P. MOHAN REDDY ETC. versus E.A.A. CHARLES AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 1068 · Decided: 16-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
P. MOHAN REDDY ETC. 
v. 
E.A.A. CHARLES AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY, 16, 2001 
(G.B. PATTANAIK, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN 
AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service law : 
C 
Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. 1961-Rule ./(e) 
inter-se seniorit;~Belween direct recruits and promolees-Posl of Deputy 
Tehsildar-Rule amended on 9.10.1980 given prospective pffect-Rule 
amended on 23.9.1992-Applicabili(l' of-Held, seniority of the appointees, 
appointed between 9.10.1980 till September 1992 is required lo be determined 
D in accordance with pre-amended Rules which came into existence in September 
1992-Andhra Pradesh Stale and Subordinate Service Rules-Rule 33. 
Under Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, 1961, 
appointments to the cadre of Deputy Tehsildar was required to be made by 
.A. 
direct recruitment and by transfer from Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Services 
E and the substantive vacancies in the cadre were to be filled by direct 
recruitment and recruitment by transfer in the proportion of I : I. 
F 
The Rule was amended on 09.10.1980 inserting Rule 4(e) giving it 
retrospective effect, which provided that the inter-se seniority between the 
direct recruit and promotees shall be determined from the date of their 
confirmation in the substantive vacancy in that category in the proportion of 
I: I. 
The validity of the amended rule was challenged in the case of K. V 
Subbarao and Ors. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 119881 2 SCC 201, 
G wherein the court held that the amended rules could operate only prospectively 
and upholding the rule directed the State to compute the substantive vacancies 
in the cadre and to determine the quota of direct recruits and after working 
out the vacancies available to be filled up by direct recruits on the J::.asis of50 
per cent, fill up the same by making direct recruitment; and to draw up 
H seniority list on the basis of amended rule. Seniority lists were prepared. 
1068 
t 
P MOHAN REDDY v. E.A.A. CHARLES AND ORS 
1069 
Applications were filed before central Administrative Tribunal, alleging A 
that the lists were not prepared in accordance with the judgement of the 
court. On 24.09.1992 the Rules were further amended by limiting the direct 
recruits to 30 per cent of approved substantive vacancies and further providing 
that notwithstanding Rule 4(e), the criteria for seniority of a person appointed 
as Deputy Tehsildar shall be continuous service and not confirmation by B 
following the ratio of vacancies I: I. The amendment to the rules was effective 
prospectively and those whose services were to be regularised prior to the 
date of amendment, their services would be governed by pre-amended position 
and conformations had to be made w.e.f. the date of available vacancy of approved 
probationers in the order of seniority. The direct recruit Deputy Tehsildars 
appointed prior to the amendment were entitled to have their seniority fixed C 
in accordance with rule 4 (e) as it stood then. 
Promotee Tehsildars approached the Tribunal praying for re-drawing 
their seniority as per the criteria given under the amended rules dated 
24.09.1992. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the seniority 
shall be decided in accordance with Rule 4(e), since the amendment brought D 
about on 24.09.1992 had not been given retrospective effect and was 
prospectiv:! in nature. Promotees filed appeal in High Court, which set aside 
the judgement of the Tribunal holding that the seniority had to be drawn up 
in accordance with the amended rules on tile basis of total length of service 
without reference to the date of confirmation and without reference to Rule E 
1 
4(e). 
In appeal to this court appellants/ direct recruits contended that the 
seniority of Deputy Tehsildars appointed between 09.10.1980 and 23.09.1992 
had to be determined in accordance with Rule 4(e), as it stood then and the 
same could not be altered by applying the principles evolved in the amended F 
rules of September 1992; and that an employee, though may not have a vested 
right to a specific position in the gradation list of a cadre, yet he had the 
right to get his seniority determined in accordance with the rules in force on 
the date of his appointment and unsetling that right by subsequent amendment 
of rules would be a great dis-service to the entire cadre, and therefore cannot G 
be sustained. The respondents contended that the rules brought about in 
September 1992, even if they were not retrospe

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