LexDR. K. RAMULU AND ANR. ETC. versus DR. S. SURYAPRAKASH RAO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,. }
DR. K. RAMULU AND ANR. ETC.
A
v.
DR. S. SURYAPRAKASH RAO AND ORS.
JANUARY 15, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
B
, ... ..,
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Se1vice Law :
A.P. Subordinate Se1vice Rules/A.P. Animal Husband1y Se1vice Rules, c
1966.
Rules 314---Promotion-Assistant Surgeon to Assistant Director--G.O.
'
-"'
Repealing existing R1tle.1-T1ibwzal directing preparation of panel 011 the basis
::,,..
~
of the repealed mle~-On appeal held : Policy decision taken by Govemmenl D
justified on the mate1ial available on recor~Respondent not acquired any
vested right for being considered for promotion in accordance with the
repealed Rule~-T1ibunal was not 1ight in directing the Govemment to prepare
and operate the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of
Animal Husbandry Department in accordance with the repealed mies.
E
Shankan·an Dash v. Union of India, (1991] 3 SCC 47; State of Haiyana
v. Subhash Chander Maiwaha, (1974] 3 SCC 220; State of Bihar & Ors. v.
j
Md. Kalimuddin & 01:f., (1996] 2 SCC 7 and U.O.!. & 01:1-. v. KV Vijeesh,
-"
(1996] 3 sec 139, relied on.
l
F
I
Y.V Rangaiah & 01:f. v.J. Sreenivasa Rao & 01:1·., [1983] 3 SCC 284;
1
P. Ganeshwar Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & 01~'., [1988] Supp. SCC 740;
P.Mahendranatlz v. State of Kamataka, [1990] 1 SCC 411; A.A. Caljone v.
-..
Director of Education, (1983] 3 SCC 33; N. T. Dev v. Kamataka PSC, [1990]
3 SCC 157; Ramesh Kumar Clwudha & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors., (1996) G
7 Scale 619 and Re : Cauvery Water Disputes T1ibu11al, [1993] Supp. 1 SCC
_,rf'
96, distinguished.
{
Union of India v. S.S. Uppal & Anr., (1996) 1 Unreported Judgments
(SC) 393 and Gajraj Singh Etc. v. The State Tramport Appellate T1ibunal &
01:1·. Etc., (1996) 7 SCALE 31, held inapplicable.
H
287
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1997] 1 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 404-405
B
c
D
E
F
of 1997 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.96 of the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal in O.W. No. 1224/96 and M.A. No. 2039 of 1996.
L.N. Rao, V.S. Reddy and S.U.K. Sagar for the Appellants.
G. Prabhakar for State of A.P.
H.S. Gururaja Rao, S. Satyanarayana Rao and T.V. Ratnam for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
These appeals by special leave arise from the Order of the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, made on June 5, 1996 in O.A. No.
1224/96 and Order made on 19.8.1996 in Review M.A. No. 2039/96 in O.A.
No. 1224/96.
The facts are, very fairly, not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 both sets
of appeals is a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in A.P. Animal Husbandry
Department. He filed 0 .A. seeking direction for preparation of a panel of
candidates for promotion as Assistant Director under Rule 4 of the A.P.
Subordinate Service Rules (for short, the 'General Rules'). The Tribunal
directed the respondent - Government to prepare and operate the panel
for the years 1995-96 for promotion to the post of Assistant Director in the
A.P. Animal Husbandry Service. Calling that order in question, these
appeals have been filled by the contesting respondents as well as by the
State.
Shri L. Nageshwara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, has
G raised three-fold contention. It is firstly submitted that the respondent has
no right to be considered for promotion as Assistant Director. Secondly,
even if he has got such a right to appointment to the post, the Government
have power to revise its policy of appointment and appointment requires
to be made in accordance with the revised policy. The direction given by
H the Tribunal is contrary to the policy decision taken by the Government,
T
...
t •
f
DR. K.RAMULUv. DR.S.SURYAPRAKASHRAO
289
• )'
namely, to reconsider the policy of promotion in the Service and to make A
rules afresh in the place of existing Rules. In this premise, the Tribunal has
committed manifest error in directing the Government to prepare, finalise
and operate. the panel for the years 1995-96 for promotion as Assistant
Director of the AP. Animal Husbandry Department. Shri H.S. Gururaja
Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, in the main B
appeals, has contended that the first respondent has a right to be con-
-·
'I"
sidered to promotion to the post in accordance with the Rules existing in
the year 1995-96. The Rules made afresh do not takeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.