LexR. VENKATA RAMUDU & ANOTHER ETC versus STATE OF A.P & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
[2016) 5 S.C.R. 972
R. VENKATA RAMUDU & ANOTHER ETC.
v.
STATE OF A.P & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9856-60of2016)
SEPTEMBER27,2016
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.)
Service Law:
Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules, 1967 - rr. 1, 6, 8
-Andhra Pradesh State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - r. 16
- Extension of period of probation and fixation of revised dates of
commencement of probation - Legality of - Temporary appointment
of first appellant as Assistant Executive Engineer by direct
recruitment, on 18.4.1992 - Placed on probation with retrospective
effect from 18.4.1992 for a period of two years within the continuous
period of three years - Jn terms of r. 6(2), appellant__passed the
Account test on 20.1.1997 - However, there was no need to pass
the language test in Telugu, in view of the relevant Rules -
Subsequently, issuance of memo by the Government whereby the
period of probation extended and revised dates of commencement
of probation fixed - Challenge to, and directions sought to consider
the appellant for promotion to the next post - Tribunal held that the
impugned proceedings were perfectly valid and legal - High Court
upheld the order - Held: Note appended to Rule 8 stipulates that it
expressly prohibits the probationer from being discharged for failure
to pass the Account test, and it stipulates that the probation shall be
extended until the probationer passes the test - Such extension is
mandated only in those cases where the probationer does not pass
the relevant test - Note does not prevent the probationer from being
discharged at the end of the period of probation if his performance
is otherwise unsatisfactory - Thus, Note is a legislative device and
part of the Rule 8{c) - it carries same degree of efficacy as the Rule
itself - In appellants case, in view of the declaration contained in
the Note appended to Rule 8, there was neither any need nor occasion
much less the authority in law for the exercise of power either under
972
R. VENKATA RAMUDU & ANOTHER ETC. v. STATE OF A.P &
973
OTHERS
Rules 17(a)(ii) or 17(b) or 16(e) or 31 of the General Rules - By a
statutory declaration the period of probation stands extended until
the Assistant Executive Engineer passes the prescribed test - There
is no other material on record to indicate that the performance of
the appellant during the period of probation is otherwise not to the
satisfaction of the appointing authority - Conclusion of the Tribunal
that those persons who pass the Account test within the prescribed
period of probation constitute a different class than those who pass
the Account test after securing the benefit of extended period of
probation and such later class shall not gain advantage by way of
seniority over the class mentioned earlier is without any basis in
the text of the Rules - Further, the technical qualification of the
appellant and the experience gained in utilizing such technical
qualification for the service of the State is relevant than the
knowledge of Accounts, which is of incidental significance -
Assistant Executive Engineer even if he passes the Account test within
the prescribed period of probation would not be considered for
promotion till he completes 5 years of service - Thus, the logic
employed by the tribunal and as upheld by the High Court cannot
be accepted - Impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set
aside.
K. Haridas v. High Court of Kera/a & Others (2000) 9.
SCC 717; State of MP. v. Ramkinkar Gupta & Others
(2000) 10 SCC 77; S.P. Badrinath v. Govt. of A.P. &
Others (2003) 8 SCC 1 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2000) 9 sec 111
(2000) 10 sec 11
(2003) s sec 1
referred to
referred to
referred to
Para 41
Para 41
Para 41
A
B
c
D
E
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9856-
G
9860of2016
WITH
C. A. NO. 9861 OF 2016.
H
974
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 5 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2008 of the High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 16807,
16801,23093,23404&23101 of2008.
P. P. Rao, B. Adinarayana, Sr. Advs., P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair,
Prithu Garg, Tishampati Sen, J. R. Manohar, R. Santlman Krishnan, Aditya
Kr., Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Prabhakar Parnam, C. S. N. Mohan
Rao, V. N. Raghupathy, Ad vs. for the Appellants.
Krishna K. Singh, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, K. Maruthi Rao, K.
Subba Rao, Aniruddha P. Mayee, GExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.