GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. versus A.V. VENUGOPALA RAO

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 473 · Decided: 14-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
A.V. VENUGOPALA RAO 
NOVEMBER 14, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKA TACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
SERVICE LAW-Promotion-Legality of provisional seniority list 
challenged-Pending finalisation of seniority list, interim arrangement 
made by State Government to avoid administrative hardship-Order of 
administrative 
Tribunal 
upsetting 
interim 
arrangement-Whether C 
sustainable-Held, No. 
Pending finalisation of the seniority list, the Incharge arrangement 
was made to keep s~nior most in the provisional list of the respective 
divisions who were eligible for promotion to the post of Executive 
Engineer as Incharge and that arrangement was being worked out D 
satisfactorily. The Administrative Tribunal while upsetting the interim 
arrangement directed that the direction issued by the Tribunal will not 
preclude the authorities from putting an existing Executive Engineer in 
additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer or an existing 
Superintending Engineer similarly wherever required. Any incharge 
arrangements to the posts of Executive Engineers, Superintending E 
Engineers, or Chief Engineers made after interim order, were revoked 
and they were divested of that charge. This part of the order of the 
Tribunal was challenged before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The Tribunal· was not justified in upsetting the· interim 
arrangement which had got a rational and reasonable basis to avoid 
administrative hardship or heart burning to the persons who claimed 
F 
to the posts of respective Executive Engineers, Superintending 
Engineers and the Chief Engineers, as the case may be. Under the 
circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the interim G 
incharge arrangement made by the State Government would continue 
till the disposal of the matter pending before the Tribunal. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
1994. 
473 
(474-H, 475-A) 
Civil Appeal No. 7828 of H 
474 
SUPREME COURT P.EPORTS 
(1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.94 of the Andhra Pradesh 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 6190of1993. 
K. Madhava Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the Appellants. 
B. Kanta Rao for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
Leave granted. 
In th(l impugned order dated April 28, 1994, the Andhra Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6190/93 directed that the direction 
issued by the Tribunal "will not preclude the authorities from putting an 
existing Executive Engineer in additional charge of the post of Executive 
Engineer or an existing Superintending Engineer similarly wherever 
required. The Committee also will examine the aspect that where there are 
no controversies, the consideration ·of promotion of Executive Engineers 
should be placed before: the Tribunal for any further directions. Any 
incharge arrangements to the posts of Executive Engineers, Superintending 
Engineers or Chief Engineers made after interim order, are revoked and 
they stand divested of that charge, within one week." This part of the order 
is now mainly assailed iri this appeal. Before issuing of notice to the 
respondent by our proceedings dated July 13, 1994, Shri K. Madhava 
Reddy, learned senior counsel had stated that pending finalisation of the 
seniority list, the lncharges arrangement was made to keep senior most in 
the provisional list of the respective divisions who are eligible for 
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as incharge so as to avoid 
heart burning among the officers and that arrangement is being worked out 
satisfactorily. The impugned directions would create administrative 
·problems. Therefore, when such statement was made we directed the 
learned counsel to place on record of provisional seniority list and orders of 
Incharge given to the stated senior most persons in the respective divisions. 
Accordingly, they have placed on record the provisional seniority list and 
also order of incharge arrangement from the respective divisions. This 
position has not been controverted. However, the learned counsel for the 
respondent in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of ti\e respondent has 
controverted the correctness and legality of the provisional seniority list as 
such. Since that matter is now pending adjudication in the Tribunal, we 
direct the Tribunal to look into the matter. 
As to what is done, is an interim arrangement of the Government for 
H 
smooth fun

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