K.V. SUBBA RAO & ORS. ETC. versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1118 · Decided: 24-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
K.V. SUBBA RAO & ORS. ETC. 
v, 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 24, 1988 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, 1961-
Rules 3 and 4(e)-Determination of inter se seniority between direct 
recruit and promotee Deputy Tehsildars-Rule 4(e) as amended on 
9.10.80 not to operate retrospectively-Rule should be followed 
scrupulously and State Government to effect direct recruitment at 
regular intervals. 
/ 
Constitution of India, 
1950-Article 309-Service Rules-
Binding effect on State and citizens alike-By willingly abiding by. the 
law State to exhibit an ideal situation for the citizens to emulate. 
In 1961 the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Services Roles 
were brought into force, the cadre under the roles being Deputy 
Tehsildars. Till then the roles in force in the erstwhile State of Madras 
were applicable to Andhra Pradesh. Role 3 of the 1961 Roles provides 
for appointment of Deputy Tehsildars by direct recruitment or by 
E 
transfer from members of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service emp-
loyed in the Revenue Department. It also provides that the substantive 
vacancies in the category of Deputy Tehsildars shall be filled or re· 
served to be filled by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer in 
the proportion of l: l 
F 
A writ petition was filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court 
~· 
by some direct recruit Deputy Tehsildars disputing the seniority over 
i. 
( 
them assigned to a group of promotees. The Single Judge dismissed the _ . ., 
same holding that the petitioners had no casuse of action within the 
G 
frame of the roles. This was upheld by the Division Bench, deriving 
support from Role 33(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate 
Services Rules 1962. Against this a Special Leave Petition was filed 
before this Court. 
Meanwhile, the State Government amended Rule 4(e) of the 
Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules to the effect that 
the inter-se seniority between direct recruits to the category of Deputy 
H Tehsildars and promotees to the category of Deputy Tehsildars shall be 
1118 
\
-
... 
K.V. SUBBA RAO v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
1119 
r 
determined from the date of confirmation in the substantive vancancies 
A 
in that category in the proportion of I: 1 as provided in sub-rule (b) of 
~ 
Rule 3. The validity of the amendment was questioned by a number of 
promotees (the appellants herein) before the State Administrative Tri-
bunal with particular emphasis on its retrospective application. The 
Tribunal examined the matter at length and upheld the validity or the 
enactment. It also directed the State Government to proceed to B 
i 
determine the seniority accordingly. The said directions of the Tribunal 
are assailed in the appeals by Special Leave and the Writ Petition filed 
.. 
in this Court . 
• 
Dismissing the appeals, and_ the writ petitions, this Court, 
\ 
HELD: 1.1 The State is entitled to prescribe the manner of corn- c 
. -<( 
puting inter-se seniority and in the absence of such prescription, length 
of service is the basis. Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subor-
dinate Services Rules, 1962 contained prescription regarding seniority 
and has different provisions to meet varying situations. Sub-rule (a) 
thereof which provides that seniority of a person is to be determined 
D 
,, 
"by the date of bis first appointment to such service" has obviously 
been misinterpreted on account of the presence of the words "unless 
be has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment". It is appro-
priate to interpret that rule to mean that the date of first appointment 
is intended to refer to continuous appointment only and the words 
r 
"unless he has been reduced to a lower rank by way of punishment" 
E 
are really redundant. This interpretation will have prospective applica-
.. 
tion, as otherwise limitless litigation would crop up. [ll24F-G; ll25C] 
1.2 Rule 4(e) before amendment in 1980 provided that the 
l 
seniority of Deputy Tehsildars would be determined with reference to 
the date of allotment maintained and ranking assigned by the Andhra 
F 
,. 
Pradesb Public Service Commission in the merit list of the particular 
f.-. selection. That was confined to inter-se seniority of direct recruits and 
·did not cover inter-se seniority between recruits of the two sources. In 
1980, Rule 4(e) was amended and the State Government prescribed the 
manner of providing inter-se seniority among

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