PVT PHILIP versus P. NARASIMHA REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 13-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.V.T. ;>H[L[P 
v. 
P. NARASIMHA REDDY AND ORS. 
JULY 13, 1993 
B 
[P.B. SAWANT AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules : 
Rule JO(a){l)(i), 23(a) and 47-Regularisation-Appellant appointed 
C as Temporary lailor-Further appointed as District Probation Of-
ficer-Stipulation that he may be transferred as Jailor in case of neces-
siry-Retransferred and temporarily appointed as Jailo,-Rules relaxed in 
favour of appellant-Services regularised from the date of initial appoint-
ment-Validity of 
D 
The appellant was an Ex-Air Force Officer and was a graduate in 
Commerce and Law. He was appointed as Jailor temporarily under Rule 
10(a) (l)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Snbordinate Services Rules 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). On the closure of the temporary 
jail, be was appointed as District Probation Officer (D.P.O) Grade II. It 
E was, however, made clear in the said appointment letter that whenever 
occasion demanded, the appellant was likely to be posted as Welfare 
Officer/Jailor/Brotber and Deputy Superintendent of certified schools. 
After a few months the appellant was transferred and posted tem-
porarily as Jailor. In the meanwhile, one Jailor, reverted as Deputy Jailor 
F made a representation to the Government against his reversion and res-
toration of his seniority in the cadre of Jailors over two other Jailors. The 
Government rejected the said representation. However, on appeal, the 
Government reconsidered and set aside the order of reversion and res-
tored him to the post of the Jailor. As a result of this, the appellant was 
G again sent back as the D.P.0 Grade II. 
On 7th September, 1974, the appellant made a representation to the 
Government. The Government advised the I.G. (Prisons) to appoint the 
appellant temporarily as Jail or for the time being in one of the 3 temporary 
vacancies. The I.G. (Prisons) treate.d the appellant as a leave-reserve 
H D.P.O. Grade II on other duty at District Jail, and appointed him to the 
100 
r 
j 
PVT. PHILIP '" P.N. REDDY 
101 
post of Jailor temporarily subject to the condition that his services were A 
liable to be terminated at any time wfrhout notice and without assigning 
any reasons. He was appointed in the vacancy caused due to the retirement 
of a Jailor. 
By his order of lst September, 1976, the Governor in exercise of his 
powers under Rule 47 of the State Sub-ordinate Services Rules, relaxed 
Rule 6(b) of the said Rules and rule 9 of the A.P. Jail Subordinate Services 
Rules in favour of the appellant for his regular appointment as a Jailor. 
The Government made it clear that the regularisation of the appellant as 
a Jailor was w.e.f. 27th June, 1969 when the order posting him as a Jailor 
B 
was passed. 
C 
The appellant was temporarily promoted as Deputy Superintendent 
of Jails. On the recommendation of the State Public Service Commission, 
the State Government regularised the services of the appellant as Deputy 
Superintendent of Jails w.e.f. 20th August, 1977, and further declared that 
the appellant had completed his probation as Deputy Superintendent of D 
Jails on 19th August, 1978. 
The Government further temporarily promoted the appellant to the 
post of the Superintendent of Jails alongwith S other Deputy Superinten-
dents of Jails including respondents 1 to 3. In the seniority list, the 
appellant was shown senior to respondents 1 to 3 both in the post of the 
Deputy Superintendents as well as in the post of the Sup•rintendent of 
Jails. Against the seniority given to the appellant over them, respondents 
1 to 3 made representations to the Government, which were rejected. 
Respondents 1 to 3 filed a petition before Administrative Tribunal and the 
Tribunal remanded the proceedings to the Government for reconsidera-
tion pointing out that the Government order did not mention the date from 
which the relaxation was given. The Government on reconsideration of all 
the facts and circumstances justified the regularisation of the services of 
E 
F 
the appellant and clarified that the regu!arisation would be effective from 
27.6.1969, the date on which he was posted as Jailor. Against this order, G 
an appeal was preferred to the Tribunal and it was dismissed. Hence this 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1 The appellant's service record shows that in fact he bad H 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993[ SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A served as a Jailor for more than 5 years and had Fulfilled the qualiF

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