LexGOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. versus M.A. KAREEM AND OTHERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. V. M.A. KAREEM AND OTHERS ETC. SEPTEMBER 14, 1990 [B.C. RAY AND LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.] Civil Services-Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service: Lower Divi- sion Clerks in District Police Offices/Units-Appointed to Chief Office-Whether entitled to retain seniority-Employees not qualifying in general examination-Later qualified in special qualifying examina- tion of relaxed standard-Seniority-Fixation of The respondents in the Civil Appeal, were working as Lower Divi- sion Clerks in the district police offices/units. Some posts of Lower Division Clerks fell vacant in the Chief Office and it was decided to fill up the same by appointing Lower Division Clerks with good service D record from the district police offices. Accordingly a Memorandum was issued on 21.11.1968 which expressly stated that the appointees would be put at the bottom of the list of Lower Division Clerks already working in the Chief Office. The respondents and two others expressed their willingness to join and ·also to forego their seniority. Accordingly an order was passed and the respondents joined duty in the Chief Office in E 1970 and were placed on probation. They completed the probation satisfactorily and were confirmed with their-seniority counted from the dates they joined Chief Office. Later, in 1983 they filed a Representation Petition before the State Administrative Tribunal that in view of Memorandum dated 18.1.1969 F which stated that the condition regarding taking last rank would not be insisted upon, . the respondents were entitled to count their service rendered in the district police offices/units for the purpose of seniority in the Chief Office. The Tribunal allowed the petition. The State has preferred the appeal against the said order. G The petitioners in the Writ Petitions were appoi11ted in the years 1965 to 1967. Since they did not pass the general examination, a special qualifying examination was held in 1968. They did not appear at the examination. Another chance was given in 1974 and the petitioners succe'ssfnlly cleared the same. By an order dated 17.6.1976, their services were regularised with effect from 1.8.1972. The petitioners H challenged the validity of the order, claiming, that their seniority 482 GOVT. OF A.P. v. M.A. KAREEM 483 should be counted from the dates they were appointed. Allowing the appeal and dismissing the Writ Petitions, HELD: 1. It has to be appreciated that the cadre of the Chief Office is altogether different from the cadre of the district police offices/ units where the respondents were earlier appointed and they were not liable to be transferred to the Chief Office. The service conditions at the Chief Office were better, which was presumably the reason for the respondents to give up their claim based upon their past services. It is true that the differential advantage was not so substantial as to attract every Lower Division Clerk working in the district offices/units, and in that situation the letter dated 21.11.1968 had to be circulated. How- ever, so far the respondents and the two others were concerned, they found it in their own interest to forego their claim of seniority on the basis of their past services and they did so. It is significant to note that their letters expressing their willingness to join Chief Office by forego- ing their seniority were sent to the Inspector General of Police many months after the issuance of circular dated 18.1.1969 stating that the condition of foregoing seniority would not be insisted upon and they were ·allowed to join the Chief Office on clear understanding that they would not be entitled to counUbeir past services.It is, therefore, idle to suggest tliat the respondents can now turn back and repudiate their commit- ment expressly mlide many months after the said cirwlar. [297G-H; 298A-B I 2. So far ihe allegation regarding payment of travelling allowance is concerned, if some officers permitted the respondents to draw travel- ling allowance, this cannot be. a ground to bold that it was a case of regular departmental transfer. Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Ministe- rial Service Rules cannot, therefore, he held to be applicable in the A B c D E present case. [298C-E] F 3. The petiti_on before the Tribunal was filed by the respondents after a period of 13 years of their initial appointment in the Chief Office, during which period many orders co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.