AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mr. S. Obul Reddi, Chief Justice
This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Kuppuswami, J., dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for revision of the common gradation list of Junior Engineers published under G.O. No. 984 dated 23-11-1967. The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are these : Respondents 3 to 16 are all graduates in Engineering. They were appointed as Junior Engineers by the Government of Andhra prior to the formation of Andhra Pradesh. Their appointments were on various dates in the year 1951-55. They were originally appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules but were all interviewed by the Andhra Public Service Commission in the months of April and May 1956, the last interview of the candidates being on 1-5-56. They were regularised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh after the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh retrospectively with effect from 1-5-56. With the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh a common gradation list had to be prepared fixing the interese seniority of the Junior Engineers of the former State of Hyderabad and the Junior Engineers of the State of Andhra. Bearing in mind the four principles laid down at the conference of the Chief Secretaries, a provisional common gradation list of Junior Engineers and Supervisors of both the regions was prepared on 20-4-1963 and G.O, Ms. No. 480 G.A. (SR. 1) Department was issued. Then representations were made by the affected Junior Engineers questioning the seniority list. The appellants filed writ petition No. 5568/68 challenging the legality of the final gradation list published by the Government in G.O. 984 No. G.A. (S.R. 1) Department dated 23-11-67. Their grievance was that respondents 3 to 161 should have been shown below them as they were appointed temporary under Rule 10 (a) (1) (i) of the State and Subordinate Services Rules. The Government of Andhra Pradesh then rest respectively regularised the services of respondents 3 to 161 with effect from the date subsequent to the selection of respondents 3 to 161 by the Andhra Public Service Commission. It is the case of the appellants that the Government is not entitled to restrospectively regularise the services of respondents 3 to 161 and put them above the appellants so as to affect their lights. This order of the Government retrospectively regularising the services of respondents 3 to 161 runs contrary to the instructions of the Central Government and the principles of integration of services determined by the Chief Secretaries at the conference. The appellants'' case is that the appointments of respondents 3 to 161 should have been declared as stop-gap or fortuitous by the Government notwithstanding the fact that on 1-11-56 they continued to work as Junior Engineers in view of the fact that they were inducted into service under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the State and Subordinate Services Rules.
The case of Respondents 3 to 161 before our learned brother and before us is that their appointments were not stop-gap or fortutious Though they were appointed on a temporary basis under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) they were inter viewed and selected by the Service Commission and that being the case, they were regular appointees to the posts of Junior Engineers and that they continued to work in that capacity on 1-11-(sic) the crucial date and thereafter and therefore the Central Government has rightly determined their seniority. It is also their case that the Government is competent to retrospectively regularise their services in view of the fact that there was no break in service and that they were also selected by the Andhra Public Service Commission before the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. They, therefore, contend that no case has been made out for interfering with the impugned final common gradation list.
Our learned brother Kuppuswami, J, took the view that the appointments of respondents 3 to 161 were not stop-gap or fortuitous and that after selection by the Andhra Public Service Commission their appointments were regular and came into effect on the day when they were so selected i.e., 1-5-56 which was the last date of the interview. He was also of the view that though the appointments of respondents 3 to 161 were under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) the rules require that a regular appointment should be made after selection by the Public Service Commission and that was done by the Andhra Public Service Commission by interviewing the Andhra Junior Engineers and that the list of candidates selected at those interviews was published on 11-10-1956. It was also pointed out by the learned single Judge that the temporary service put in by respondents 3 to 161 prior to 1-5-1956 was not at all taken into account while regularising their service as Junior Engineers. It is in that view that the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition.
Mr. Gururaja Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised the same contentions that were raised before our learned brother. According to him, unless an order of appointment is issued by the Government or competent authority appointing the Junior Engineers selected by the Andhra Public Service Commission, their appointments cannot be deemed to be regular appointments and in this case no such order was issued. It is on this ground that the learned counsel for the appellants proceeded to argue that respondents 3 to 161 must be deemed to be temporary appointees appointed in stop-gap or fortuitous vacancies and the fact that they were continuously in service from the respective dates of appointment in the years 1954 or 1955 and they continued to work as Junior Engineers on 1-11-1956 the relevant date or subsequently thereafter, makes no difference to their status as temporary Junior Engineers appointed to fill in stop-gap vacancies. In other words, it is his case that mere selection by the Andhra Public Service Commission of respondents 3 to 161 does not clothe them with any rights to count the service with effect from a date anterior to 1-11-1956. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon several decisions starting with Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. P.K. Roy and Others, and ending with N. Subba Rrao etc. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,
Mr. Shivshankar, the Principal Government Pleader appearing for the Government and M/s. Y. Suryanarayana, P.L.N. Sarma & M. Jagannadha Rao appearing for some of the Junior Engineers respondents contended that the appointments of respondents 3 to 161 were not made as stop-gap or fortuitous arrangements. They were appointed temporarily and later interviewed for filling up the regular vacancies and the fact that the Service Commission had interviewed and selected them established that the appointments were made in accordance with the rules. They also contend that the four principles evolved at the Chief Secrataries'' conference were adhered to in the preparation of the common gradation list and there has been no violation of any of those principles or instructions of the Central Govt. In support of their contention they relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of this court in Syed Abbas Hussain Nagri Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, and another decision reported in S B. Patnaik v. State of Orissa, 1974-1 S.L.R. 48 and passages from the decision relied upon by Mr. Gururaja Rao.
It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of this appeal with reference to the several decisions cited. The learned Central Govt. Pleader Mr. Subrahmanya Reddy as well as the Principal Govt. Pleader further relied upon para II of the communication of the Government of India, Department of Personal and Administrative Reference dated 8-2-1974 addressed to the secretary to the Govt., of Andhra Pradesh, Public Works Department, Hyderabad. In view of the aforesaid communication to the State Government by the Central Govt. we do not propose to go into the various questions raised by either side. Paragraph 11 of the Central Government''s communication dated 8-2-1974 reads :
The above decisions will necessitrate a revision of the common gradation list of Junior Engineers and Supervisors on 1-11-1956 and the State Government may initiate immediate action in this regard.
This communication is the result of the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Subba Rrao etc. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . The Supreme Court in that case, as may be seen from para 35 of its judgment, observed.
It is not necessary to express any opinion in these appeals as to whether the services of Andhra State Officers were stop-gap or fortuitous arrangements. Under the States Reorganisation Act power is conferred on the Central Government to bring about the integration of services in the State of Andhra Pradesh by ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of S. 115 of the Act, The Government of Andhra Pradesh is under a duty to bring all relevant facts to the notice of the Central Government.
x x x x x x
Under the States Reorganisation Act the Central Government is entrusted with the power of the division and integration of the services and the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of section 115 of the Act in regard to allotment of officers from an existing State to a Successor State.
X X X X X X
The power of the Central Government under sec. 115 of the Act is that the decision has to be of the Central Government. The Central Government can therefore take the aid and assistance of the State Government in the matter of effecting the integration of the services but the final integration is to be done only with the sanction and approval of the Central Government.
In that view, the learned judges of the Supreme Court finally observed :
The Central Government will determine finally the principles governing the equation of posts and the preparation of common gradation lists.
X X X X X X
The Central Government will now proceed with the integration of services of Telangana area officers and Andhra State Officers and determine the principles governing the equation of posts and prepare gradation lists after giving opportunities to the persons effected to make their representations.
The Principle Govt. Pleader brought to our notice that the State Govt, has addressed the Central Government, asking for certain clarifications in regard to para 11 of the Central Government''s letter referred to supra. It is matter between the State and the Central Governments and this Court has nothing to do with it. Since the Supreme Court ruled that the final authority is the Central Govt., and Central Govt., has sent the communication referred to supra that the decisions of the Supreme Court necessitate a revision of common gradations list of Junior Engineers and supervisors as on 1-11-1956, we are not included to go into the various points urged by both sides in this writ appeal. It is open to the appellants as well as respondents 3 to 161 (Junior Engineers), if they have any grievance, to make their representations to the Central Government. In this view of the matter, the question whether the appointments of respondents 3 to 161 are stop-gap or fortuitous is left open and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Advocate''s fee 100/-.