V. AYYANNAversusGOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.

                     [2010] 12 S.C.R. 316


A                          V. AYYANNA
                                v.
                    GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 3352 of 2007)

                      SEPTEMBER 23, 2010
B
     [J.M. PANCHAL AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,
                         JJ.]

        Service Law - lnter-se seniority - Seniority on basis of
C qualification - G.O.Ms. No. 85 dated 21.01.1978 providing for
  merger of various posts including that of the Basic Health
  Worker to Multipurpose Health Assistant - Appellant was
  working as Basic Health Worker which post carried a lesser
  pay-scale than that of Multipurpose Health Assistant -
o Essential qualification for appointment to post of Health
  Assistant was a certificate of Sanitary Inspector Training
  Course (SITC) - Appellant did not have the SITC certificate,
  therefore, although his post was merged with that of the
  Multipurpose Health Assistants, he was not given the same
E pay-scale till he had acquired the aforesaid certificate -
  Appellant acquired SITC certificate only subsequently -
  Principle laid down by Tribunal in two orders that Basic Health
  Workers, who were designated as Health Assistants, shall
  count their seniority in the category of Health Assistants from
F 21.01.1978101.01.1980 or from the date of passing the SITC,
  whichever is later - Seniority list prepared in terms thereof,
  challenged by appellant before the Tribunal in another round
  of litigation - Tribunal declined to interfere - Order affirmed
  by High Court - Justification of - Held: Justified - The orders
  passed by the Tribunal in the earlier litigation had become
G final and binding and the final seniority list was prepared in
  compliance thereof - Possession of a SITC certificate was an
  essential qualification, and, as such, the appellant could get
  his seniority only from the date he acquired such a certificate.

H                                316
       V. AYYANNA v. GOVT OF A.P. AND ORS.              317

      The State Governmt:. nt, in order to have a rationalized A
 structure of posts, issued G.O.M. No. 85 dated 21.01.1978
 merging various posts including that of the Basic Health
 Worker to Multipurpose Health Assistant. The appellant
 was working as a Basic Health Worker which post was
 ,carrying a lesser pay-scale than that of the Multipurpose s
 Health Assistant.

       Under the then existing rules framed by the
  Government which was in operation and in vogue as on
  21.01.1978, the qualification for appointment to the post C
  of Health Assistant was intermediate pass with a
  certificate of Sanitary Inspector Training Course (SITC).
  Since at the relevant time, the appellant did not have the
  said qualification as he did not possess a certificate of
  the aforesaid nature, therefore, although his post was
  merged with that of the Multipurpose Health Assistants, D
  he was not given the same pay-scale till he had acquired
  the aforesaid qualification or possessing a SITC
· certificate. The appellant acquired SITC certificate only
  subsequently.
                                                              E
      After issuance of the aforesaid notification and
 creation of one cadre of Health Assistants, dispute arose
 as regards the inter-se seniority in the cadre of
 Multipurpose Health Assistant Workers. The issue was
 decided by the State Administrative Tribunal in a R.P. and F
 separately in al'.! O.A. In both the orders, the Tribunal held
 that the Basic Health Workers and others who were not
 required to pa~s Sanitary Inspector Training Course for
 regularization rn their service but who were designated
 as Health Assistant on passing the SITC shall count their G
 seniority in the category of Health Assistants from
 21.01.1978/01.01.1980 or from the date of passing the
 SITC, whichever is later, the inter se seniority among them
 being dete~mined on the basis of their length of service
                                                              H
    318      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2010) 12 S.C.R.


A   in the lower category of Basic Health Workers etc.
    Consequent thereupon, a seniority list was prepared, in
    terms of which the appellant became entitled to get his
    seniority in the aforesaid cadre from the date he obtained
    the SITC certificate and not from a prior date.
B
        The appellant challenged the legality and validity of
  the seniority list before the Tribunal in another round of
  litigation. The Tribunal dismissed the applications on the
  ground that the principle of fixation of seniority in the
  cadre of Health Assistants was already settled in view of
C the decision in the earlier R.P. and O.A. which had since
  become final and binding and, therefore, no interference
  was called for. The order was affirmed by the High Court.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D
       HELD:1. The facts of the case make it crystal clear
  that the orders which were passed by the Tribunal in the
  earlier litigation had become final and binding and the
  final seniority list was prepared in compliance thereof. The
E effect of the said final seniority list is that the appellant
  would get his seniority in the cadre of Health Assistants
  from the date he has obtained the SITC certificate and not
  from a prior date. Possession of a SITC certificate is an
  essential qualification and, as such, the appellant could
  not have claimed his seniority from a retrospective date.
F He could get his seniority only from the date when he
  acquired such a certificate in terms of the provisions of
  the rules. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, which
  reiterated the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal, are
  just and proper and cannot be said to be in any manner
G to be arbitrary. [Paras 13, 14] [324-D-F] [325-A-B]
        2. In terms of the circular issued by the Government,
    the appellant although appointed initially to the category
    of Health Assistant, could not be so appointed on a
H
     V. AYYANNA v. GOVT OF A.P. AND ORS.                 319
                                 Al

regular basis till he had passed the SITC and, therefore, A
his seniority will have to be counted from the date when
he obtained such a certificate or from 21.01.1978/
01.01.1980, whichever is later, and he could not have
claimed for a seniority position prior to the effective date
as he was not eligible to hold such a post. [Para 15] [325- B
C]
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3352 of 2007.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.2003 of the            c
Andhra Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P.
No. 18386 of 2003.
     A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, K.L. Sastry, Amit Kumar
Srivastava and R.V. Kameshwaran for the Appellant.
                                                                  0
    R. Sundarvardhan, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kumar Singh,
Rahul Shukla, T.V, George and Bachita Baruah for the
Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                  E
      Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal is
preferred by the appellant challenging the legality of the
judgment and order dated 03.11.2003 passed by the Andhra
 Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 18386 of 2003 whereby the
 High Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the Andhra     F
 Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad dated
 12.12.2002. By the said judgment and order, the State
Administrative Tribunal dismissed several Original Applications
filed by the applicants, including the appellant herein.
     2. There were number of feeder categories under the rules G
framed by the State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 3845 dated
17.11.1964. The appellant and other similarly situated persons
were initially appointed during the years 1971-1975. Sometime
in the year 1978, the Government with the intention of having a
rationalized structure of cadres of some posts. merged various H
    320       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A    categories of posts to constitute a single cadre of Health
    Assistants, consequent upon which, the Government of India
     issued a G.O.M. No. 85 dated 21.01.1978, merging 10
    categories including the post of Lab Assistants, Surveillance
    Workers, Health Sub-Inspectors Grade-II, Microscopist, Lab
B   Technician, Basic Health Worker, Field Assistants and Health
    Assistants of posts to that of Health Assistant's post. It is also
    to be clarified at this stage that Basic Health Workers, Superior
    Field Workers, Malaria Surveillance Workers were drawing
    lesser scale of pay than that of the pay-scale attached to the
c   post of Multipurpose Health Assistants at the relevant time. It
    is also required to be stated that the basic qualification required
    for appointment to the post of Multipurpose Health Assistant
    was that the candidate must possess the academic
    qualification of intermediate and must have a Sanitary Inspector
    Training Course [for short 'SITC'] Certificate, which was in
0
    vogue on the date of G.O.Ms. No. 85, dated 21.1.1978. The
    aforesaid G.O.Ms. stipulated that Basic Health workers, Malaria
    Surveillance Workers and others would continue to draw their
    own scale of pay till they acquire the SITC certificate and get
    converted as Health Assistants.
E
          3. The appellant herein was not having a SITC certificate
    qualification as on 21.01.1978 and he acquired the said SITC
    certificate subsequently.

         4. After the issuance of the aforesaid notification and
F
    creation of one cadre of Healtb Assistants, a seniority list was
    prepared in the cadre of Multipurpose Health Assistant
    Workers. The said seniority list in that cadre came to be
    challenged before the State Administrative Tribunal attacking
G   the principle of fixation of seniority on the basis of qualifications.
    Pursuant to the aforesaid challenge, the Tribunal decided the
    said issue in R.P. No. 2860 of 1987 and batch and separately
    in O.A. No. 5410 of 1994 and batch. In terms of the order
    passed by the Tribunal, the respondents proceeded to prepare
    a seniority list dated 03.09.1998.
H
       V. AYYANNA v. GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.                 321
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
     5. The appellant herein and some other persons, without A
seeking any review of the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal
in R.P. No. 2860of1987 and batch and 0.A. No. 5410of1994
and batch, which had incidentally become final and binding and
pursuant to which the aforesaid seniority list was prepared in
the year 1998, challenged not only the aforesaid seniority list, B
but also the principle laid down by the Tribunal in the earlier
orders passed in R.P. No. 2860 of 1987 and batch and O.A.
No. 5410of1994 and batch. The State Administrative Tribunal,
after considering the issues raised by the appellant herein and
others, dismissed the said petition on the ground that the         c
principle of fixation of seniority in the .cadre of Health Assistants
was already settled in view of the decision in the aforesaid R.P.
 and O.A. which had since become final and binding and,
 therefore, no interference was called for.

     6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein D
and others filed various Writ Petitions before the High Court
which were taken up together, and by a common judgment and
order dated 03.11.2003, High Court dismissed all the Writ
Petitions including that of the appellant herein. Being aggrieved
by the said judgment and order of the High Court, present E .
appeal by way of a Special Leave Petition is filed on which we
heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties .

    . 7. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before
us that the appellant, pursuant to the G.0.Ms. No. 85 dated F
21.01.1978, is entitled to get his seniority in the category of
Multipurpose Health Assistant from the date on which their
services were regularized in the category of Basic Health
Worker I Field Worker I Malaria Surveillance Worker, etc. He
also submitted that the very principle settled by the Tribunal in G
R.P. No. 2860 of 1987 and batch and O.A. No. 5410 of 1994
and batch is illegal and contrary to law. It was his further.
submission that seniority should always be counted from the
date of appointment and, therefore, giving the benefit of

                                                                   H
    322      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   seniority from an artificial date is arbitrary and required to be
    set aside and quashed.

          8. Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, refuted
    the aforesaid allegations and submitted that the criteria of
    fixation of seniority having been settled by the State Tribunal in
8
    R.P. No. 2860 of 1987 and batch and O.A. No. 5410 of 1994
    and batch, and the appellant having not taken any steps to get
    the same set aside and quashed by filing a separate petition
    before the Tribunal, the said principle, which has become final
    and binding, cannot be challenged at such a distant stage. It
C   was also submitted that the appellant was working in the scale
    lower than that of Multipurpose Health Assistant and, therefore,
    he cannot ask for his seniority from the date of issuance of the
    notification by the State Government creating single cadre
    effective from 21.01.1978, but he would be entitled to get his
D   seniority once he acquired the qualification of acquiring the
    SITC certificate, which was one of the essential qualifications
    for appointment to the said post.

         9. In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel
E   appearing for the parties, we have considered the records in
    depth. The appellant was working as Basic Health Worker
    which was carrying a lesser pay-scale than that of the
    Multipurpose Health Assistant. The aforesaid post to which the
    appellant was appointed and on which he was working as on
F   21.01.1978, did not belong to or was equivalent to the post of
    Health Assistant. However, the State Government, in order to
    have a rationalized structure of posts, merged various
    categories of posts to constitute a single cadre of Health
    Assistants. Consequently, the Government also issued the
G   aforesaid G.O.Ms. No. 85 dated 21.01.1978 merging various
    posts including that of the Basic Health Worker to Multipurpose
    Health Assistant. It may be stated at this stage that under the
    then existing rules framed by the Government which was in
    operation and in vogue as on 21.01.1978, the qualification for
    appointment to the post of Health Assistant was intermediate
H
      V. AYYANNA v. GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.                323
          [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)
pass with a certificate of Sanitary Inspector Training Course. A
The appellant did not have the said qualification as he did not
possess a certificate of the aforesaid nature, therefore, although
his post was merged with that of the Multipurpose Health
Assistants, he was not given the same pay-scale till he had
acquired the aforesaid qualification or possessing a SITC B
certificate. The aforesaid actions were taken by the
respondents pursuant to the specific stipulations in the
notification itself which stated that Basic Health Workers,
Malaria Surveillance Workers and others would continue to
draw their own scale of pay till they acquire SITC certificate andc
get converted as Health Assistants. The appellant was not
having SITC certificate qualification as on 21.01.1978 and he
had acquired SITC certificate subsequently.

     10. State Government subsequently issued revised rules
in G.0.Ms. No. 273, Health dated 24.04.1989 as far as the post D
of Multipurpose Health Assistant is concerned. The said rules
were given retrospective effect from 01.04.1983 and an order
was also issued on 30.03.1982 by the State Government to
prepare a seniority list in the feeder categories as per G.O.Ms.
No. 85 dated 21.01.1978.                                         E

     11. The follow-up action taken by the State Government
was challenged by some of the employees by filing R.P. No.
1530/1985. The State Tribunal disposed of the said R.P. by its
judgment dated 05.07 .1986. Subsequent thereto, another           F
judgment was rendered by the said Tribunal in R.P. No. 2860/
1987 and batch which was delivered on 25.09.1987 in which
various directions were issued to Respondents for preparation
of the seniority list. Subsequently, OAs No. 5410/94 and batch
were filed seeking a direction to the Respondents to implement    G
the judgment dated 25.09.1987. The above OAs were disposed
of on 28-11-1995 issuing dir~ctions to the State Govt. in terms
of the directions issued earlier in the judgment dated
 25.09.1987.. in R.P. No. 2860/1987 and batch. In both the
 judgments, i.e. the judgment dated 25.09.1987 in R.P. No.        H
    324       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   2860/1987 and batch and the judgment dated 28.11.1995 in
    OAs No. 5410/94 and batch, it was categorically held that
     Basic Health Workers and others who were not required to
    pass Sanitary Inspector Training Course for regularization in
    their service but who were designated as Health Assistant on
B   passing the SITC shall count their seniority in the category of
    Health Assistants from 21.01.1978/01.01.1980 or from the
    date of passing the SITC, whichever is later, the inter se
    seniority among them being determined on the basis of their
    length of service in the lower category of Basic Health Workers
c   etc.

         12. Consequent upon the directions given in the aforesaid
    judgments, a seniority list was prepared on 03.09.1998, the
    legality and validity of which was challenged before the Tribunal
    and also before this Court.
D
          13. The aforesaid facts make it crystal clear that the orders
    which were passed by the Tribunal in the earlier litigation had
    become final and binding and the final seniority list was
    prepared in compliance thereof. The effect of the said final
E   seniority list is that the appellant would get his seniority in the
    aforesaid cadre from the date he has obtained the SITC
    certificate and not from a prior date. It is needless to point out,
    and also made clear hereinbefore, that possession of a SITC
    certificate is an essential qualification, and as such, the
F   appellant could not have claimed his seniority from a
    retrospective date. He could get his seniority only from the date
    when he acquired such a certificate in terms of the provisions
    of the rules.

          14. As the principles stated say that the persons who have
G   been re-designated as Health Assistants on passing the SITC
    certificate would count their seniority in the cadre as Health
    Assistant from 21.01.1978/01.01.1980 or from the date of
    passing the SITC certificate whichever is later, the Tribunal
    upheld the aforesaid position and held that the appellant would
H   be entitled to get his seniority on the aforesaid principle, i.e.,
      V. AYYANNA v. GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.                 325
          [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

from 20.01.1978/01.01.1980 or from the date of passing the         A
SITC certificate, whichever is. later. The aforesaid findings
recorded by the Tribunal, which reiterated the earlier orders
passed by the Tribunal on 25.09.1987 and 28.11.1995, appear
to be just and proper and cannot be said to be in any manner
to be arbitrary.                                            ·      B

     15. In terms of the circular Issued by the Government, the
appellant although appointed initially to the category of Health
Assistant, could not be so appointed on a regular basis till he
had passed the SITC and therefore, his seniority will have to      C
be counted from the date when he obtained such a certificate
or from 21.01.1978/01.01.1980, whichever is' later, and he
could not have claimed for a seniority position prior to the
effective date as he was not eligible to· hold such a post.

      16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; D
we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order
passed by the High Court affirming the judgment and orde~
passed by the Tribunal is legal and valid and that there .is no
infirmity in the said orders.
                                                                   E
     17. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal, which
stands dismissed but we leave the parties to bear their own
costs.

B.B.B.                                      Appeal dismissed ..