SANTOSH KUMAR versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 264 · Decided: 22-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SANTOSH KUMAR 
V. 
ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
MAY 22, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ] 
Service Law: 
A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1962-Rule 47-Promotion 
C on temporary basis without following the Rules prior to direct recruitment-
Consequent relaxation of recruitment Rules and regularization of services of 
promotees with retrospective effect from the date of their temporary promotion-
Relaxation challenged by direct recruit as it affected his seniority-Rule under 
which relaxation given not challenged and no ma/ajides established-Tribunal 
D held Government competent to relax the Rules-However, retrospective 
regularization held invalid as the temporary promotion was not as per Rules-
High Court held that even if promotion was not as per Rules, the officiating 
services could be counted for the purpose of seniority-On appeal, held: Once 
the services of the promotees were regularized that too in the promotee quota, 
it cannot be said that their initial appointment was on ad-hoc basis and not 
E according to Rules. 
Posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police were apportioned between direct 
recruits and promotees. Some Head Constables including Respondent No.4 
were appointed temporarily as Out of Seniority Sub-Inspectors (OSSI) in 
F 1983 without following recruitment Rules. Appellant was appointed as 
direct recruit in 1985. Between 1996 and 1997 State Government relaxed 
recruitment rules and regularized the services of the promotees w.e.f. the 
date of their temporary appointment. As the relaxation of Rules affected 
the seniority of the appellant, he filed application before State 
Administrative Tribunal challenging the relaxation of the Rules and 
G consequential regularization. Tribunal held that Government was 
competent to relax the Rules in exercise of its powers under Section 47 of 
the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 with retrospective 
effect, but, the services rendered by the respondent and other OSSls, could 
not be counted as officiating service for determining their seniority as their 
H 
264 
SANTOSH KUMAR v. STATE 
265 
appointments were not in accordance with the rules and the retrospective A 
regularization adversely affected the interest of the appellant; and that 
any notional dates of relaxation given to them affecting the seniority of 
regularly appointed Sub-Inspectors could not be held valid. High Court 
allowed the writ petitions holding that recruitment rules could be relaxed 
with retrospective effect and even if initial appointments of the promotees B 
were not made in accordance with Rules, their officiating services could 
be counted for the purpose of seniority as they continued in the post 
uninterruptedly till the regularization of their services. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD:l. The respondent was admittedly promoted on temporary 
basis as OSSI prior to the recruitment of the appellant. Once his services 
were regularized that too in the promotee quota, the appellant being direct 
recruit cannot make any grievance. In this view it cannot be said that the 
appellant was an affected person for want of notice before passing the D 
order of relaxation to question the seniority of the respondent. The 
Tribunal was not right in saying that any notional date of relaxation was 
given to the respondent affecting the seniority of the appellant. In fact, 
service of the respondent was regularized from the actual date on which 
he was temporarily promoted as OSSI which was permissible. 
(276-E; 269-F) E 
2. The respondent and others were appointed as Sub-Inspectors out 
of seniority looking to the outstanding merit and record prior to the direct 
recruits like the appellant. Their services were admittedly regularized by 
relaxing the Service Rules in exercise of power available under Rule 47 F 
of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962. The appellant did not 
challenge the validity of Rule 47 and no malafides were established against 
the authorities in exercise of powers of relaxation under the said Rule. 
The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the rule relating to the method 
of recruitment was not relaxed but only the conditions which had to be 
fulfilled for the purpose of promotion to the category of sub-Inspector were G 
relaxed; this finding is not disturbed by the High Court; there was no 
relaxation as to the basic qualification; the State Government regularized 
the services of the

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