M.Ramana Kumar Vs the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative

“…To issue Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the direction issued by the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies to the 2^nd respondent Bank found in proceedings

¶17

2

¶18

Rc.No.13151/2004/Z-IV-I, dated 18.05.2004 as illegal and contrary to law and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to refrain from altering the inter se seniority of 1996-97 batch of directly recruited managers in any other manner while by following their merit ranking and on the above basis, direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the claims of the petitioners herein for promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager ahead of any other 1996-97 batch directly recruited manager and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶19

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶20

(a) The 2^nd respondent Bank issued notification dated 22.05.1996 inviting applications for the post of Managers in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Kurnool. As per the notification, it was proposed to fill up 11 posts earmarked for different categories of candidates, five vacancies in the unreserved category (UR), two for scheduled caste (SC), one for scheduled tribe (ST), one for backward class (BC-A), one for backward class (BC-B), and one for the physically handicapped (PH) category.

¶21

(b) In pursuance to the selection made, the writ petitioners

¶22

came to be appointed as Managers. The inter se seniority of the selected candidates came to be prepared based on merit. writ petitioners 1 and 2, who secured highest marks i.e., 144 and 136 respectively, stood at serial numbers 1 & 2 and unofficial respondents were placed lower in the list as per their respective

¶23

3

¶24

marks. The 2^nd respondent has published the final seniority list by memo dated 05.05.2000 and objections were invited to the same to be submitted within 30 days therefrom and in case no objections were received, it is stated that the final seniority list so communicated would be treated as final. It is the case of the petitioners that no objections were raised within the window period, therefore, the list so communicated by memo dated 05.05.2000 became final.

¶25

(c) As per the said list, the writ petitioners stood at serial Nos. 5 and 6, whereas respondents 3, 4 & 5 at Serial Nos.8, 10 and 13. Later, the 1^st respondent has issued impugned proceedings dated 18.05.2004 communicating the 2^nd respondent that the inter se seniority has to be revised as per merit-cum-roster. It triggered the writ petitioners to institute the present writ petition.

¶26

(d) The writ petitioners also filed interlocutory applications seeking for interim relief of restraining the respondents to alter the inter se seniority among the Managers, who were recruited in pursuance to the notification of the year 1996 and this Court, accordingly, granted interim relief as prayed for and the same has been continued from time to time. Eventually, basing on the

¶27

4

¶28

seniority list dated 05.05.2000, promotions came to be effected from the post of Manager to Assistant General Manager. Assailing such promotions, basing on the seniority list as communicated by memo dated 05.05.2000, respondents 3 & 4 in W.P.No.12117 of 2004 preferred W.P.No.27150 of 2006.

¶29

Both these Writ Petitions are tagged together and are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

¶30

The 2^nd respondent in W.P.No.12117 of 2004 filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that after issuance of the final seniority list dated 05.05.2000, some of the Managers had raised objections and in order to consider such objections, the 2^nd respondent has placed the matter before the person in charge during the meeting held on 28.01.2001 and further decision was taken to address the matter to the 1^st respondent for guidance on fixation of seniority among the Managers. It is only thereafter, the 1^st respondent has issued proceedings dated 18.05.2004, clarifying that the seniority of the directly recruited Managers in the bank be made in accordance with Rule 33(b) and 22A of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules by following merit-cum-roster. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent intended to revise the seniority list accordingly. It is also stated

¶31

5

¶32

that the recruitment that was undertaken in the year 1997 did not follow the running roster in the category of Managers as recruitment had taken place for first time. Lastly that the guidelines issued by the 1^st respondent since were binding on the 2^nd respondent, they would have to follow the same.

¶33

Respondents 3 & 4 have not chosen to file any counter affidavit except for advancing arguments during the hearing.

¶34

Respondent 5 in the implead petition tried to support the impugned proceedings issued by the 1^st respondent, which envisaged fixing of seniority based on merit-cum-roster.

¶35

Respondent Nos.3 & 4, who are the petitioners in W.P.No.27150 of 2006, in the pleadings made therein have taken the stand that the seniority in the cadre of Manager has to be fixed by the Bank considering Rule 33(b) and 22(a) of the A.P State and Subordinate Services Rules, which envisaged that merit-cum-roster has to be followed. The 1^st petitioner therein since belongs to OC (W) and the 2^nd petitioner belongs to BC (A), were required to be accommodated as per the roster points for the purpose of determining the inter se seniority. However, the bank, without adhering to the aforesaid Rules, prepared the seniority list based on merit, which is clearly in contravention to

¶36

6

¶37

the aforesaid rules. In sum and substance, the pleading raised in the writ petition was that though the writ petitioners therein and the unofficial respondents were recruited under the very same notification, the inter se seniority ought to have been arranged considering the roster and merit but not merit alone.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.12117 of 2004, learned counsel for unofficial respondents 3, 4 and 5 and learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that once the recruitment is undertaken by following the relevant applicable Rules, which even include the roster, for the purpose of arranging inter se seniority among such selected candidates, the question of applying the roster once again does not arise. This issue is no more res integra , as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana¹ , which later came to be followed in Manoj Parihar and others vs. State of Jammu and Kasmir and others² , wherein it was held that the roster system is only meant for the purpose of ensuring that the quantum of reservation is reflected in the recruitment process and has nothing to do with inter se seniority among those recruited. Therefore, the roster

¶40

1 (2003) 5 SCC 604

¶41

2 (2002) 14 SCC 72

¶42

7

¶43

points do not determine the seniority of the appointees, who were appointed collectively under the very same notification. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Composite High Court in S.S.L.Narayana and Others vs. CH. Madhu Mohan Rao and Others³ .

¶44

He further contended that since the final seniority list was communicated by memo dated 05.05.2000 and no objections were ever raised thereto within the window period of 30 days after such communication, any belated objections deserve no consideration and the seniority list so published would attain finality. Therefore, the question of revising or re-opening the inter se seniority list does not arise. To buttress such argument, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.S. Bajwa and Another v. State of Punjab and Others⁴ . Lastly, he contended that the main circular runs contrary to Rule 33(a) & (b) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules. In particular, the reliance being placed on Rule 22 is completely misplaced, inasmuch as by G.O.Ms.No.603, dated 06.11.1992, clarification has been issued by way of adhoc rules, inter alia , stating that for the purpose of seniority, only merit

¶45

3 2014 SCC OnLine AP 73

¶46

4 (1998) 2 SCC 523

¶47

8

¶48

has to be considered but not the roster, which is clearly in line with the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to above.

¶49

Per contra , Smt. Shesha Rajyam, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent Bank, submitted that as the selection to 11 posts notified in the year 1996 was not strictly based on roster, though final seniority list came to be prepared, the matter was referred to the 1^st respondent seeking necessary clarification. Only based on such clarification, which inter alia stated that seniority has to be determined on the basis of merit and roster, the exercise of revising the seniority list was warranted. However, she submitted that after the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimlesh Tanvar and others , as followed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Composite High Court, the respondents are following Rule 33(a) & (b) in true letter and spirit by considering only merit but not the roster. Insofar as the recruitment made in the year 1996 to the posts of Manager is concerned, the promotions were effected only on adhoc basis, subject to the outcome in the present writ petition, and both the writ petitioners as well as the contesting respondents have

¶50

9

¶51

already been promoted to the next higher post as per their eligibility otherwise.

¶52

She further submitted that the unofficial respondents did not raise any objections; however, certain other stakeholders raised objections. It is also to be noted that the petitioners did not raise any objections to the seniority list and later chose to file the writ petition only after effect was given to the seniority list, that too in the year 2006. Therefore, the seniority list had attained finality insofar as the petitioners are concerned, and clearly the institution of the writ petition in the year 2006 is hit by delay and laches.

¶53

Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents tried to support the impugned proceedings issued by the 1^st respondent, which intended to drop the final seniority list based on merit and roster.

¶54

Perused the record and considered the respective submissions made by the respective learned counsel.

¶55

It is not in dispute that both the writ petitioners and the contesting respondents were selected to the post of Manager in pursuance of the notification dated 22.05.1996, which intended to recruit 11 posts of Managers in the 2^nd respondent Bank. The

¶56

10

¶57

seniority list, as communicated in the selection process, has arranged the candidates based on the marks secured by them. The writ petitioners, having secured 144 and 136 marks respectively, stood at Serial numbers 1 and 2, and the unofficial respondents were placed below the writ petitioners as per the marks secured by them. The 2^nd respondent has undertaken the exercise of preparing the inter se seniority list of Managers working in the Bank, which included not only those who were recruited pursuant to the notification of the year 1996, but also all other Managers as well. The seniority list prepared on 31.03.2000 placed the writ petitioners at serial numbers 5 and 6, whereas the unofficial respondents at serial numbers 8, 10, and 13 respectively. By memo dated 05.05.2000, the 2^nd respondent communicated the said seniority list and called for objections from

¶58

the aggrieved persons within 30 days thereof, and it was also stated that if no objections were received within such time, the list so communicated would be treated as final. Thus, the said list, which was communicated, apparently was prepared based on merit, and nowhere is it suggested that the roster of the respective candidates was taken into consideration. The writ petitioners stated that no objections were raised to the said notification and, therefore, it had attained finality. However, in the

¶59

11

¶60

counter filed by the 2^nd respondent, it is stated that some of the Managers did object to the seniority list and, therefore, the matter was placed before the then person in-charge and eventually got escalated to the 1^st respondent seeking necessary instructions, which resulted in the issuance of proceedings dated 18.05.2004. The counter affidavit does not specifically deal with the nature of objections received and from which quarter of Managers such objections were raised, or whether the unofficial respondents did raise any objections and the nature of such objections.

¶61

In the background of afore stated, the impugned memo dated 18.05.2004, which directed the 2^nd respondent, by way of clarification to fix the seniority of directly recruited Managers by following the merit-cum-roster, is required to be examined. It is not in dispute that the respondents are governed by the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules. Rule 33 deals with seniority. In particular, Rule 33(b) specifically envisages the manner in which seniority has to be drawn and contemplates that the order of merit has to be followed while preparing the seniority list. Keeping in view the aforesaid governing rules, it is also required to be noted that except Rules 33(a) and 33(b), as mentioned above, there is no rule which prescribes preparation of

¶62

12

¶63

the seniority list in any other manner. The Division Bench of the Composite High Court, in the case of S.S.L. Narayana and others (referred supra ) had an occasion to consider more or less similar issue, wherein the petitioners therein intended to canvass that seniority has to be decided as per the roster in terms of Rule 22(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, but not on merit alone. Rejecting the contention so advanced, the Division Bench, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B imlesh Tanwar and others , held that roster points cannot constitute the basis for fixation of seniority. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while revising the entire case law on the aforesaid issue, in the case of Manoj Parihar and others , held as under:

¶64

“ 29. Thus, the principle of law discernible from all the aforesaid decisions of this Court is that the roster system is only for the purpose of ensuring that the quantum of reservation is reflected in the recruitment process it has nothing to do with the inter se seniority among those recruited. To put it in other words, the roster points do not determine the seniority of the appointees who gain simultaneous appointments; that is to say, those who are appointed collectively on the same date or are deemed to be appointed on the same date, irrespective of when they joined their posts. The position of law as discussed above could be said to be prevailing even while the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir decided by a Full Court Resolution to determine the seniority on the basis of roster points.”

¶65

13

¶66

17. Keeping in view the ratio laid down above, this Court has

¶67

no option other than to quash the impugned proceedings issued by the 1^st respondent, inasmuch as the same clearly run contrary not only to Rule 33(a) & (b) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, but also to G.O.Ms.No.607, dated 06.11.1992. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two other contentions, one with respect to revising or re-opening of the seniority list, which had otherwise attained finality, and the other that the impugned circular is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.607, dated 06.11.1992, this Court, having found that the impugned proceedings clearly offend Rule 33(a) & (b) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and are also in the teeth of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manoj Parihar and others that there is no necessity to deal the said submissions in great detail.

¶68

Insofar as W.P.No.27510 of 2006, which lays challenge to the seniority list dated 05.05.2000 is concerned, as the primary challenge is on the ground that the said seniority list was prepared not in consonance with Rule 33(a) & (b) and Rule 22(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, this Court finds that the seniority list so prepared is clearly in consonance with

¶69

14

¶70

Rule 33(a) & (b) read with G.O.Ms.No.607, dated 06.11.1992, as no further grounds are urged in support of the said writ petition, this Court does not find any merit therein.

¶71

For the reasons stated above, W.P.No.12117 of 2004 stands allowed by quashing the proceedings dated 18.05.2004, issued by the 2^nd respondent, and W.P.No.27510 of 2006 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶72

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶73

JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶74

______________________________

¶75

Date: 18.12.2025 ANS

¶76

15

¶77

226