S. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 557 · Decided: 16-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
S. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND ORS. 
A 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 16, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ AND S.P. BHARUCHA, J.] 
B 
Service Law-Andhra Pradesh State mid Subordinate Service Rules, 
1965-Public Health & Municipal Engineering Department of 
State-Seniority in post o.f Assistant Executive Engineer-State Government 
directed to prepare seniority list in strict co1~fonnity with directions earlier 
C 
issued by this Court. 
In the Public Health & Municipal Engineering Department of the 
Government of Andhra Pradesh, prior to 18.8.1970, the post of Junior 
Engineer was filed by direct reeruitment and by re-designating Supervi-
sor as Junior Engineers, as and when vacancies were available. The State 
D 
Government by GOMs No. 682 dated 18.8.1970, banned the direct 
recruitment of Junior Engineers. Thereafter, in exercise of emergency 
powers conferred by Rule IO(l)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and 
Subordinate Setvice Rules, 1965, the State Government made temporary 
ad-hoc appointments on emergency basis but not after selection by the 
State Public Service Commission, which was the prescribed method of 
regular appointment. In 1975, the State Government, conducted a Special 
Qualification Test with a view to regularise the service of these temporary 
E 
and ad-hoc appointees. It was open to these appointees who had put in 
two years continuous service upto 1.1.1973, to take the test and those who 
qualified were ranked in seniority below those who had been regularly 
appointed as Junior Engineers prior to 18.8.1970. In 1976 the ban on 
direct recruitment was lifted and selections, accordingly, were processed 
between 1978 and March 1979. On 14.9.1979, the State Government 
issued two orders directing that the services of all temporary appointees 
appointed by direct recruitment and continuing in service as on 9.8.1979 
would be regularised without subjecting them to any written or oral test. 
Direct recruits of the year 1978-79 challenged the orders but the 
challenge was rejected by the Tribunal. The appeal filed against the order 
was also rejected but the Court gave certain directions in the judgment, 
f.J. Divakar & Ors. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. , [1982] 3 SCC 341. 
The Direct recruits selected in 1978 were appointed and given seniority. 
557 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1996] I S.C.R. 
The State Government fixed their seniority above that of the temporary 
appointees whose services had been, or were being regularised. This 
order of the State Government was challenged by those temporary 
appointees who had been regularised. The challenge was upheld. The 
direct recruits of 1978-79 filed a Speclal Leave Petition. 
This Court in G.S. \lenkat Reddy & Ors. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh 
& Ors., [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 425, directed that the candidates who had 
entered service after passing the Special Qualification Test shall rank 
immediately after the regularly appointed candidates who had entered 
service before the selection of these successful candidates and next to 
these SQT candidates will rank those who were governed by this Court's 
directive in the Divakar Case. No seniority list having been prepared 
pursuant to this judgment, the appellants filed a petition before the 
Tribunal. Thereafter. the State Government issued a provisional seniority 
list placing the direct recruits selected in 1978-79 above temporary ad-
hoc appointees appointed by direct recruitment and continuing as on 
9.8.1979. However, it was stated before the Tribunal that without 'basic 
and essential material' it will not be appropriate to proceed with the 
preparation of provisional seniority list as proposed. The Tribunal 
deduced from the material placed on record that the State Government, 
apparently was 'facing difficulties in reconciling the judgments of the 
Supreme Court, in \lenkat Reddy's case and Divakar's case; therefore, it 
directed that material which was 'basic and essential', to be placed before 
it, 'for commencing an exercise for preparing a seniority list'. An interim 
order was issued that persons appointed in 1984 on the basis of the 
concession given in Divakar's case were not put above the persons who 
were already in the list showing the organisation of orders or appointed 
pursuant to Special Test etc.' These orders were challenged in these 
appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Central Administrative Tribunal had over reached 
itself. The

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