A.G. SAINATH REDDY versus THE GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 416 · Decided: 28-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
A.G. SAINATH REDDY 
v. 
THE GOVT. OF A.P. AND'ORS. 
FEBRUARY 28, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Andhra Pradesh Deputy Superiflltendents of Jails Service Rules, 1974; 
C Rules 3 & 4: 
Appointment of Junior Departmental Officers as Dy. Superintendent of 
Jails on adhoc basis and appointment of direct recruiis thereafter-
Regularisation of services of the appointee from the respective date of joining 
D of service on adhoc/direct recruitment-Challenged by direct recruits-Allowed 
by Administrative Tribunal-On appeal, held, since posts were required to be 
filled up by direct appointment by the Service Commission, appointment of 
promotees on adhoc basis to the posts did not confer any right of probation 
on them-Since probation starts from actual date of joining of duty on 
substantive appointment to the post, there is no question of deemed probation 
E on adhoc appointment-Hence promotee officer can not claim regularisation 
of his services/seniority to the postfrom the date of joining on adhoc 
appointment to the post. 
Appellant-employee was appointed as Welfare Officer in Andhra 
Pradesh Jail Deptt. and subsequently promoted/appointed as Dy. 
F Superintendent, Jails on adhoc basis pending direct recruitment to the said 
post by the Service Commission. Subsequently, some of the direct recruits 
also joined the post. State Government regularized their services from the 
date of joining on appointment either on ad hoc or on direct recruitment. 
This was challenged by the direct recruits before the Administrative 
G Tribunal. Tribunal allowed the O.A. Hence the present appeal. 
H, 
It was conten<ied for the appellant that since he was appointed to 
the post of Dy. Superintendent, Jails on transfer basis, he was required to 
serve on probation and that merely because his appointment was on adhoc 
basis would not make any differl!nce. 
416 
t 
A.G. SAJNATH REDDY v. GOVT. OF A.P. 
417 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that adhoc A 
appointment could not be treated as appointment under the Rules; and 
that probation period starts only on appointment to the post on regular 
basis and not otherwise. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. Since the posts were to be filled up by direct recruits on 
the basis of acceptance of recommendations of Service Commission, any 
arrangement to fill up those posts on officiating basis does not confer any 
right of probation on the person so appointed as there was no P?St to which 
there could be appointment of a promotee after requisitions were sent to C 
the Commission to such posts earmarked for direct rec.ruitment. Any 
officiating arrangement is really of no consequence. (420-E, F) 
1.2. The effective date of appointment has to be reckoned when the 
regular appointment is made on the basis of the Rules. Once the post is 
earmarked for direct recruit, it goes out of reach of the department for D 
effecting promotions o.n regular basis and comes to the hands of the Service 
Commission. Their recommendation which is subject to acceptance by the 
Government alone governs such posts for appointment. (420-H; 421-A) 
State of West Bengal and Ors. etc. v. Aghore Nath Dey and Ors., (1993) 
3 SCC 371; Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State E 
of Maharasthra and Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 715 and A.P.H. Mayankutty v. The 
Secretary and Anr., (1997) 2 SCC 360, referred to. 
1.3. The orders of appointment on adhoc basis which were issued to 
the appellant and others were conditional order and their promotion to F 
the posts lasts till direct recruits recommended by the Service Commission 
joins. If any vacancy remained after joining of the selected direct recruits, 
same was available to be filled up from other sources ofappointment. Rule 
2(3) of the Rules is applicable when departmental candidates are not 
available. Since no qualified departmental candidates.were available, the 
vacancies were notified to the Se~ice Commission. It is further to be noted G 
that the crucial words in Rule 4 are "shall from the date on which he joins 
duty be on probation ... ". There is no question of any deemed probation 
or notional date of probation as probation starts from the actual date of 
I 
joining duty. T~e question of joining duty on probation shall arise only 
when there is a substantive 11ppointment against a post available and not H 
any ad hoc or officiating ~rrangement. (423-A, D-F) 
418 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.