Holding

The seniority list drawn up in accordance with the Supreme Court’s earlier direction does not violate the promotee engineers’ rights and the petitions are dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, promotee Assistant Engineers of the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Service, challenged a seniority list prepared by the State Government after the Supreme Court’s direction in K. Siva Reddy’s case. The Court had ordered that as of 31 December 1982, 37.5% of substantive vacancies be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining 62.5% by promotion, and that a new seniority list be drawn up accordingly. The State’s draft list placed direct recruits (serial nos. 234‑269) above promotee engineers up to serial no. 233, while earlier promotees were placed after serial nos. 270‑300. The petitioners claimed this caused injustice by giving seniority to direct recruits and disturbing their accrued rights. The Supreme Court held that the draft list complied with its earlier direction, that the promotees’ regularisation and pre‑1982 seniority were not disturbed, and that no further interference was warranted. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, with no exemplary costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the seniority list prepared by the State Government, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s 1988 direction, infringes the rights of promotee Assistant Engineers under the Andhra Pradesh (Roads and Buildings) Engineering Service Rules, 1965.
Whether the seniority of promotee engineers accrued prior to 31 December 1982 can be altered by the State’s implementation of the quota.
Whether the Court can set aside the State’s draft seniority list on the ground of alleged injustice to promotee engineers.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh (Roads and Buildings) Engineering Service Rules, 1965s. Rule 3(1)(a), s. Rule 3(3)(a)
Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

senioritypromotion quotaservice rulesadministrative lawwrit petitionArticle 32regularisationpromotee engineersAndhra Pradesh Engineering Service

Judgment

D. HANMAN1'H RAO AND ORS. ETC. A
v.
STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. ETC.
-:.~---- .
APRIL 25, 1990

[RANGANATH MISRA, KULDIP SINGH AND B
R.M. SARAI, JJ.]

';r Civil Servicfs: A.P. (Roads and Buildings) Engineering.
Service Rules, 1965: Ru.le J(l)(aj=-Assistant Engineers-Promotee;
and direct recruits-Jnterse seniority-Fixation of.

Sub-rule 3(a) of rule 3 of the Andbra Pradesh (Roads and Build-
c
ings) Engineering Service Rules, 1965 prescribes that the substantive
vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineers 37-1/2 per cent shall be
· -. ....,,, - filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 62-1/2 per cent by
transfer and promotion of junior officers.
D
In K. Siva Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1988] Suppl. SCC
225, filed by direct recruits, the Court bad directed the State Govern-
ment to ascertain the exact substantive vacancies in the category of
Assistant Engineers in the service as on December 31, 1982, work out
the quota prescribed under rule 3(3)(a) of the Rules and draw up a
seniority list accordingly. E

In the draft seniority list drawn up by the State Government on
the basis of the guidelines, it placed the 1982 direct recruits from serial
· Nos. 234 to 269 without disturbing promotees upto serial No. 233 and
the remainder of promotees given promotion prior to 1982 were placed
against serial Nos. 270 to 300. In C. Radhakrishna Reddy v. State of F
A.P., W.P. No. 369 of 1989 decided on November 10, 1989 the Court
found the said list in accord with the directions.

In these writ petitions preferred by the promotee Assistant
Engineers, it was contended for them that serious injustice bad been
done to them as the accrued rights of theirs had been disturbed and G
some of the direct recruits had been given the benefit of seniority above
them by counting service prior to their actual recruitment .

. ·~-
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court,

HELD: l. A Government servant is justified in taking legal action H

]_03
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

when he feels that a stigma or punishment is undeserved but he is
A expected to bear with fortitude and reconcile to his lot suppressing
disappointment when he finds a co-worker raised to a position which he
himself aspired after. [707G I

Dr. G. Marulasiddaiah v. Dr. T.G. Siddapparadhya & Ors.,
B (1971] 1SCC568, referred to.

2. In K. Siva Reddy's case, the Court had taken a very equitable -.:'.
view in not disturbing the regularisation contrary to the quota and had
taken every care to ensure that the cause of justice was not made to
suffer and a balance was maintained by an appropriate admixture of ~
relief by confining the reconsideration for a period after 1982. The year
c 1982 was fixed on account of two features, (i) that regular disputes had
been raised from that time, and (ii) a period of 5-6 years was not too
long a period to give rise to a sense of conclusiveness generated by long
lapse of time. The promotee-engineers should have been happy and
thankful to their lot that their regularisation was not disturbed and
b even seniority prior to 1982 was not being affected though they had
acquired these benefits out of turn. [707C-E]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1275 of 1989
etc.

E (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

Ms. Rani Chhabra, K. Ramkumar, Govind Mukhoty and Vimal
Dave for the Petitioners.

M.K. Ramamurthy (NP), K.K. Venugopal, H.S. Gururaj Rao, _..
F Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, M.A. Krishnamurthi, T.V.S.N. Chari, S.
Markandeya, W.A. Nomani, G.S. Giri Rao and A.K. Raina for the k-
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
•
G RANGANATH MISRA, J. These are petitions under Art. 32 of
the Constitution. Petitioners are promotee-Engineers of the Roads &
Buildings Wing of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service and
challenge mainly is to certain earlier decisions of this Court resolving
similar disputes by judgments rendered in writ petitions and to the
guidelines formulated by the State Government in the matter of the
H drawing up of the seniority list by way of implementation of this
Court's directions.
D.H. RAO v. STATE OF A.P. [MISRA, J.J 705

Facts are not in dispute. Shortly stated, under the Rules substan-
A
tive vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineers have to be filled
up from two sources-37-1/2 per cent by direct recruitment and the
remainder of 62-1/2 per cent by transter of Supervisors and Draughts-
men and by promotion of Junior Engineers. Regular direct recruit-
ment had not been made as and when due and promotees beyond the
limit had been put in in the place of direct recruits. While disposing of B
a group of petitions in a contest of this type in K. Siva Reddy & Ors. v.
State of A.P. & Ors., [1988] Suppl. SCC 225, a two-Judge Bench of
this Court instead of disturbing the entire group of promotee-
Engineers in excess of the quota, made the following direction:

"Reopening the question of inter se seniority on the basis of
non-enforcement of the rules from the very beginning may
c
create hardship and that would be difficult to mitigate but
we see no justification as to why the benefit of the scheme
under the rules should not be made available to direct
recruits at least from 1982. When the State Government by
rules dnly framed prescribed the method of recruitment D
and put the scheme into operation it had the obligation to
comply with it. The explanation offered by the State
Government for non-compliance of the requirements of the
rules does not at .all impress us. We, therefore, direct that
as on December 31, 1982, the State Government must
ascertain the exact substantive vacancies in the category of E
Assistant Engineers in the service. On the basis that 37-1/2
per cent of such vacancies were to be filled up by direct
recruitment, the position should be worked out. Promotees
should be confined to 62 1/z per cent of the· substantive
vacancies and in regard to 37112 per cent of the vacancies
the shortfall should be filled up by direct recruitment. F
General Rules shall not be applied to the posts within the
limits of 37112 per cent of the substantive vacancies and
even if promotees are placed in those posts, no seniority
shall be counted.The State Government shall take steps to
, make recruitment of the shortfall in the direct recruitment
•
• vacancies within the limit of 37V2 per cent of the total sub- G
l stantive vacancies up to December 31, 1987 within four
months from today by following, the normal method of
--~ recruitment for direct recruits. The seniority list in the
cadre of Assistant Engineers shall be redrawn up, as
directed by the Tribunal, by the end of September 1988,
keeping the directions referred to above in view. There H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

shall be a direction issued to the State of Andhra Pradesh
A
to make recruitment to the category of Assistant Engineers
by strict compliance of Special Rules henceforth." -- .,,.

·The State Government came forward to implement the direction
and published the draft seniority list drawn up on the basis of discussed
B guidelines. Keeping the directions in view the draft list placed the 1982
direct recruits from serial nos. 234 to 269 without disturbing promotees
upto serial no. 233 and the remainder of promotees given promotion -...(_
prior to 1982 were placed against serial nos. 270 to 300.
~
Writ petition no. 369 of 1989-C. Radhakrishna Reddy & Ors. v.

c
State of A.P. & Ors., had earlier raised the same dispute. By judgment
dated November 10, 1989, while dismissing the said writ petition a
--
two-Judge Bench of this Court said: · ·

"In Siva Reddy's case this Court found that promotees had
exceeded the quota and even got regularised in respect of
D the posts in excess of the limit. Taking into consideration
the fact that regularisation had been done after the pro-
0

motees had put in some years of service and disturbing re-
gularisation would considerably affect the officers con-
cerned, regularisation was not interfered with. This Court's
intention obviously was not to take away the benefit of
E regularisation in respect of the officers belonging to the
promotee group in excess of their quota but the Court did
not intend to allow such regularised officers in excess of the
quota to also have the benefit of such service for purposes
of seniority. A reading of the judgment in Siva Reddy's
case clearly indicates that this Court intended what the
-
F Government have laid down by way of guideline. We see
no justification to interfere with the Government direction.
A draft seniority list on the basis of such direction has
already been drawn up and has been circulated. We are
told that objections have been received and would be dealt
with in usual course by the appropriate authorities. This
G writ petition had been entertained in view of the allegation
that the Government direction was on a misconception of
what was indicated in the judgment and in case there was
any such mistake the same should be rectified at the
~- -
earliest. Now that we have found that the Government
order is in accord with the Court direction, this writ peti-
H tion must be dismissed and individual grievances, if any,
D.H. RAO v. STATE OF A.P. [MISRA, J.] 707

against the draft seniority list would, we hope, be consi- A
dered on the basis of objections filed by the competent
authority."

At the hearing Mr. Mukhoty, appearing in support of the main
petition, vehemently contended that serious injustice had been done B
io the promotees and accrued rights ot theirs had been disturbed. He
submitted that some of the direct recruits had been given the benefit of
seniority by counting service prior to their actual recruitment and
relied upon observations made by this Court in some cases to the effect
that for computation of length of service the period prior to selection
was being counted by a deeming_ position of employment prior to
recruitment. When called upon to substantiate his allegation, he has c
- not been able to do so. On the other hand, the Court had taken a vef}
equitable view in not disturbing the regularisation contrary to the
quota and had taken every care to ensure that the cause of justice was
not made to suffer and a balance was maintained by an appropriate
admixture of relief by confining the reconsideration for a period after
D
1982. The year 1982 was fixed, as the reasonings indicate, on account
of two features-(i) that regular disputes had been raised from that
time; and (ii) a period of 5-6 years was noi too long a period to give
rise to a sense of conclusiveness generated by long lapse of time. The
promotee-Engineers should have been happy and thankful fo their lot

... that their regularisation was not disturbed and even seniority prior to
1982 was not being affected. Oblivious of these benefits which they
have retained though acquired out of tum, they have proceeded on the
E

footing that their cause has been affected and justice to them has been
denied by placing a group of them below the 1982 recruits. We do not
think that for dismissing this group of petitions anything more should
be said excepting to quote ·with approval what this Court had said in
Dr. G. Marulasiddaiah v. Dr. T.G. Siddapparadhya & Ors., [1971] 1 F
SCC568:

"The canker of litigiousness has spread even to a sphere of
life where discipline should check ambition concerning
personal preferment."
G
, A government servant is justified in taking legal action when he feels
that a stigma or punishment is undeserved but he is expected to bear
with fortitude and reconcile himself to his lot suppressing disappoint-
ment when he finds a co-worker raised to a position which he himself
aspired after.
H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1990] 2 S.C.R.

A Ordinarily, we would have awarded exemplary costs but with a
view to allowing an appropriate reconciliation of the petitioners to
their lot and not to give them a feeling of infliction of anv new injury,
we refrain from doing so.

P.S.S. Petitions dismissed.

-

•

+-