LexK. BALARAMA RAJU versus CH. V. SUBRAMANYA SARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 65 K. BALARAMA RAJU v. CH. V. SUBRAMANYA SARMA & ORS. (Civil appeal No. 8200 of 2011) SEPTEMER 26, 2011 [J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] Service Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975: A B c rr. 7(7), 8(4), 15, 16, 23 - Seniority- Claim of, by first respondent - Posts of computer operators - Applicants to possess requisite qualification - Appellants as well as first respondent applied for the post and appeared for the test - Appellants obtained higher marks than respondent but only first respondent possessed the requisite qualification - D Appellants given time to acquire the said qualification failing which they would be reverted - Said period extended by one year during which they acquired the necessary qualification - First respondent shown junior to the appellants in the gradation/seniority lists of computer operators - Appellant and E first respondent promoted to the next post but first respondent placed much junior to the appellants - Writ petition - High Court set aside the gradation list and directed the High Court administration to re-fix their seniority and grant consequential benefits - On appeal, held: Governing rules have to be read F and applied meaningfully such that no prejudice would be done to a candidate who otherwise had the qualifications and is appointed after passing the test - One should have the qualifications on the date when the applications are invited - Any such relaxation to permit unqualified candidates cannot be to the prejudice of the qualified candidates - On facts, first G respondent had the necessary qualification when he appeared for the examination, and on his appointment by direct recruitment, his probation started immediately u/r.10(1) - Appellants did not have the necessary qualification when they 65 . H 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A appeared for examination - Their appointments were purely temporary and on adhoc basis, and were liable to be reverted for not acquiring the necessary qualification - Also the appointments were without any preferential claim to future re- promotion or seniority -Their probation will start only when 8 they get the qualification - Thus, order of the High Court accepting the legitimate seniority of the first respondent above the appellants is correct. r. 5(2) - Selection by direct recruitment - Held: Under r. 5(2) the Chief Justice to determine the proportion of vacancies c to be filled by each method where app·o;ntment to any category or post is provided by more than one method and also specify the manner in which such appointment shall be made. r.5(3) - Seniority- Determination of - Held: Seniority of D a member of the service in a Category or post shall unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to the service, category or post - If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation u/r. 16, his seniority shall E be determined by the date of commencement of the service, which counts towards probation. r. 10 - Prob&. on - Every person appointed to the service otherwise than by promotion, or by transfer shall be on probation for a total period of two years on duty within a F continuous period of three years - The probation of the appointee starts only after they obtain their qualification. The High Court administration issued a circular for filling up the posts of Computer operators from the members of the High Court establishment. The promotion G was to be effected on the basis of a written and an oral test. Three appellants and first respondent at the relevant time were working on the administrative side of the High Court as Assistants/Examiner and Typist/Copyists. They all applied for the post and cleared the exam. Among the H applicants only first respondent<· had the requisite K. BALARAMA RAJU v. CH. V. SUBRAMANYA 67 SARMA & ORS. qualification of post graduate diploma in computer A ·programming or post graduate diploma in computer application. The High Court Administration issued an order dated 07.11.2000 permitting appellants alongwith two others to acquire the requisite prescribed qualification within one year failing which they were to be B reverted. In the said order appellants were shown at Serial N.o.1 ,2,3 and first respondent at Serial No.4. The period for passing of the examination was further e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.