THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus P. BHASKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 27-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 589 
.. 
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
P. BHASKAR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.1617-1618 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 27, 2008 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND D.K. JAIN, J.] 
~ 
,f 
Service Law - Seniority: 
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules -
rr.22(ii)(e) and 33 - Post of Dy. Collector - 2!3rd vacancies c 
required to be filled µp by promotion - Dearth of ST candidates 
for promotion -
State Government decided to fill up 12 
promotional posts reserved for ST candidates by limited direct 
recruitment of ST candidates - Public Service Commission 
issued advertisement for selection of Dy. Collectors, both by D 
"general recruitment" and "limited recruitment" - Applications 
... --
before Tribunal challenging the selection process - Tribunal 
directed holding of separate examination for "limited 
recruitment" candidates - By the time this separate 
examination was conducted, "general recruitment" candidates E 
already selected and appointed - Dy. Collectors selected by 
"limited recruitment" appointed in 1994 -
They claimed 
seniority over Dy. Collectors selected by "general recruitment" 
and appointed in 1993 - Claim allowed by High Court on 
ground that r.22(ii)(e) was applicable - Justification of- Held: 
F 
t 
Not justified, since r.22(ii)(e) was inapplicable. 
213rd vacancies of Deputy Collectors in the Andhra 
Pradesh State Service were required to be filled up by 
promotion. There was dearth of ST candidates for being 
promoted to the post of Deputy Collectors. The State G 
Government decided to fill up 12 promotional posts 
reserved for ST candidates by limited direct recruitment 
of ST candidates. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service 
' 
Commission issued advertisement for selection of Deputy 
589 
H 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A Collectors, both by "general recruitment" and "limited 
recruitment". Applications were filed before the 
Administrative Tribunal challenging the selection process. 
The Tribunal directed that there should be a separate 
examination for the "limited recruitment" candidates and 
B by the time this separate examination was conducted, the 
"general recruitment" candidates were already selected 
and appointed. The Deputy Collectors selected by "limited 
recruitment" were appointed w.e.f. 9-12-1994. They filed 
application before the Tribunal claiming entitlement to be 
c placed above the Deputy Collectors selected by general 
recruitment who had been appointed to the service one 
year earlier i.e. w.e.f. 9-12-1993. The Tribunal rejected the 
claim of seniority. The High Court, however, upheld the 
claim holding that Rule 22(ii)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh 
D State and Subordinate Sevice Rules was applicable and 
that the candidates selected by "limited recruitment" were 
not at fault for the delay in their appointment. Hence the 
present appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. The Deputy Collectors appointed vide 
G.O.M. Order No. 1251 dated 9.12.1994 are not entitled to 
be placed above the Deputy Collectors who were 
appointed vide G.O.M. Order No. 1265 dated 9.12.1993. 
F 
[Para 17] [601-E, F] 
2.1. Rule 22(ii)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and 
Subordinate Sevice Rules is applicable only when there 
is general recruitment and when there were no reserved 
candidates, these posts were to be filled up by a limited 
G recruitment. Such a limited recruitment should be held 
immediately after the general recruitment is made. The rule 
22(ii)(e) is intended to protect the interests of the reserved 
candidates. But as these 12 vacancies came to be 
converted from the promotion vacancies, they had a 
different channel of limited recruitment as the candidates 
H 
.. 
• 
~ 
~ 
'4111
~ 
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. 
591 
P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.] 
,,., 
were not available for promotion. [Para 15] [600-F, G; A 
-. 
601-A] 
2.2. Such recruitment, however, could not be done 
by the Public Service Commission in time, thereby their 
appointment could be made much after the general 
B 
recruitment. As the facts disclose, there was only one 
general recruitment and that was followed by the limited 
.... 
I 
recruitment of these 12 posts. It may be due to the delay 
caused by the Public Service Commission that there could 
not be timely appointment of the candidates who were 
recruited by limited recruitment. However, various orders c 
passed by the Tribunal also stood in the way of having 
recruitment as schedule

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