M. SUBBA REDDY AND ANR. versus A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ANO ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 12-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
M. SUBBA REDDY ANO ANR. 
A 
V. 
A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ANO ORS. 
APRIL 12, 2004 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.8. SINHA ANDS. H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service law: 
A. P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 
1964-Regulation 3-A. P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees C 
(Recruitment) Regulations, 1964-Regulations 30, 34 and, item 3 of Appendix 
A (Section 8) -Recruitment regulations prescribing quota of I: 1 between 
> 
direct recruits and promotees for recruitment to the post of Assistant Traffic 
Manager-Ban on direct recruitment for few years-Corporation temporarily 
promoting certain persons to post reserved for direct recruits-Vacancy arising D 
in promotees' quota and promotees regularised therein-Thereafter, direct 
recruits borne in services-Fixation of seniority-Held: On reading service 
regulations with recruitment regulations, fixation of seniority depends upon 
the number of vacancy falling in a particular category and not on the date of 
promotion or date of selection-Rule of rota is inbuilt in quota prescribed for 
direct recruits and promotees and in accordance with the quota seniority is E 
fixed-Thus, promotees could not get seniority over direct recruits-Also 
promotees were promoted subject to being reverted to substantive post on 
approved candidates becoming available and when such revertees are 
repromoted as per regulation 34 they can be deemed to be appointed to such 
post, as such temporary promotions cannot be first appointment to that p 
category-Furthermore, mere inaction or imposition of ban does not mean 
that quota was broken down-Road Transport Corporation Act, 19 50-Section 
45. 
First respondent-State Road Transport Corporation is a statutory 
Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. G 
Appellant No. 1 was appointed as a Traffic Apprentice on 10.8.1971 in 
the Corporation. In 1983 he was promoted temporarily as Assistant Traffic 
Manager against vacancy reserved for direct recruitment subject to 
appointment. When the vacancy arose in the promotee quota, his services 
were regularised with probation rights with retrospective effect from 
7 
H 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 27.12.1986 vide order dated 9.9.1988. He was confirmed as ATM on 
1.4.1987. On 9.11.1990, respondent-direct recruits were borne into services 
of the Corporation. In the integrated seniority list of 10.11.1994 appellants 
were placed below direct recruits. Appellants filed writ p~tition challenging 
the same. It is the appellant's case that there had been ban on direct 
• 
B 
recruitment from 1977 upto 1988 in the Corporation and the promotions 
were made from lower feeder posts in excess of ratio of 1:1 under A.P. 
State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 
1966 on temporary basis and in course of time they wer~ regularized; and 
that when their promotions were regularized, the direct recruits were not 
even borne on the cadre of ATMs/AMEs and as such they could not be 
c placed below the direct recruits. High Court applying quota-rota rule held 
that direct recruits were rightly treated as senior to the promotees. Division 
Bench upheld the order. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-promotees contended that t.he appellants had a right to 
be promoted within their quota during the years 1981 to 1987, when 
D vacancies for promotees quota became available as during this, period no 
direct recruits were available, that on the date when appellant No. 1 was 
regularized, there were no direct recruits available and as such 
Corporation cannot place direct recruits above promotees; that the direct 
recruits cannot claim appointments from the date of the vacancy in. their 
E quota before their selection; that Item-3 of Appendix-A (Section-B) 
prescribes the method of recruitment and the manner in which vacancy 
is allocated, it does not involve rota for the purposes of seniority but only 
quota, therefore, rota cannot be implied; that seniority is dealt with only 
by regulation 3 of S.ervice Regulations, and not by regulation 34 of 
Recruitment Regulations, which refers to only allocation of vacancy; that 
~ .
F the non-availability of candidates in a particular category, may be on 
account of ban on recruitment or on any other ground, therefore, when 
promotees were regularized in the promotion quota when direct recruits 
were not available, the quota in item-3(1) of Appendix-A would not apply; 
and 

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