V. BHASKER RAO AND ORS. versus STATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 23-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
V. BHASKER RAO AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 23, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) 
B 
Andhra Pradesh Stare Higher Judicial Service Rules 1, 2, 4 and 6: 
Andhra Pradesh Stare and Subordinate Service Rules, Rule JO(a)(i)-Andhra 
Pradesh Higher Judicial Service-District and Sessions Judges-Direct 
Recruits and Promorees-lnter se seniority-Fixation of-On the basis of con-
C 
tinuous length of service. 
Recruitment to the Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial Service is 
governed by "The Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service-Special 
Rules". Rule 1 constitutes the service. Category I consists of District and 
Sessions Judges 1st grade and Category II consists of District and Ses- D 
sions Judges, Second Grade. Appointment to Category I is from Category 
II. Appointment to Category II is from two sources by transfer from 
amongst the Subordinate Judges and by direct recruitment from the Bar. 
The petitioner were direct recruits whereas respondents 4 to 16 were E 
promoted from the Subordinate judiciary. The respondents were initially 
appointed on temporary basis in the year 1978/1979 but they were made 
substantive in the year 1983. The petitioners who were appointed substan· 
lively in the year 1981 claimed seniority over the said respondents, and 
filed the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution or India for 
relier. 
F 
It was contended on their behalf that: (1) The Service consists of only 
permanent posts, there is no provision under the Special Rules for adding 
temporary posts to the cadre, consequently the appointment or respon-
dents 4 to 16 to the post or District and Sessions Judges, Second Grade G 
on temporary basis can at best be treated under Rule 10(a)(i) or the 
~ 
Andhr.l Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules. (2) The temporary 
service rendered by the respondents 4 to 16 being outside the cadre- cannot 
be counted towards seniority. (3) Porviso to Rule 2 and Rule 6 or the 
Special Rules have to be read together, and as such the permanent vacan· 
cies having been made available for them in the year 1983 their service H 
547 
,, . 
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
prior to that date cannot be counted towards seniority. 
B 
c 
The respondents constested the writ petition by contending that the 
petitioners were appointed in the year 1981 and since then till the year 
1988, twelve seniority lists have been published showing the petitioners 
below respondents 4 to 16, and at no point of time they challenged the 
seniority lists in the Court. Even when the Writ Petition T.H.B. Chalapathi 
& Ors. v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., was pending in the High 
Court they did uot intervene. The petitioners were thus guilty of .gross 
delay and latches and as such are not entitled to get relief in the Writ 
Petition. 
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court, 
HELD: 1. (i) Rule 1 has to be interpreted to mean that the service 
_,r 
under the Special Rules consists of all the posts-permanent and tem-
porary-which have been designated as District and Sessions Judge Second 
D Grade. Even otherwise in the absence of any prohibition under the Special 
Rules, the State Government can always create temporary posts as addi-
tions to the cadre. (554 BJ 
(ii) Rule Hl(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate 
Service Rules has no application to the Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial 
E Service which is governed by the Special Rules. Rule lO(a)(i) provides for 
~'r 
F 
G 
emergency appointments made on stop gap basis to meet a temporary 
exigency. Apart from that the temporary appointments under the said 
Rules are made without following the procedure prescribed under the 
Rules governing the relevant Service. (554 C-D] 
In the instant case, the appointments of respondents 4 to 16 were 
made under Rule 2 of the Special Rules by the State Government in 
consultation with the High Court. The Special Rules provide a complete 
scheme for the appointment and seniority of the members of the Service. 
(554 DJ 
2. Temporary posts of District and Sessions Judges Second Grade 
being part of the Service, the seniority has to be counted on the basis of length 
of service including the service against the temporary posts. (554 Fl 
3. Rule 6 of the Special Rules is in no way dependent on the proviso 
H to Rule 2 of the Special Rules. Both are to be operative independently. In 
--
·~·· 
-
V. BHASKER v. STATE OF AP. [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 
549 
the scheme of the rules, the seni

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