LexV. SUBBA RAO AND OTHERS versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF AP. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- V. SUBBA RAO AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF AP. AND OTHERS FEBRUARY 27, 1996 (AM. AHMADI, CJ, SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) Service Law : Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1966: Rules 3( 17) and 4. Reversio1t-Employees holdingLast Grade Post-Promoted to the post of Junior Assistants-Reverted to 01iginal posts on ground of non-completion A B c of 5 years service in last grade-Held: Rule 4(2) prescribing less than 5 years se1vice in last grade for promotion within Ministerial Se1vice~Not ap- D plicablt--R.ule 3( 17) which prescdbes minimum five years of se1vice ap- plicable-Hence reversion justified. The petitioners were the children of deceased employees of the respondents and were appointed on compassionate grounds under the E quota for deceased employees' children on a consolidated pay. Sub- sequently they were appointed as regular employees on a regular scale of pay and were promoted to the post of Junior Assistants. A show-cause notice was issued to them to show cause why they should not be reverted to their Last Grade Post since five years' service in the Last Grade Post was required for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. They had F worked only for about three years in the Last Grade Post. They submitted their explanation and contended that for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, the minimum qualifying service was ordinarily three years and in no case less than two years. However, in view of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial G Service Rules, 1966 which required a minimum of five years service in the Last Grade for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant the contentions raised by the petitioners were rejected by the respondents and they were reverted to their original posts. Being aggrieved by this order they filed applications before the State Administrative Tribunal challenging their H 1081 ·, ) 1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R. A order of reversion, which were dismissed. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's -4 B judgment the petitioners preferred the present Special Leave petitions contending that they were entitled to the benefit of Rule 4(2) or in the alternative, to the benefit of G.O.M. No. 627. Dismissing the petitions, this Court HELD : 1.1. G.O.M. No. 627 deals only with promotions within the service and transfers. It applies to a member of a service when he is promoted from a lower post to a higher post in the same service. It does not, however, deal with promotions/appointme~ts from a lower grade C service to a post in a higher grade service. [1084-C; G] 1.2. In the present case, the petitioners have been promoted as Junior Assistants. The post of Junior Assistant is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1966. Rule 3(17) specifically prescribes a minimum service of five years in the Last Grade Service for promotion D to the post of Junior Assistants in the Ministerial Service. This Rule applies to the petitioners. It is a later amendment which directly applies to the post in question and must prevail over any general Ad hoc Rule promulgated earlier. [1085-C; F-G] 1.3. Rule 4(2) which deals with promotion within the Ministerial E Services if applicable for promotion from the lower category or post to the next higher category or post. This Rule applies only to promotions within the service, of members of the service and has no application to recruit-. ments made under Rule 3. [1086-A; C-D] F G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9268-70of1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.94 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA Nos. 2582, 2686 and 2715 of 1993. Rajiv Dhavan, R. Santhana Krishnan and KR. Nagaraja for the Petitioners. G. Prabhakar for the Respondents. H The following Judgment. of the Court was delivered by ~.· / J; /,' ~ , \ ' ,_;. - \-· -·.' "-- .-- -- ·'· - - . \. V.SUBBARAOv.OOVI'.PAN6J.AYATRAJ ANDRUR.ALDEV.[MitS.SUJATA V.MAN'OHAR.J.J 1083 -- ...... - ~ • 0 MRS. SUJATA V •. MANOHAR, 1'.' The petitioners wer~ originally 'A employees of Zilla Praja Parishads of various Districts· in the State. of Aridhra Pradesh. The petitioners are the children of deceased employees of the res pendents. In or around December 1983 they were appointed by the respondents on compassionate .grounds as Watchinen etc. under the . quota for decease
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.