S. NARAYANA versus MD. AHMEDULLA KHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 08-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. SRIKRISHNA

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-"!'a' 
S. NARAYANA 
A 
v. 
MD. AHMEDULLA KHAN AND ORS. 
MAY 8, 2006 
[B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Lien on post-Existence of-Held-Unless a person is made permanent 
in a post, he could not have a lien on it-Regularization is not same as 
confirmation in service, and therefore, lien could not operate from that date. c 
Appellant was promoted as Senior Assistant. In seniority list for 
this post his name was shown at serial No. 6 and that of respondent at 
serial No. 12. No objection was raised against this list. In the meanwhile, 
he had been appointed on temporary basis as Extension Officer in the 
D 
Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Executive Subordinate) Service and 
his services regularized in that post. His 
lien on post of Senior 
Assistant was terminated for having lien on post outside his cadre. But 
the State Government set aside this order on the ground that as he was 
not confirmed in the post of Senior Assistant, he did not have any lien 
thereon and consequently, the question of termination of its did not 
E 
arise. Subsequently, he was promoted to post of Superintendent on 
temporary basis and also given notional seniority on par with one 
immediate junior. 
Respondent, who was also working as Superintendent, challenged 
the grant of notional seniority to the appellant before the State Tribunal 
F 
by filing an Original Application (0.A.). However, there was no challenge 
to the seniority list wherein seniority of appellant was shown at serial No. 
,, 
6 and the respondent was at serial No. 12. This O.A. was dismissed by 
Tribunal. Against this, High Court allowed the challenge of respondent 
on the ground that appellant was regularized and confirmed in the post 
G 
of Extension Officer and had lost his lien on post of Senior Assistant for 
that Reason. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that regularization and confirmation were 
different concepts in service jurisprudence, and regularisation did not 
ipso facto result in confirmation in any post. 
H 
69 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Regularization is not the same as confirmation in service, 
and therefore lien could not operate from the said date. (78-A, BJ 
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC I, followed. 
R.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507; State of 
Mysore v. S.V. Narayanapa, (1967) I SCR 128 and R.N. Nanjundappa v. 
T Thimiah, [1972) 2 SCR 799, relied on. 
2. High Court had misunderstood the concept of a lien on a post. 
There is nothing like lien on a post, unless a person was made permanent 
in a post. (77-A, B[ 
Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of UP., [1992) Supp. I SCC 524, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2003. 
From the Judgment/Order dated 13.12.2001 of the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 653112000. 
H.S. Guru Raja Rao, Narasinga Rao, Y. Ramesh and Y. Raja Gopala 
Rao for the Appellant. 
Dr. K.P. Kyalashnath Prasad, G. Ramakrishna.Prasad, Mohd. Wasay 
Khan, Suvodhan B. Vt:nkat Subramanyam, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kumar 
Singh and M.P. Meharia for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SRIKRISHNA, J. : The appellant was initially appointed as a Lower 
Division Clerk through District Selection Committee on 6. l l. l 968 in the 
office of the District Panchayat. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk 
(re-designated as St:nior Assistant) with effect from 12. l 0.1970. The services 
of the appellant in the said category were regularised with effect from the 
same day. By an order issued on 12.5.1986, under Rule lO(a)(i) of the State 
and Subordinate Services Rules, the appellant and certain other emplo:;ees 
came to be appointed as "'Exknsion Officers (Pts.)" in the Andhra Pradesh 
Panchayati Raj (Executive Subordinatt:) Service. The appellant was allotted 
l 
l 
S. NARA Y ANA v. MD. AHMEDULLA KHAN [SRlKRlSHNA, J.] 71 
to Nizamabad District. The said order made it clear that the appointment was 
A 
"Purely temporary" and that it was " ... liable to be terminated at any time 
without assigning reasons and without prior notice ... " and that such an 
appointment " ... would not confer on ... (him) ... any rights of probation or 
preferential claims for further appointment". 
By an order dated 24.9. 1988, the services of the appellant were 
B 
regularised in the category of Senior Assistant with effect

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