LexD. HANMANTH RAO AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-:.~---- . D. HANMAN1'H RAO AND ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. ETC. APRIL 25, 1990 [RANGANATH MISRA, KULDIP SINGH AND 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- 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. 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. 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 A.P., W.P. No. 369 of 1989 decided on November 10, 1989 the Court found the said list in accord with the directions. A B c D E F 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. c 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 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. , • • l --~ D.H. RAO v. STATE OF A.P. [MISRA, J.J 705 Facts are not in dispute. Shortly stated, under the Rules substan- 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.