M. VENKATESWARLU ETC. versus THE GOVERNMENT ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 12-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M. VENKATESWARLU ETC. 
v. 
THE GOVERNMENT ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. 
;. ~ 
B 
c 
MARCH 12, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.J 
S elVice Law : 
A11dhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate SetVice Special Rules/A11dhra 
Pradesh State and Subordinate SetVice Rules: 
Rules 2, 6, 7, 8/Rt!les 22, 47-Deputy Tehsilda1'--Appoi11tment by 
promoti01t-Qualificatio11s---Cany fmward vaca11cies--Otilisatio11 of-Special 
representatio11-Appe//a11t belonging to Scheduled Caste falling short of re-
quired length of se1Vic~Relaxatio11 of Rules retrospectively---He/d, Govem-
me/t/ empowered to relax the ntles retrospectively in interest of justice and 
D equity. 
E 
F 
Constitution of India. 
Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4), 16(4-A)---Rese1Vatio11 in promotion-Held, 
consistent with provisions of Constitution. 
The appellant, an employee in the District Revenue Establishment of 
the Respondent-State and belonging to Scheduled Caste, was promoted as 
Deputy Tehsildar on ad-hoc basis in 1984. When the panel effective from 
1.7.1983 for regular promotion as Deputy Tehsildar came to be drawn for 
the year 1983-84, the service of" the appellant fell short of the required 
period. His name was, however, recommended for promotion for the year 
1986-87. He made a representation to the Government to relax Rule 8(ii) of 
A.P. Revenue Subordinate Service Special Rules to empanel him for the 
year 1983-84. The Government, exercising the power under Rule 47 of the 
A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules (General Rules), relaxed the 
G shortfall in the required service and empanelled him for the year 1983-84 
and promoted him as Deputy Tehsildar on regular basis. 
The respondents, who were senior to the appellant as senior Assis-
tants, filed an application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative 
Tribunal challenging the relaxation given to the appellant. Tiie Division 
H Bench of the Trinunal upheld the promotion of the appellant as in its view 
266 
j 
, 
M. VENKATESWARLUv. GOVT. OF A.P. [K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 267 
reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to a carry forward A 
vacancy was valid under Rule 22 of the General Rules: However, since the 
.. ,. 
Division Bench noticed that there were diverse views as regards applica-
lion of Rule 22 of the General Rules to the carry forward vacancies, it 
referred the case to the Full Bench, which held that Rule 22 of the General 
Rules did not apply to carry forward vacancies for appointment by promo-
B 
ti on or transfer; and retrospective relaxation under Rule 47 of the General 
Rules was illegal. 
In the present appeal, it was contended for the appellant that Rule 
L. 
22 of the General Rules read with Rule 6 of the Special Rules empowered 
the State to appoint members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, c 
by virtue of application of rule of reservation, not only to initial recruit-
men! but also to appointment by promotion or by transfer; that the rule 
of carry forward would be applied when candidates belonging to Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes who were to get adequate representation in 
the service were not available; and that relaxation under Rule 47 would 
D 
always be retrospective since the requisite conditions prescribed under the 
rules could not be complied with before action was taken. The contesting 
_). 
respondents opposed the relaxation given to the appellant on the grounds 
.J, 
that relaxation could not be granted in individual cases and no notice was 
given to affected person. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In view of the provisions of Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the A.P. 
Revenue Subordinate Service Special Rules and Rules 22 and 47 of the A.P. 
f 
State and Subordinate Ser >ice Rules, appointment by promotion or by 
.. 
transfer is available to carry forward vacancies in the post of Deputy F 
Tehsildar. The finding of the Full Bench of the Tribunal that Rule 22 of 
the General Rules does not apply to appointment by promotion or transfer 
is clearly inconsistent with Rule 22(ii) of the General Rules which en-
visages appointments "otherwise than by direct recruitment". (271-E] 
Commissio11er of Commercial Taxes, A.P. & A11r. v. G.G. Sethwnad- G 
\.- "-
hava Rao & Ors., (1996) 1 SCALE 721, relied on. 
1.2. The rule of reservation in promotion is consistent with Articles 
14, 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution to provide equality ofapportunity to 
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Recruitment as defined under H 
268 
SUPREME COURT REPO

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