K. ANJAIAH ETC. versus K. CHANDRAIAH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 03-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

K. ANJAIAH ETC. 
A 
>--
v. 
K. CHANDRAIAH AND ORS. ETC. 
MARCH 3, 1998 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
B 
" ' 
Service Law : 
Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission (Terms and Conditions of 
Service of Employees of the Commission) Regulations, 1986-Regulation c 
9(1) and 9(2) : 
Seniority-Regulation 9(2) apparently reckoned seniority of 
deputationists from the date of their absorption-Validity of regulation 9(2) 
challenged-Held-While determining inter-se seniority of deputationists in 
D 
service of the Commission their entire length of continuous service in the 
..._ 
Government shall be the basis-Provision of Regulation 9(2) read down. 
The Andhra Pradesh Service Commission which was set up under the 
Andhra Pradesh College Services Commission Act, 1985 was formed by 
employees who came on deputation from the State Government in different 
E 
batches. They were absorbed by the Commission from time to time, after 
obtaining their option. The Regulations of 1986 were made with the prior 
approval of the State Gov.ernment under Section 20 r/w Section 7(3) of the 
Act. Regulation 9(1) provided that persons drawn from other departments 
. will carry their service. Regulation 9(2) which was added by an amendment 
to the regulations provided that persons on deputation who are absorbed by F 
~ 
the Commission shall be appointed regularly as staff in the Commission, and 
it also dealt with the determination of their seniority. 
The employees on deputation with the Commission challenged the vires 
of Regulation 9(2) before the Administrative Tribunal inasmuch as it 
apparently ignored the service of deputationists prior to their absorption in G 
the Commission for the purposes of seniority. By the impugned Judgment 
' -< 
the Tribunal has quashed Regulation 9(2) inter alia on the ground that it 
contravenes Regulation 9(1) and purports to wipe off the past service rendered 
by a government servant while determining his seniority. 
The present Appeal was filed by Superintendent, College Service H 
35 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A Commission contending that Regulation 9(2) has been erroneously struck 
down inasmuch as, an employer has a right to determine the principle on 
which seniority is to be determined, which may ignore service prior to 
absorption. Furthermore, Regulation 9(2) which provides that seniority shall 
be determined by tbe date of absorption does not violate any constitutional 
B provision. It was also contended that Regulation 9(1) has no connection with 
Regulation 9(2) and hence, cannot be said to be violative of Regulation 9(2). 
The private respondents contended that when persons are taken on deputation 
in a new service, their service in the parent department ought be respected 
and considered for seniority, as has been done under regulation 9(1), which 
benefit cannot be taken away under regulation 9(2). 
c 
D 
The State Government contended that Regulation 9(1) and 9(2) have to 
be harmoniously read. Though Regulation 9(2) is clumsily drafted, it should 
be read down so as to uphold it. 
Disposing of these Appeals, this Court 
HELi) : I.I. The provisions of Regulation 9(2) of Andhra Pradesh 
College Service Commission (Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees 
of the Commission) Regulation, 1986 can be upheld but reading down the 
provisions rather than striking down the same. rt is cardinal principle of 
construction that the statute and the Rule or the regulation must be held to 
E be constitutionally valid unless and until it is established that they violate 
any specific provision of the Constitution. It is· the duty of the Court to 
harmoniously construe different provisions of any Act or Rule or Regulation, 
if possible, and to sustain the same rather than strike down the provisions. 
In doing so, it can read down a particular provision to clarify the ambiguity 
so that the provision can be sustained, but not to relegislate a provision. 
F 
[41-D-GI 
1.2. If a literal meaning is given to the language used in Regulation 
9(2) it may appear that the benefits given under Regulation 9(1) are being 
ignored and the past service rendered by deputationists in their parent cadre 
is not being considered while determining their inter se seniority in the 
G Commission. However, though the phraseology used in Regulation 9(2) is 
cumbersome, reading down the provision it is held that while determining 
the inter se seniority of the deputationists in the new cadre under th

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