N. VENKATESWARA RAO AND ORS. versus THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPALITY, VIJAYAWADA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 10-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

N. VENKATESWARA RAO AND ORS. 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL OFFICER, VUA YAW ADA 
MUNICIPALITY, VIJAYAWADA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 10, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Andhra Pradesh Municipal Act, 1965/Andhra Pradesh Municipal C 
Employees Service Rules: 
S. 73(3), 74/Rules 17 and 21-f'romotion-Preference to employees 
reverted during probation-Promotees reverted since posts were 
downgraded-Promoted again on upgradation-Treated as "Probationers 
awaiting reappointment''-Held: entitled to preferential treatment-However D 
promotees against leave vacancies not entitled to such preferential treatment. 
The appellants and respondents 3 to 5 joined service as Lower 
Division Clerks (LDCs) in the office of respondent No. 1. The Director of 
Municipal Administration of the State accorded sanction for the conver· 
sion and upgradation of the ten posts of LDCs to that of Upper Division 
Clerks (UDC) in the respondent· Municipality. The Panel Committee of 
the municipality prepared a panel of LDCs for the purpose of promotion 
to the post of UDCs, and the appellants were included in the said panel. 
Since respondents 3 to 5 were not eligible, their names were not included. 
Appellant 1 to 6 were promoted as UDCs against the newly created posts, 
and Appellants 7 to 13 were promoted as UDCs against leave vacancies. 
On a representation to the Government questioning the jurisdiction 
of the Director of Municipal Administration to upgrade the posts of LDCs 
to UDCs, the Government called for the report of the Director. 
Pending final decision by the Government, the Director down-graded 
E 
F 
G 
the ten posts • earlier upgraded by him and as a consequence reverted the 
appellants as LDCs. Later the Government approved the order of the 
Director and by order dated December 20, 1978 the appellants were again 
promoted as UDCs. Respondents 3 to 5 challenged the same before the H 
849 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
State Administrative Tribunal, on the ground that. though the respondents 
were also eligible for promotion as UDCs, yet they were not considered. 
The Tribunal quashed the order dated December 20, 1978 promoting the 
appellants as UDCs. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended that the provisions of rule 21 of the Andhra 
B 
Pradesh Municipal Employees Service Rules were not applicable to the 
appellants and that respondents 3 to 5, being senior to the appellants in 
the cadre of LDCs and despite being eligible, were arbitrarily left out and 
the appellants were promoted without considering the cases of the respon-
dents. 
c 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The promotion of appellants 1 to 6 made on October 15, 
1977 was regular promotion in accordance with the rules. Admittedly, 
respondents 3 to 5, having not passed the requisite test, were not eligible 
D to be considered for promotion in the year 1977. Since appellants 1 to 6 
had already rendered satisfactory service as LDCs for more than three 
years they were not required to undergo the probation prescribed under 
the rules. In any case their promotion being on regular basis they would 
be treated to be probationers for the purpose . of rule 21 read with rule 17 
E 
of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Employees Service Rules. Appellants 1 
to 6 were reverted because the posts were down-graded by the Director. 
They were again promoted by the order dated December 20, 1978. Although 
respondents 3 to 5 had become eligible to be considered for promotion in 
December 1978, they could not have been promoted • despite they being 
senior to the appellants • for two reasons. Firstly they had not been 
F 
brought on promotion-panel by the Panel Committee under Section 74 of 
the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Act, 1965 and secondly, the appellants 
being "probationers awaiting for reappointment" were entitled to 
preference under rule 21, of the rules. [855-E-G] 
2. Appellants 7 to 13 cannot be equated with appellants 1 to 6, as 
G they were promoted against leave vacancies. They had not right to hold the 
posts. They cannot be considered to be probationers for the purpose of 
rute 21. Appellants 7 to 13 were reverted from the posts of UDCs which 
they were holding against leave vacancies. They were not "probationers 
awaiting for reappointment" under the rules. They could not be promoted 
H again on December 20, 1978 without considering respondents 3 to 5 who 
+-
N.V. RAO v. COMMR. & SPL. OFFICER (KULDIP SINGH, J.J 
851 
we

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