LexP. RAMMOHAN RAO versus K. SRINIVAS AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1060 : 2025 INSC 212 P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc. (Civil Appeal No(s). 2717-2719 of 2025) 13 February 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the period of officiating service of the temporarily appointed Assistant Executive Engineers-AEEs between 1990-1992 including the appellants should be taken into account for considering their seniority over and above the 1997 batch of regularly appointed candidates through APPSC-private respondents. Headnotes† Service Law – Seniority – Counting of the period of officiating service – Appellants regularly appointed in 1990 as Work Inspectors in the State Corporation – For the project-based exigency, in 1992, the appellants and one other appointed as temporary AEEs u/r.10(a)(i)(1) of the Rules – Private respondents appointed as AEEs in 1997, after undergoing the regular selection process through APPSC in accordance with the Act of 1994 – Subsequently, services of appellant came to be regularized by G.O.M No. 234 on 27.06.2005, and the appellants placed below the last regularly selected candidate of AEEs in terms of seniority – Subsequently, State Government introduced a classification amongst temporarily appointed AEEs based on their dates of appointment with reference to the promulgation of Act of 1994 – Issuance of revised G.O.M No. 262, dated 17.06.2006, stipulating that the temporary AEEs appointed between 1990-1992 would be placed below the last regular AEE appointed through the APPSC, prior to the enactment of the Act of 1994 – Challenge to – High Court quashed the G.O.M No. 262 dated 17.06.2006 – Sustainability: Held: Not sustainable – State Government fully justified in issuing the revised G.O.M. No. 262 – Period of officiating service-period between 1990 to 2005 of the appellants and the batch of the AEEs appointed between 1990-1992 to be counted as regular service for determining the seniority, entitling him/them to be placed above the * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1061 P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc. 1997 batch of regularly appointed candidates-private respondents in the seniority list – At the time of the appointment of the appellants and other similarly placed candidates as AEEs between the years 1990-1992, there was a vacuum in rules governing the appointment of AEEs in the Panchayat Raj Department, as such it cannot be said that these appointments were de hors the rules – Notwithstanding the designation of the appointments of the appellants and similarly situated candidates as being temporary, such appointments were neither restricted by a fixed tenure nor conceived as a stop-gap or ad-hoc arrangement – While characterized as temporary, these appointments were not intended to address a transient or interim requirement, rather, they were structured to ensure continuity and stability within the workforce – Services of the appellants and other similarly situated candidates were regularised in 2005, and the same attained finality – Once the services of employees are regularised, the ad-hoc or stop-gap nature of the appointment does not survive – Since there were no selection rules in force in the Panchayat Raj Department for appointment of the appellants as temporary AEEs in 1992, the appellants clearly falls under Proposition (B) of the Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra’s case, that if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted – Furthermore, the rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the concept of functus officio – Reasoning assigned by the High Court that the State Government became functus officio after issuance of G.O.M. No. 234 dated 27.06.2005 and could not have issued the revised G.O.M. No. 262 dated 17.06.2006 is untenable and ultra vires the Constitution – Reasoning by the High Court that the private respondents, as affected parties, were required to be heard before the issuance of the revised G.O.M. No. 262 is unsustainable and contrary to the established legal principles – If the State Government is compelled to afford an opportunity of hearing to every individual or entity likely to be a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.