C. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 10-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
C. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY AND ORS. 
v. 
STAIB OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 10, 1989 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Service Law: Andhra Pradesh (Roads and Buildings) Engineer-
ing Service Rules, 1965-Rule 3( 1)-lnter se Seniority-Direct Recruits 
and Promotees-Drawing up of list-Government circular dated 
12.8. 1988--Fixing Guideline-Validity of. 
Pursuant to this Court's direction in K. Siva Reddy' & Ors. v. 
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1988] Suppl. SCC 225, the State 
Government issued Circular dated 12.8.1988, fixing the guideline for 
drawing up of inter se seniority list of direct recruit and promotee 
Deputy Executive Engineers in Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service. 
This Circular was challanged by the petitioners. Promotee Engineers, 
in a Writ Petition filed in this Court, contending that since they had put 
in continuous service of 6 to 7 years by 1982 and their services had been 
regularised in the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the'year.1974-
75, direct recruits appointed in the year 1982 could not, under any law, 
be placed above them. 
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court, 
HELD: Promotees had exceeded the quota and even 2ot regulari-
sed in respect of the PoSts in excess of the limit. Taking into considera-
tion the fact thai regularisation had been done after the promotees had 
p . put in some years of service and disturbing regularisation would consi-
derably affect the officers concerned, regularisation was not interfered 
with. This Court's intention was not to take away the benefit of 
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 
G regularised officers in excess of the quota to also have the benefit of such 
service for purposes ofseniority. !l42H; 143A-B] 
A reading of the judgment in Siva Reddy's case clearly indicates 
that this Court intended what the Government have laid down by way 
of guideline. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere with the 
1-1 
Government direction. , I 1438 J 
140 
·• 
C.R. REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. [MISRA, l.[ 
141 
K. Siva Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1988] 
Suppl. SCC 225, referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 369 of 
. 1989. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia). 
K. Madhava Reddy, .S. Rajeswar Mehta Dave and Ms. Neelam 
for the Petitioners. 
M.K. Ramamurthi, M.A. Krishnamurthy, Mrs. C. Ramamurthy, 
GVS Surayanarayana Raju in person TVSN Chari, Jagan Rao, DRK. 
Reddy, G VS Surayanarayana for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
c 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. Promotee Engineers of the Roads & 
Buildings Wing of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service are the 
D 
petitipners in this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution and 
challenge is to the Government circular of 12.8.1988 (Annexure A) 
fixing the guideline for the drawing up of the seniority list pursuant to 
a direction issued by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, decision 
whereof is reported in 1988 Suppl. SCC 225-K. Siva Reddy & Ors. v. 
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 
E 
While petitioners are promotees, the respondents are direct 
recruits. Petitioners allege that they had put in continuous service of 
6-7 years by 1982 and their services having been regularised in the post 
of Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 1974-75, direct recruits 
appointed in the year 1982 cannot under any law be placed above 
F 
them. 
As noticed in Siva Reddy's case (supra), substantive vacancies in 
the category of Assistant Engineers had to be filled up from two 
sources-37-1/2% by direct recruitment and the remaining 62-1/2% by 
transfer of Supervisors and Draughtsmen and by promo:ion of Junior 
G 
Engineers. Direct recruits had complained that notwithstanding this 
prescription, there had been no recruitment of Assistant Engineers 
and the promotees from the other two modes had come into the cadre 
far in excess of the limit provided by the Rules. The Chief Engineer by 
his order dated June 8, 1984 regularised the temporary service of 
promotees of the years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 in the cadre of 
H 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.CR 
A · Assistant Engineers (later designated as Deputy Executive Engineers). 
They had, therefore, asked the quashing of the regularisation and 
drawing up of a seniority list on the basis of the ratio fixed under 
r. 3( l) of the Special Rules.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.