STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND V. RANGA RAO AND ORS. versus K. RANGANATHAN AND ORS. AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 912 · Decided: 21-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND V. RANGA RAO 
AND ORS. 
v. 
K. RANGANATHAN AND ORS. AND THE STATE OF 
ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
B 
AUGUST 21, 1990 
(P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Civil Services: Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service 
' 
Rules-Rule 22(ii)(c)-Deletion of-Junior Engineers-Transferred to 
c Electricity Board-Seniority List-Revised by Government-Validity 
of-G. O.Ms. No. I 166 dated 7. I 1.1973-Interpretation of. 
The appellants and the respondents who were originally appoin-
led as Junior Engineers in the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Subordinate 
D 
Service, were subsequently transferred along with other Junior 
_). 
Engineers to the State Electricity Board with effect from October I, 
1973 on the basis of options exercised by them to join the Board, in 
response to G.O.Ms. No. 1651 dated 28.12.1972. The terms and condi-
!ions of transfer were stipulated in G.O.Ms. No. 1166 dated 7. U .1973. 
E 
On the date of transfer, the seniority list of the Junior Engineers 
had not been finalised. Howe\'er a seniority list prepared by the State 
Public Service Commission, taking into account the deletion of rule 
'\ 
22(ii)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules with 
retrospective effect from April I, 1964, had been circulated among the 
concerned Junior Engineers for objections, if any, and most of them • 
• 
F 
including the petitioners and respondents, had submitted their objec-
--
lions before October I, 1973. 
• 
After the transfers were effected, the State Electricity Board pre-
pared a revised seniority list but the High Court struck down the same .... 
on the ground that the Board had no power to alter the seniority of the 
G trasferred employees, whose seniority was fixed by the Government. 
However, it observed that if the Government had retained any power 
under the transfer order it would be at liberty to revise the seniority list. 
In view of the aforesaid observations, the Government issued 
show cause notices once again to all the persons belonging to backward 
H classes (the respondents) for revising the seniority. 
>-
STATE OF A.P. v. K. RANGANATHAN 
913 
In a writ petition filed by the respondents for restraining the 
> 
Government from revising the seniority, a Single judge of .the High 
Court, upheld the power of the Government to revise the seniority list. 
During the pendency of appeal before the Division Bench, the Govern-
ment issued a final revised seniority list, vide G.O. No. 233 of May 23, 
I981. Thereafter, the Division Bench quashed the revised seniority list 
on the grounds that there was a declaration in G.O. of November 7, 
I 973 that.the exercise of the option was final, and since the Government 
and the Board had acted upon the option exercised by the employees 
,>. ~- and transferred them from Government service to the service of the 
Board, they were estopped from revising the seniority and similarly, the 
employees were estopped from claiming that their seniority should be 
-;, 
revised on any grounds whatsoever, that since the transfers were on "as 
-
is" basis which included seniority, the seniority could not be disturbed 
--
on any ground whatsoever, that the Government bad no power to alter 
the seniority of the employees after October I, I973 since they had 
:1.--
ceased to be Government employees, and the power given under Rule 
36A of the Rules to review the seniority could not be exercised to rectify 
the mistake, and that merely because the Board bad no jurisdiction to 
disturb the seniority so fixed, it did not follow that the Government 
continued to have jurisdiction in respect of those employees who were 
no more its employees. This decision was challenged in the appeals before 
this Court. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: I.I The Government had reserved the power, as it had 
every right to do so, to change the seniority of the employees as on 
October I, I973 or prior to that date when they were employees of the 
~ -
Government. It had not reserved the power, as it could not, to change 
the seniority of the employees after october I, 1973. Even if it so willed, 
( 
it could not have reserved power to change the seniority of the emp-
.._ loyees after October I, I973. Conversely the Government had always 
the power to revise the seniority list of the employees as on October I, 
I973 on account of reasons accruing prior to the said date. To do it. it . 
was not necessary for it to reserve any power, for it had inherent power 
to do so

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