V.SREENIVASA REDDY AND ORS. versus GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 05-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

V. SREENIVASA REDDY AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
GOVT. OF AP. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 5, 1994 
[K RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules/Andhra Pradesh 
Panchayati Raj Engineering Service Rules: Rules 3, 4, lO(a) (i) (1), 10(3), C 
23(a), 33 Rule 5-Assistant Executive Enginee1"8"-Temporary appointments 
mad~Subsequently regularised-f'laced below the PSC candidates who were 
appointed prior to regularisation of the temporary appointees-!nter-se 
seniority between-Held: the temporary appointees cannot claim seniority over 
the PSC candidates. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 14--/nter-se seniority between PSC candidates and temporarily 
appointed candidates subsequently regularised after appointment of PSC, 
candidates--Regularised temporary appointees placed below PSC can-
didates-Held: not arbitrary and hence not violative of equality clause. 
E 
The appellants were temporarily appointed between March 6 and 
August 19, 1980 under Rule lO(a) (I) (1) of the Andhra Pradesh State and 
Subordinate Service Rules by the Chief Engineer to the Andhra Pradesh 
Panchayat Raj Engineering Service. 
F 
In 1981 the A.P. Public Service Service Commission issued Notifica-
tion inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant 
Executive Engineers. Some persons appointed along with the appellants 
had taken the written tests and become eligible for interview and were 
interviewed in February and March, 1982. 
G 
The select list of 1981 direct recruits was prepared by the Service 
Commission and sent to the Government. Pending verification of their 
antecedents, the selected candidates were appointed and put on probation. 
In response to various representations, Government ordered for a H 
233 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
special qualifying test, but later withdrew the order. The temporary ap· 
pointees continued as such. 
B 
In August 1983, the Government directed regularisation of the tem-
porary appointees subject to certain conditions, the main among them 
being that their regularisation would be from the date subsequent to the 
last regular candidate or candidates appointed or allotted for appointment 
from the list of successful candidates drawn by the Service Commission 
based on the examination last held. Accordingly the Chief Engineer issued 
orders regularising the service of the appellants. 
C 
The respondents-PSC candidates who were appointed on May 14, 
1984 appealed to the Government contending that the Government order 
was misunderstood by the Chief Engineer; that the Government intended 
to give benefit to the PSC candidates last selected in 1981, but were ap-
pointed in 1984; and the respondents were entitled to seniority over the 
appellants who were regularised with effect from June 11, 1984, whereas 
D the respondents were appointed earlier i.e. on May 14, 1984. The Govern-
ment acceded to the respondents' plea. The matter reached the Tribunal 
and it upheld the Government Order giving seniority to the PSC candidates 
over the temporary appointees. Hence these appeals. 
E 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. The approved candidates within the meaning of Ruic 3(2) 
of Part I of Andbra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules (the 
Rules) are the Public Service Commission (PSC) candidates duly ap· 
pointed to the Panchayat Raj Engineering Service under Rule 3(1) and they 
become the members of the service from the date on which they started 
discharging the duties of the post borne on the cadre of Panchayati Raj 
Engineering Service. By operation of Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Panchayati Raj Engineering Service Rules (Special Rules), they were put 
on probation and they become members of the service and on declaration 
of probation, they become the approved probationers by operation of Rule 
G 3(3) of Part I of the Rules awaiting appointment as full members. 
[243-C, DJ 
2. It is seen that under Rule 3(2) of Part I of the Rules, the approved 
candidates from the list of candidates communicated by PSC, the PSC 
candidates, by operation of Rule 3(1) of Part I, become persons appointed 
H to the service from the date on which they started discharging the duties 
V.S. REDDY v. GOVT. OF AP. 
235 
of the posts bone on the cadre. They were appointed to the substantive post A 
by operation of Rule 4 of tbe Rules in the order of merit prepared by the 
PSC. On being put on probation under Rule 5 of the Specia

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