STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus DR. N. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND ORS. M. PANDURANGA RAJU AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 03-05-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

·~ 
)._ 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
DR. N. RAMACHANDRA P.AO AND ORS. 
M. PANDURANGA RAJU AND ORS. 
MAY 3, 1990 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
Services: The Special Rules for the A.P. Medical and Health 
Services, 1982-Rules 2 and JO-Teaching and Non-Teaching Cadres-
Promotion to the post of Additional Director of Medical and Health 
Services and equivalent posts-Seniority determined in order of spe-
ciality should not be basis for promotion-Proper amendment of Word-
ings of rules with perspicuity-Need for. 
A.P. Subordinate Services Rules-Rule 33(a)-Seniority-
Determination of. 
Under Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the A.P. Medical and Health 
Services, 1982, which provided for the method of recruitment to diffe-
rent classes and categories in the A.P. Medical and Health Services. 
there were three requirements for eligibility for consideration for pro-
motion to the Class I, Category I posts of Additional Director (Medical 
Education) and equivalent posts. These were (i) the person should be in 
categories 2 and 3 posts of Professors, (ii) he should have a minimum 
service of two years in the said categories, and (iii) he should have a 
total service of not less than three years. 
The respondents were all originally recruited as Civil Assistant 
Surgeons, upon selection by the State Public Service Commission. In 
the Select List prepared by the Commission, respondents No. I to 12 
were recruited above the other respondents. However, they were not 
· considered for promotion to the category of Additional Director and 
other equivalent posts. Hence the aggrieved respondents took their 
grievance to the State Administrative Tribunal. The dispute before the 
Tribunal was whether the requirement of three years service should be 
only in Class I, Categories 2 and 3, or it was inclusive of service in Class 
II. The Tribunal held that it should be on the basis of total period of 
service including in the lower categories, subject to the condition that 
the person should be holding the post of Professor or equivalent post for 
at least two years. 
55 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the State, it was 
contended that the seniority for zone of consideration for promotion 
should always be of the feeding cadre and not from any other cadre, and 
that the minimum of three years must be in Class I in any category and 
can never be in Class II service. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HEW: I. I The juniors who get accelerated promotion on account 
of fortuitous circumstances depending upon their speciality and availa-
bility of vacancies in such speciality should not be allowed to march 
over their seniors for appointment to administrative posts. Any 
advantage gained by jQniors on such fortuitous circumstances of having 
C some speciality and p~i>motion should not impair the rights of their 
seniors for promotion to posts where speciality or teaching experience is 
not called for. The seniority determined jn order of speciality should 
not, therefore, be the basis for promotlow to administrative posts.· Any 
rule providing for the contrary may be vulnerable to attack on the 
D ground of arbitrariness. [62G-H; 63A] 
1.2 It would be unreasonable and unjust to exclude the service 
and overlook the vertical seniority in the substantive cadre to which 
everyone was selected by the Public Service Commission. In medical 
profession, there are specialities but it is generally accepted that they 
E are not of equal importance or utility. However, the promotions are 
allowed on the basis of the respective specialities and the availability of 
promotional vacancies in such specialities. A junior with relatively less 
important speciality may be fortunate enough to get quick promotion 
than his senior with a different speciality. [62E-G] 
F 
1.3 The seniority in the category of professors in the teaching and 
non-teaching cadre or in the lower cadre based on speciality-wise will 
not be relevant for preparation of a panel for promotion to the cadre of 
Additional Director and other equivalent posts in Category I. Equally. 
the service rendered as Deputy Civil Surgeon in Category S cannot also 
he the basis for preparing the panel for consideration. Furth.r more. 
G Rule 2 does not expressly exclude the service in Class II Cadre for 
preparing panel for consideration for promotion to the Category of 
Additional Director and equi

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