l.at rule. applies to persons who
were transferred from one. ciaos or ·category (lf. service, to an.ot.h,er. D
cfass or ca~egory of the same service, and' wo1,1ld cnot apply__ to.
the facts of the present. case wh~re Junio.r Lecqrrers have beeµ
appointed by sel~9tion amongst Post Gradua~e . School Assistants in
---,,.,.,. the manner indicated in Rule 3 (I) and. (2) of the Adhoc .Rules an<!
of
there is no question of transfer Post .Graduate. School Assistants as E
Junior Lecturers'. Therefore, there is no, merit . even in the. sc:con4.
co11~~!1tion put forw!ird o~ be)lalf, of, the·, pr,ivate respond~($, i~.
Representation
'-..." .•A, •
·~ ,
Petition
,,~ •
595 of' 1977.
·
•
T~ere .is no cm~stiop. of this Court striking down Rule. 13 (I)
of t~e Adlioc Rules. on the gr(lund that any. other_.rule whichdn. the F
opinion of the C:ourt would have been better or. more . appropriate.
Tli~~~fore, the decision in R~serve Bank of India v. N.C. ·pa/iwal('}
relied. on for the. prJvate respon\!ents 3 to 8 in Representation Petition
595. of 1977 bnfore the Trib1,1nal is not relevant. It is only a .question
of int~.rpr~~.tion (lf Rule 13 (I) read with Rule 3 (!} .and (2} .of•the G
Adhoc.... . Rules,
. I 973...
In these circumstances, we hold that R,ule 13(1) of the Adhoc
R1;1l~s, I.97~ has to 'be interpreted in the .manner indicated abo~e, .H
and semonty has to be fi~ed accordin~ly and there is no need to
(I) AIR 1976 S.C. 2342.
S?i SUPREME COURT RBPoRTS (19831 3 S.C.R.
quash that rule and that the impugned seniority list of 1976 has to
be quashed and the seniority list of 1974 has to be restored. It
would follow that the first prayer in Civil Appeal 415 of 1979
regarding fixing of seniority as prayed for by third class ]>ost ·
Graduate Junior Lecturers has to be rejected and it is a.ccordingly
rejected. · . .
B
Coming now to the only point argued by Mr. S. N. Kackar,
·Senior Advocate for the petitioners in Transferred Writ Petition 941
of 1976 (Civil Appeal 415 of 1979) that Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules,
·1974 prescribing a first or second class Post Graduate Degree for a
Junior Lecturer's promotion as Principal of a Junior College, thereby
c excluding third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers from eligibility
for promotion as Principals, we would like to state at the outset
that the contention put forward before the ,.ribunal tbat the posts
of Principals are administrative posts and no teaching experience
is required is incorrect. The Director of Public Instructions has
D stated in his Proceedings Re. No. 1068/IC-4/7.0 dated 16.l.197l that
Principals of Junior Colleges must take at least six periods of work·
per week if not more. Therefore, Principals of Junior Colleges have
to take up teaching work in addition to their administrative duties.
They are administrative heads of Junior Colleges where first, second
and third class Post Graduates work as Junior Lecturers. They
E have to exercise administrative control over first, second and third
class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers. It is therefore very desirable
that the Principals should be first or second class Post Graduates.
Post of Principals of Junior Colleges are gazetted while those of
Junior Lecturers of those colleges are not gazetted. According to
F G.O. Ms. 206', Education, dated 25.8.1969 Principals of Junior
Colleges will have the status of Senior Lecturers in Degree Colleges
and their pay scale is Rs. 400-800 while the pay scale of Junior
Lecturers is· Rs. 200-.15-320-20-500. The object of achieving excellence
in educational institutions like Junior Colleges is a laudable one, and
excellence in academic attainments of heads of· such institutions is a
G relevant fact. Promotion of Junior Lecturers as Principals is based
only on merit judge~ by their academic distinction which cannot be
said to be discriminatory. The ratio of this Court's decision in
S. •M. Pandit v. ·State of Gujarat(') referred to above cannot be
applied to the facts of th@ present case. Prescribing a first or
H second class Post-Graduate Degree for the head of an educational
\I) (1972] S.L.R. 79.
B.V. REDDY v. ANDERA PRADESH (Varatfarojrn, J.) 573
institution ·has a direct ne~us with the object of excellence sought
to be achieved, and it cannot be said to be discriminatory. Therefore,
we do not think that Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 is liable to
be struck down as being discriminatory and illegal.
Pending the framing of Adhoc Rules . for the temporary posts
of Principals of Junior Colfoges, the .Director of Public Instructions D
issued proceedings in Re 775-Cl/2/74 dated 14.3.1974 promo.ting
under Rule I O(a) (i) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules seven
third class Post Graduate Junior Lecturers as Principals of Junior
Colleges. The third prayer in Transferred Writ· Petition 7146 of
1976 is that those appointments should be declared as inegal. Under
Rule 6(ii) of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 framed subsequently in G.O.
c
Ms. 502, Education, dated 19.6.1974 three years' service in the
Andhra Pradesh Edui;ational Subordinate Service is prescribed as a
qualification for promotion of Junior L~turers "as Principals of
Junior Colleges in addition to a first or second clasr Post Graduate
Degree. It is not known whether when those promotions of seven I)
third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers as Principals were made
first or second class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers were not avail·
able for promotion or why after the Adhoc Rules, 1974 were framed
within about thre~ months thereafter those third class Post-Graduate
Junior Lecturers were not reverted as Junior Lecturers. Their
promotions were irregular having. regard to the fact that even for
E
appointment as Junior Lecturers preference has to be given to first
and second class Post-Graduate School Assistants. The irregularity
has been sought to be overlooked by providing a saving clause by
way of Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 where it is stated that
notwithstanding anything contained in those rules a person who F
held the post of Prmcipal of a Junior College immediately before
the issue of those rules and who was not appointed in accordance
with those rules, shall be continued as Principal and he is given an
option either to continue in the post of Principal or to revert to his
original post. We do not think that there could have been any
valid necessity to continue those adhoc promotions made even after
the Adhoc Rules, 1974 were framed within about three months of
those promotions. We think that there is no meaning in providing
for the option in that rule as it is not likely that a person who has
been promoted as Principal in the grade of Rs.. 400-800 would
voluntarily opt for reverting to his original post of Junior Lecturer H
in the grade of Rs. 2QQ·l5·320-20-50Q. However, having regard to
s74 supui.ii! couirr isroRrs [1983] 3 s.c.R.
th~ long fapse ohime we do not thirik it desfrable to deciare those .
as
appoiiitirlerits illegal.
In the result tivii Appeals i652 to 165§ of j97g ar~ allowed
as indicated.above and Civil Appeal 415 of 1979 is dismissed. The
contesting respondents in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 .of 1978 shall
pay the costs of the appe'lants . in those appeals. Advocate's fees
B
.one set. The parties shall bear their respective costs in Civil Appeal
4i5;of' 1g79,
H.S,J([,. CA Nos. 1652·59 of 1978 allowed aiid
CA No. 415 of 1979 dismis$e'/J.
,.iJ
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search