K. BALAKRISHNA RAO versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, DIVISION NO. 1 VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 1070 · Decided: 01-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. BALAKRISHNA RAO 
v. 
). 
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, DIVISION NO. I 
VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
B 
MAY I, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Service law: 
~ 
' 
c 
Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules-Rules 27(1) (iii) and 16-
Seniority-Temporary appointee seeking re-allotment to other Department 
from the Department originally allotted on selection-Regularisation in the 
cadre of Upper Division Clerks from, the date of temporary appointment-
Seniority-Reckoning of-Rule 27 (I) (iii)-Applicability of-Held: Candidate 
D became junior most in the cadre from the date of re-allotment lo the other 
Department at his request in terms of Rule 27(/) (iii) and as such seniority 
to be reckoned on that basis-Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service 
Rules-Rule 23(a) 
Appellant-temporarily appointed as Upper Division Stenographer was 
E selected in the direct recruitment process of Upper Division Stenographer 
conducted by the State Public Service Commission and was allotted to the 
Department of Printing. On the appellant's request, he was re-allotted to the 
Commercial Taxes Department for appointment as Upper Division 
Stenographers. The services of the appellant were regularized in the cadre 
F 
of Upper Division Stenographer from the date of his first or temporary 
appointment under Rule 23(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate 
Service Rules. Thereafter, draft seniority list of Upper Division Clerks was 
~ 
published and the appellant was shown at Serial No. 60 whereas he claimed 
to be at Serial No. 39. The objection filed was rejected Appellant filed petition 
before the Tribunal which was allowed. Two affected persons challenged the 
G same. Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant. High Court held that the 
appellant had to be treated as an Upper Division Clerk from the date f re-
allotment of the appellant to the Commercial Taxes Department as Probationer 
f-
: 
in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks and that in terms of Rule 16 of the 
Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Se!"Vice Rules he had to be placed as junior-most 
H 
1070 
\ 
K. BALAKRISHNA RAO' DEP COMMR .. COMMER. TAXES. DIV. NO. I ANDHRA PRADESH 
I 071 
in the cadre in that Department in terms of Rule 27(l)?(iii) of the Rules. A 
Hence the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The order passed in favour of the appellant in terms of Rule 
23(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules specifically B 
leaves open the question of fixing his seniority at a later point of time, Rule 
16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules specifically provides 
for application of Rule 27. [Para 7[ [1074-C-DI 
1.2. It is undisputed that the appellant, on his selection, was originally 
allotted to the Printing Department He sought a re-allotment and after eight C 
months, he was re-allotted to the Commercial Taxes Department. In other 
words, he opted to get allotted or transferred to the Commercial Taxes 
Department. There is no reason to confine the operation of Rule 27 (1) (iii) 
of the Rules only to cases of transfer at the instance of the Heads of 
Department and as not applicable to a re-allotment on the basis of a request D 
by a candidate selected by the Publish Service Commission. 
[Para 7) [1074-D-El 
1.3. High Court was justified in holding that Rule 27(1) (iii) of the 
Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules applied to the instant case and 
the appellant became the junior-most in his cadre in the Commercial Taxes E 
Department on his being re-assigned to the Department on 25.7.1979. thus, 
no ground has been made out for interference with the decision of the High 
Court. [Para 7) [1074-E-F) 
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.v. E. Paripoornam & Ors., (1992) Supp 1 
S.C.C. 420, referred to. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil ".'-ppeal No. 2299 of2007. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2004 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 34297 of 1998. 
M.N. Rao, Tushar G. Rao, A. Ramesh and Promila for the Appellant. 
R. Sundervardhan, Manoj Saxena, R.K. Singh and T.V. George for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant was temporarily appointed as an Upper Division 
Stenographer on 14.8.1976 on being sponsored through Employment Exchange. 
The appellant thereafter participated in a direct recruit

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