THE STATE OF ANDHRA versus GADDAM VENKATAPPAYYA

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 45 · Decided: 08-12-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,.. 
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
45 
THE STATE OF ANDHRA 
v. 
GADDAM VENKATAPPAYYA 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Police Service-Officiating Sub.Inspector-Order of reversion as 
Head Constable-Validity-Rules relating to the Madras Police 
Subordinate Service, rr. 3, 4 and 5. 
The respondent, holding the substantive rank of a Head 
Constable in the Madras Police Service, was promoted to officiate 
as a probationary Sub-Inspector and, on the completion of the 
period of probation, placed in the category of approved proba-
tioners for confirmation when substantive vacancies arose. 
Instead of being confirmed he was, for administrative reasons, 
reverted to his substantive post as the number of vacancies in 
the post of Sub-Inspectors was not sufficient to include him. 
Having failed to obtain redress from the Government, he moved 
the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 
Annexure r of r. 3 of the service rules provided that the 
percentage of promotions from the rank of Head Constable to 
that of Sub-Inspector was to be "upto not more than 30% of 
the cadre", but provided no limitation for direct recruitment, 
r. 4 provided that no vacancy shall be filled by the appointment 
of a person who had not yet commenced his probation when an 
approved probationer or a probationer was available; cl. (a) of 
r. 5 provided that, for want of vacancy, the probationers were to 
be discharged first in order of juniority and thereafter the 
approved probationers in order of juniority and cl. (b) provided 
that this order of discharge might be departed from in cases 
involving, among others, exceptional administrative inconve~ 
nience. 
The Single Judge, who heard the matter, held that there 
was a violation of r. 3 of the Service Rules and directed the 
State not to give effect to the order of reversion if by virtue of 
his seniority he could be included within the 30% prescribed for 
rank-promotees by that rule. The Division Bench, on appeal, 
disagreed with the trial Judge as to the scope of r. 3 but dismiss-
ed the appeal holding that the rule as to juniority prescribed by 
r. 5 of the service rules had not been strictly observed. The 
State filed an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court. 
Held, that the words "upto and not more than 30% of the 
cadre" in the Annexure r tor. 3, construed in the context of the 
provision relating to direct recruits which prescribes no limita-
tion, clearly fix 30 as the maximum percentage of promotions 
r960 
DectJmber
6 8. 
The Slate of 
Andhra 
v. 
Gadd am 
Venkatappayya 
Ayyangar ]. 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961) 
from the rank of Head Constables to the post of Sub-Inspectors 
and leave the appointing authorities free to adopt any other 
percentage below that figure. There could, therefore, be 
no infraction of the rule if the percentage of rank-promotees 
was less than 30% of the total nu11Jber of the Sub-Inspectors on 
the date of the reversion in question. 
Rule 4, which regulate9 the right of probationers and 
approved probationers to confirmation, applies only to the stage 
prior to confirmation when the integration of the rank-promotees 
and the direct recruits takes place so as to form a united service 
and the proportion prescribed by .r. 3 has effect. That rule has 
to be separately applied to the two classes and, consequently, 
there was no violation of that rule in appointing direct recruits 
to substantive posts in preference to the responde11t. 
Under r. 5(a) the juniority for purposes of reversion has, on 
the same reasoning, to be determined separately for the direct 
recruits and the rank-promotees who constitute separate 
classes. 
· 
Even otherwise, the impugned order could be sustained 
under r. 5(b) in view of the case of administrative inconvenience 
made by the Government and accepted by the Courts below. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 506 of 1957. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 
21, 1955, of the High Court of Andhra, Guntur, in 
Writ Appeal No. 122 of 1954. 
K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and D. Gupta, for the 
appellant. 
T. V. R. Tatachari, for the respondent. 
1960. December 8. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
AYYANGAR, J.-This appeal by the State of Andhra 
is from the judgment of the High Court, Andhra, 
dated July 21, 1955, on a certificate under Art. 133(1) 
(c) of the Constitution. 
The respondent joined the Madras Police Force a

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