DESOOLA RAMA RAO & ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 24-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DESOOLA RAMA RAO & ANR. 
v. 
STAIB OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 24, 1988 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh (Roads and Buildings) Engineering Service 
Special Rules, 1967: s. 5/Andhra Pradesh State & Subordinate Service 
.Rules, 1962: ss. 23(a) & 33(a)-Inter se seniority in the cadre of 
Assistant Engineers between promotees and direct recruits-In the abs-
ence of specific Rule length of service to be the basis. 
Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Roads and Buildings) Engineering 
Service Special Rules, 1967 lays down that for promotion to the post of 
Executive Engineer, a Graduate Assistant Engineer should be (a) a full 
member or approved probationer, (b) a direct recruit should put in six 
D 
years service as Assistant Engineer and (c) a promotee Assistant 
Engineer should put in five years service. There is no provision for 
giving preference to one category over the other for promotion. Rule 
23(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 
empowers the appointing authority to commence the probation of a 
person appointed to the service with retrospective effect. Rule 33(a) of 
E 
these rules mandates the determination of the seniority of a person in a 
service by the date of first appointment. 
The appellants were directly recruited as Assistant Engineers in 
April 1966. Respondents 3 and 4 were temporarily appointed Assistant 
Engineers by transfer on 14th August, 1959 and 19th May, 1960 respec-
F 
tively. Their services were regularised with effect from 19th May, 1961 
by an order dated 3rd May, 1967 in exercise of the powers under s. 23(a) 
of the General Rules. The appellants sought promotion to the post of 
Executive Engineer on the basis that they were senior to the promotee 
Assistant Engineers-respondents. Their case was that the Chief 
Engineer was not competent to make the order under s.23(a) of the 
G 
General Rules. The State Government vide their order dated August 
10, 1983 decided that the seniority of the direct recruits and promotees 
has ·to be determined with reference to their regular appointment of the 
category of Assistant Engineers and not from the date of confirmation 
in the said category and declared that the seniority of the appellants was 
far below the respondents and they would be considered for promotion 
H in their turn alongwith others. 
24 
D.R. RAO v. STATE OF A.P. [MISRA, J.] 
25 
A writ petition filed by the appellants in the High Court challeng-
ing the said order was dismissed by a Single Judge, and that dismissal 
was upheld in appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, 
. 
HELD: The law relating to inter-se seniority in a cadre is well 
).. settled. If there be a rule indicating the manner in which such seniority 
has to be fixed, that is binding. In the absence of such a rule, length of 
service is the basis for fixing inter-se seniority. 
In the instant case, there is no provision in the Rules under con-
sideration that direct recruits would have preference over promotees 
for purposes of inter-se seniority. In the absence of such a rule the 
guidelines indicated in the General Rules, which provide that seniority 
shall be determined by the date of first appointment to the service, have 
to be followed. Respondents 3 and 4 have put in longer service than the 
. 
I 
appellants in the post of Assistant Engineer. Their services had been 
regularised with effect from May 19, 1961 in exercise of the powers 
under Rule 23(a) of the Gene'ral Rules, which date is not anterior. to 
' . 
their appointment as Assistant Engineer. The regularisation is thus not 
vitiated on account of arbitrariness. The appellants would, therefore, 
rank below respondents 3 and 4 in the cadre and the promotional be-
nefit would be given to them after the claim of the respondents 3 and 4 
has been duly considered. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1995 
of 1977. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.1975 of the Andhra 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 584 of 1975. 
F 
G.L. Sanghi, Subodh Markandeya and Mrs. Chitra Markandeya 
for the Appellants. 
K.G. Bhagat, Y. Prabhakar Rao, T.V.S.N. Chari and Ms. 
Vrinda Grover for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal is by special leave and is 
directed against the appellate judgment of a division bench of the 
Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the rejection of the writ petition 
H 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORT

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