The Government of Andhra Pradesh versus P. Bhaskar and Ors.

Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules - rr.22(ii)(e) and 33 - Post of Dy. Collector - 2!3rd vacancies^c required to be filled µp by promotion - Dearth of ST candidates for promotion - State Government decided to fill up 12 promotional posts reserved for ST candidates by limited direct recruitment of ST candidates - Public Service Commission issued advertisement for selection of Dy. Collectors, both by D "general recruitment" and "limited recruitment" - Applications before Tribunal challenging the selection process - Tribunal directed holding of separate examination for "limited recruitment" candidates - By the time this separate examination was conducted, "general recruitment" candidates E already selected and appointed - Dy. Collectors selected by "limited recruitment" appointed in 1994 - They claimed seniority over Dy. Collectors selected by "general recruitment" and appointed in 1993 - Claim allowed by High Court on ground that r.22(ii)(e) was applicable - Justification of- Held: F Not justified, since r.22(ii)(e) was inapplicable.

¶17

213rd vacancies of Deputy Collectors in the Andhra Pradesh State Service were required to be filled up by promotion. There was dearth of ST candidates for being promoted to the post of Deputy Collectors. The State G Government decided to fill up 12 promotional posts reserved for ST candidates by limited direct recruitment of ST candidates. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issued advertisement for selection of Deputy 589 H

¶18

H

¶19

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

590

[2008] 3 S.C.R.

..

~ '4111

¶24

~

¶25

A Collectors, both by "general recruitment" and "limited recruitment". Applications were filed before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the selection process. The Tribunal directed that there should be a separate examination for the "limited recruitment" candidates and B^{by the time this separate examination was conducted, the} "general recruitment" candidates were already selected and appointed. The Deputy Collectors selected by "limited recruitment" were appointed w.e.f. 9-12-1994. They filed application before the Tribunal claiming entitlement to be c^{placed above the Deputy Collectors selected by general} recruitment who had been appointed to the service one year earlier i.e. w.e.f. 9-12-1993. The Tribunal rejected the claim of seniority. The High Court, however, upheld the claim holding that Rule 22(ii)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh D^{State and Subordinate Sevice Rules was applicable and} that the candidates selected by "limited recruitment" were not at fault for the delay in their appointment. Hence the present appeals.

¶26

• ~

¶27

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

¶28

E

¶29

HELD: 1. The Deputy Collectors appointed vide G.O.M. Order No. 1251 dated 9.12.1994 are not entitled to be placed above the Deputy Collectors who were appointed vide G.O.M. Order No. 1265 dated 9.12.1993. [Para 17] [601-E, F]

¶30

F

¶31

2.1. Rule 22(ii)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Sevice Rules is applicable only when there is general recruitment and when there were no reserved candidates, these posts were to be filled up by a limited G^{recruitment. Such a limited recruitment shouldbeheld} immediately after the general recruitment is made. The rule 22(ii)(e) is intended to protect the interests of the reserved candidates. But as these 12 vacancies came to be converted from the promotion vacancies, they had a different channel of limited recruitment as the candidates

H

591

,,.,

I

,,,., - <

¶37

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v.

¶38

P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

¶39

-.

¶40

were not available for promotion. [Para 15] [600-F, G; A 601-A]

¶41

2.2. Such recruitment, however, could not be done by the Public Service Commission in time, thereby their appointment could be made much after the general B recruitment. As the facts disclose, there was only one general recruitment and that was followed by the limited recruitment of these 12 posts. It may be due to the delay caused by the Public Service Commission that there could not be timely appointment of the candidates who were recruited by limited recruitment. However, various orders^c passed by the Tribunal also stood in the way of having recruitment as scheduled by the Commission. All those orders had become final and they are binding on the authorities. [Paras 15, 16] [601-8, D, E]

¶42

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1617-11618 of 2008.

¶43

From the Judgment and Order dated 7. 7 .2005 and 22.8.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. Nos. 10604/2004 and 10965/2005.

D

E

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 1619-1620, 1621-1622 and 1623-1624 of 2008.

¶48

~

¶49

F

¶50

F C.S. Rajan, L. Nageswara Rao, Dipankar P. Gupta, Jaideep Gupta, M.L. Varma, P. Niroop, Anil Kumar Tandale, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr Singh, Rahul Shukla (for Mr. TV. George), P. Vittal Rao, T. Anamika, Anupam Lal Das, K.G. Gopalakrishnan, Deepa Kirti Verma, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Sateesh Galla, Harshvardhan Reddy, C. Masthan^G Naidu, Guntur Prabhakar and K.S. Rana for the appearing parties.

¶51

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶52

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. 1. Leave granted.

¶53

H

¶54

592

¶55

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008) 3 S.C.R.

,,-

1

A 2. The Appeals arising out Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 24667-24668 of 2005 are filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the other Appeals are filed by the officers who were aggrieved by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 10604/2004 and 10965/2005. The B^{writ petitionersinW.P.No.10604/2004 filedOANo.6246of} 1998 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") contending that they should be declared as seniors to the Deputy Collectors who were appointed on 9.12.1993, though they were appointed as Deputy c^{Collectorson9.12.1994.}

¶60

' ~

¶61

The facts, in short, are as follows.

¶62

The appointment to the post of Deputy Collectors is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Executive D^{Branch) Rules,1992, framed under proviso to Article 309 of the} Constitution of India. As per these Rules, 113rct of substantive vacancies in the category of Deputy Collectors have to be filled up by direct recruitment and 213rd of the vacancies by promotion from the feeder cadre of Tehsildars. Rule 22 of the Andhra E^{PradeshStateandSubordinateServiceRules(hereinafter} referred to as "the Rules") provides for reservation in favour of the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and oth~r categories. Rule 22 (ii) (e} of the Rules enables the Government that if in any recruitment qualified candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes are not available, F limited recruitment confined to such candidates could be resorted to. As 213rd of the vacancies of Deputy Collectors have to be filled up by promotions, there wc..s dearth of candidates in the category of the Scheduled Tribes for being promoted to the post of Deputy Collectors. In 1991 the posts of Deputy Collector G to be filled up by promotion from the Scheduled Tribes candidates accumulated to 12 and then on 15.11.1990, the Head of Department sent a proposal to government to consider filling up of 12 Scheduled Tribe candidates by direct recruitment to fill up the 12 carry forward vacancies. The Government H^{acceptedtheproposalandissuedGOMs.No.264dated}

-·^,.

,.

593

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

.,

~

"" t

~

wt' ""'·

-.

"\

01.04.1991 and set apart 12 posts of Deputy Collectors to be A filled up by the Scheduled Tribes candidates by "limited recruitment". Steps were taken to recruit the eligible candidates through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short "the Commission").

¶75

Meanwhile, as part of the general recruitment, the^B Commission had issued advertisement on 1.8.1990 inviting applications with a view to undertake recruitment to different categories of posts in Group 1 and 2(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Service, including the category of Deputy Collector. This selection consisted of both 'general recruitment' and 'limited^c recruitment'. The process of selection consisted of preliminary examination and final examination. A preliminary examination was held on 27.1.1991, but on 5.2.1991 the Government of Andhra Pradesh revised the maximum age limit of the candidates. In view of this relaxation of age granted to the D candidates, fresh applications were called for and for additional applicants a preliminary examination was held on 14.4.1991. The Commission prescribed '88' marks as cut-off marks and the main examination was held on 9.11.1991. Some Original Applications were filed before the State Administrative Tribunal E challenging the selection process. The Tribunal gave certain directions. These OAs were disposed of by the Tribunal on 4.6.1992 with the following directions :-

¶76

a) "The selection for general recruitment pursuant to the F advertisement No. 8/90 as well as the supplemental advertisement shall be confined to the vacancies meant for direct recruitment for the various services which were available on 01.05.1990 as contemplated by G.O. Ms.No. 103 GAD di. 03.02.67. For this purpose the State Government should immediately arrive at the correct figure G of vacancies for each service (together with reservations under Rule 22 of the General Rules) and communicate the same to the Commission. The General Administration Department under the Chief Secretary, will co-ordinate and monitor the correct number of vacancies meant for H

¶77

• .-

¶78

594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶79

[2008] 3 S.C.R.

¶80

> ~

¶81

E

¶82

A such direct recruitment. For the selection for these vacancies the result of the main examination already held together with the oral test or interview shall be basis. The Commission has to take steps to call for interview such number of candidates as are required in terms of the B advertisement, keeping in view the vacancies and the ranking of the candidate in the main examination. This process should be completed expeditiously preferably within a period of four months.

¶83

b) A separate main examination to be held for selection of the candidates for the vacancies to be filled by limited recruitment. The number of vacancies available at the relevant time including GOs of 1991 referred to earlier together with the ranking of the SC and ST candidates in the preliminary examination may be used for calling them for the main examination and for selection. The Commission to fix a separate cut off mark on the basis of the relevant criteria, namely, number of vacancies, number of candidates available and the requirements of the notification. This should also be done expeditiously preferably within a period of six months.

¶84

c

¶85

D

¶86

c) The candidates belonging to SC and ST who have come up in the general recruitment in accordance with their quota in a selection as per direction (a) need not be disturbed and the remaining candidates belonging to SC and STs to be considered for li'mited recruitment as per direction (b).

¶87

F

¶88

d) The State Government will forthwith take steps for identifying the vacancies for general direct recruitment for Group-I service arising subsequent to the relevant date in 1990 as contemplated by G.O.Ms.No. 103. On the vacancies being notified, the Commission will proceed to issue the advertisement indicating the year of which selection relates and the approximate number of vacancies. The vacancies which are to be included in the selection pursuant to this direction shall be deleted from

G

H

'^..,

f

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v.

¶94

595

¶95

P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

¶96

..

¶97

f

¶98

•

. ~-

v ....

'\

the selection to be held as per direction (a):

¶103

A

¶104

e) Any candidate who has secured less than the cut off mark (i.e. 88) in the preliminary examination but has appeared pursuant to any interlocutory order of the Tribunal or otherwise, will not be considered as eligible for the main examination.

¶105

B

¶106

f) To dispel grievances regarding valuation in the second preliminary examination, it is appropriate that the Commission publishes on its notice-board and makes available for inspection by any candidate, list of marks c obtained by candidates who are called for oral test on the basis of the result in the main examination as per direction (a).

¶107

g) The Government and the Commission take steps for regular direct recruitment as contemplated by the statutory D provisions referred to earlier and GO.Ms.No. 103."

¶108

Main examination for Group I of general recruitment was conducted on 9.11.1991 and after the directions given by the Tribunal, a separate main examination was conducted for the 12 ST posts drawing the candidates from the two preliminary examinations. Deputy Collector from General recruitment I were appointed w.e.f. 9.12.1993.

¶109

E

¶110

As regards limited recruitment undertaken earlier, written test was held in May 1993 and selected candidates were F appointed on 9.12.1994. The appellants who were appointed on 9.12.1994 filed O.A. No. 6246/1998 before the Tribunal claiming that they were entitled to be placed above the candidates selected and appointed as Deputy Collectors on 9.12.1993. The Tribunal rejected their claim of seniority and held that they were not entitled to be placed above the Deputy^G Collectors who were appointed on 9.12.1993.

¶111

The Deputy Collectors who were appointed on 9.12.1994 challenged this decision by filing W.P. Nos. 10604/2004 and 10965/2005 claiming the very same relief. The writ petitions

¶112

H

¶113

[2008] 3 S.C.R.

¶114

596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶115

v

¶116

.,... '

¶117

A were considered by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench could not agree on the question of seniority being assigned to the writ petitioner therein and the matter was placed before another learned Judge who agreed with one of the Judges of the Division Bench. The majority judgment of the High B^{Courtistotheeffect that12DeputyCollectorswhowere} selected by limited recruitment and appointed as such on 9.12.1994 were entitled to get seniority over the officers who were app,ointed as Deputy Collectors by general recruitment on 9.12.1993. The majority judgment of the High Court of Andhra c^{Pradesh is challenged on various grounds.}

¶118

It is submitted by the Counsel appearing for the State that the seniority of the officers who are directly recruited to the service is determined as per Rule 33 of the Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 33 is as follows:

¶119

D

¶120

"Rule 33. Seniority:

¶121

,. .

E

F

G

H

(a) The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation under Rule 10 (a), (iv), 1 O(c), 16, 37(d), or 42(d) his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation.

¶127

This sub-rule shall be deemed to have been in force on and from the 1st October, 1933 in the case of State Services and on and from the 1st October, 1934 in the case of subordinate services; but shall not affect the seniority of any member of a service, which may have been fixed expressly or by implication before the 19th November, 1941 or any orders as to seniority which may have been passed by competent authority before the 19th November, 1941:

¶128

Provided that the seniority of a probationer or approved

> \

~

597

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

¶133

..,,

¶134

f

¶135

probationer in a service, class, category or grade from A which he stood reverted on the 1st November, 1956 or prior to that date, shall be determined in the state-wide gazetted posts and the non-gazetted posts in the Departments of the Secretariat and the offices of the Heads of Departments, with reference to the notional 8 date of continuous officiation arrived at by adding the total length of officiation with or without breaks in that service, class, category or grade pror to the 1st November, 1956 to the date of re-appointment made thereafter in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (c) of Rule 8; c but it shall not disturb the inter-se-seniority which obtained in the Andhra State.

¶136

(emphasis supplied)

¶137

. -""<

¶138

""

¶139

(b)The appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any other reason the order of preference among them; and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it;

¶140

Provided that for the purpose of promotion to the next higher category of gazetted posts, the inter-se-seniority of persons recruited direct to the subordinate services during the period commencing on the 1st November, 1956 and ending with 31st December, 1973, separately in Andhra and Telangana regions, shall be determined by the ranking assigned by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in the common ranking list or by the competent authority as the case may be, after following the rule of reservation.

(c) (d) (e) (f)

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

598

[2008) 3 S.C.R.

•

~

, I

A

A 9. Based on the above rule, it was contended that the Deputy Collectors by limited recruitment were appointed only on 9-12-1994 whereas Deputy Collectors who are recruited by general selection were appointed to the service on 9-12-1993. Therefore, in any case, the officers who are subsequently B^{appointed cannot claim seniority over the officers who have} already been appointed previously.

¶155

The Counsel for the respondents drew our attention to Rule 22 (ii) (e). of the Rules which says that the limited recruitment confined to candidates belonging to Scheduled c Castes or, as the case may be, Scheduled Tribes shall be made immediately after the general recruitment to select and appoint qualified candidates when the reserved candidates are not available in the general recruitment. Rule 22 (ii) (e) reads as follows:

D

E

F

"If in any recruitment qualified candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or as the case may be the Scheduled Tribes are not available for appointment to any or all the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes or, as the cases may be, Scheduled Tribes, a limited recruitment confined to candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and/or as the case may be Scheduled Tribes, shall be made immediately after the general recruitment to select and appoint qualified candidates from among persons belonging to these communities to fill such reserved vacancies."

¶160

..

¶161

It was pointed out that in the earlier recruitment, sufficient Scheduled Tribe candidates were not available and, therefore, the Government issued direction to fill up the G^{vacancies of Scheduled Tribe candidates and such recruitment} should have been made first and then the general recruitment should have been made by the Commission.

¶162

In order to decide the above controversy raised by the appellants and the respondents, it is to be noticed that, in this H^{case, the Commission issuedanadvertisement no. 8/90 for}

¶163

599

¶164

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

"

'I'

-'\

selection to the post of Deputy Collectors and various other A categories. This advertisement was for selecting the candidates for general recruitment as well as for limited recruitment. The Commission conducted a Combined Preliminary Examination on 27.1.1991. A cut off mark of '88' was fixed for selecting candidates to appear for the main examination. The result of B the Preliminary examination was announced on 25.7.1991. The main examination was scheduled to be held on 9.11.1991. Original applications were filed before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the cut off mark that was fixed at '88'. The Tribunal held that the cut off mark of '88' was illegal. It was directed c that there should be a separate main examination for the limited recruitment candidates and this separate main examination was conducted only in May 1993. By that time, the general recruitment candidates were already selected and they were appointed on 9-12-1993. It may also be important to note that D when advertisement no. 8/90 was issued by the A.P. Public Service Commission, the.number of candidates to be recruited by limited recruitment was not fixed and the number of posts were identified only by the Government Order dated 1.4.1991. It is also to be noted that these 12 posts ought to have been E filled up by promotion of ST candidates. As sufficient candidates were not available in the feeder category to fill up the post of Deputy Collectors, they were sought to be recruited by limited recruitment. It may also be noticed that a series of original petitions were filed before the Administrative Tribunal and they had given several directions as to how selection is to be F conducted. That is evident from the Order passed by the Tribunal on 4.6.1992. This ultimately caused delay in the appointment of Deputy Collectors who were recruited by limited recruitment and they could join only on 9.12.1994. There may be delay on the part of the Commission in conducting the selection of the limited G recruitment. Though they initially intended to have the combined recruitment of general as well as limited candidates, this did not happen due to various reasons.

¶169

Once the appointment had already taken place, under H

¶170

600

¶171

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(2008] 3 S.C.R.

,,.

,._

A normal circumstances, the seniority is to be fixed on the basis of Rule 33(a) of the Rules. The Deputy Collectors who were · recruited by general recruitment were appointee one year prior_ to the appointment of the contesting respondents herein. They claimed seniority over the candidates who were appointed one B^{yearprior to their appointmentandfiledtheOAbeforethe} Tribunal only in the year 1998, about 4 years after their joining the service. Moreover, the fact that all the officers who were given posting on 9.12.1993 as Deputy Collectors were not impleaded in the Original Application. It was argued that the question of c^{seniority was agitated before the Tribunal and the Government} was a party and there was no finalization of the seniority till the date of the filing of OA. However, it is difficult to believe that they were not aware that they were treated as juniors to the officers who were already appointed and that the seniority list was not D^{maintained till that date.}

¶176

•

¶177

The contention of the Counsel for the respondents that Rule 22(ii)(e) has application in a situation where general recruitment is held and when sufficient number of reserved category candidates were not available and then Government E^{orders for a limited recruitment, such limited recruitment confining} to reserved candidates shall be made immediately after the general recruitment.

¶178

In the instant case, 12 vacancies of Deputy Collectors were decided to be filled up by limited recruitment and the posts F were identified on 1.4.1991. All the 12 posts were ordered to be filled up by limited recruitment as there were no sufficient candidates to fill up by promotion. Rule 22(ii)(e) is applicable only when there is general recruitment and when there were no reserved candidates, these posts were to be filled up by a limited G recruitment. Such a limited recruitment should be held immediately after the general recruitment is made. The rule 22(ii)(e) is intended to protect the interests of the reserved candidates and if again a general recruitment is made, there will be non-availability of reserved. candidates and even if they H^{arerecruitedsubsequently,theywouldbemuchjunior tothe}

¶179

•

¶180

601

¶181

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

""

'f

"

-\

A

general candidates and they would be ranked as very junior to all the general candidates who had been appointed earlier. But as these 12 vacancies came to be converted from the promotion vacancies, they had a different channel of limited recruitment as the candidates were not available for promotion. But unfortunately such recruitment could not be done by the Public Service Commission in time, thereby their appointment could be made much after the general recruitment. As the facts disclose, there was only one general recruitment and that was followed by the limited recruitment of these 12 posts.

¶188

B

¶189

^c

¶190

The two learned Judges, of the High Court were of the view that Rule 22(ii)(e) is to be applied and the candidates recruited by limited recruitment have been appointed early and as there was delay in their appointment for no fault of theirs, they were entitled to get seniority over the candidates who were already appointed on 9.12.1993. This cannot be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It may be due to the delay caused by the Public Service Commission that there could not be timely appointment of the candidates.who were recruited by limited recruitment. Various orders passed by the Tribunal also stood in the way of having recruitment as scheduled by the Commission. All those orders had become final and they are binding on the authorities.

¶191

D

¶192

E

¶193

As the contesting respondents were appointed as Deputy Collectors vide G.O.M. Order No. 1251 dated 9.12.1994 they are not entitled to be placed above the Deputy Collectors who were appointed vide G.O.M. Order No. 1265 dated 9.12.1993. The Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2466724668 of 2005 filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh are allowed.

¶194

F

¶195

The Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 25382-25383 of 2005; SLP (C) No. 26434-26435 of 2005 and SLP (C) No. 26436-26437 of 2005 are accordingly disposed of in the light of the Judgment in the appeal filed by the State.

¶196

B.B.B.

¶197

Appeals disposed of. H

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Bhaskar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Bhaskar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Som Mittal versus Government of Karnataka

Union Public Service Commission versus Dr. Jamuna Kurup & Ors.

Union of India versus Datiatray S/O Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors.

Akhilesh Kumar Singh versus State of U.P. Th. Dgc(Crl.) & Anr.

Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Consolidated Engg. Enterprises versus Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. & Ors.