S. SREEDHAR REDDY & ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 23-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

904 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 904 
S. SREEDHAR REDDY & ORS. 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 795of2017) 
JANUARY 23, 2017 
[.)'. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Service Law - Seniority - Inter-se seniority - Appellants ·and 
the private respondents appointed as Station Fire Officers (SFOs) 
by direct recruitment - SFO appointed through direct recruitment 
required to pass three tests. within the period of probation -
However, in the· instant case, Government exempted SF Os from third 
test - Fire Service Department vide memorandum/G 0. issued final 
seniority list by which appellants were placed above the private 
respondents on basis that they had passed prescribed tests (other 
than exeinpted test) within the period of probation and p,:ivate 
respondents had passed the tests thereafter - Aggrieved, private 
respondents filed 0.A. against memorandum/G. 0. before 
Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed - However, High Court 
quashed the memorandum/G 0. - On appeal, held: In the instant 
case, firstly, respondents successfully cleared probation - Secondly, 
respondents passed two tests - Thirdly, Government itself exempted 
the respondents.from appearing in the third test - Lastly, the Rules 
did not provide for creation of two classes between employees 
working in one cadre (SFO) -Nojustification·on part a/Government 
for issuing memorandum/G 0. for determination of inter-se seniority 
by making classification - Thus, High Court rightly quashed the 
memorandum/G 0. being irrational, unreasonable and contrary to 
the Rules - Andhra Pradesh Fire Subordinate Service Rules - rr. 9, 
12 -A.P. State and Subordinate Service R71/es, 1996 - r.16{h). 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the 
private respondent herein (original applicants before the Tribunal) 
being the direct recruits had cleared two tests as provided in 
Rule 12(i) and (ii) oftheAndhra Pradesh Fire Subordinate Service 
Rules though late but with the permission of the State. It is also 
904 
S. SREEDHAR REDDY & ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF 
ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
not in dispute that so far as the third test, as provided in Rule 12 
(iii) was concerned, the respondents and all .others alike them in 
the same cadre were exempted from passing vide GO.Ms No.454 
of 2009 dated 6.11.2009 issued by the State Government. It is 
further not in dispute that the private respondents had also 
completed their probation successfully. [Para 28) [910-B-Cj · 
2.1 In light of the undisputed facts, it is clear that the GO./ 
memorandum in question had created two classes amongst SFOs 
for determination of their inter se seniority, namely, one class which 
cleared the two tests in time and other class which cleared the 
tests late. The two classes created by the impugned GO dated 
22.05.2012 for determination of inter se seniority of SFOs had 
resulted in disturbing the seniority list. [Para 29) [910-D-E) 
2.2 On a perusal of the relevant Rules, which have bearing 
over the controversy at hand, namely, A.P. Fire Subordinate 
Service Rules and A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rides, it is 
seen that these Rules do not empower the State to make the 
classification as was sought be done by the State for determining 
the inter se seni!irity of SFOs in this case. [Para 30) [910-F) 
2.3 Taking into account the undisputed facts mentioned 
above and the Rules governing the probation and the seniority, 
there was neither any justifiable basis for creation of such 
classification nor it satisfied the requirement ofihe Rules which 
governed determination of their inter se seniority. In other words, 
firstly, when the respondents successfully cleared their probation, 
secondly, when the respondents cleared two tests, thirdly, when 
the Government itself exempted the respondents from appearing 
in the third test, and lastly, when the Rules did not provide for 
creation of two classes between the employees working in one 
Cadre (SFO), there was no justification on the pan of the 
Government to have issued G.O. dated 22.05.2012 for 
determination of inter se seniority by making classification. (Para 
31] [910-G-H; 911-A-B] 
3. The High Cou'rt had rightly quashed the GO dated 
22.05.2012 being irrational, unreasonable and contrary to the 
Rules. The findings of the High Court are correct and there is 
no good ground to interfere in its reasoning. [Para 33) (911-D) 
905 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 

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