Holding

A valid bifurcation of a corporation into separate regions creates distinct seniority lists, precluding employees from claiming seniority from the combined list for promotion in another region.

Summary

The appellants, a corporation, created two separate regions, Warangal and Karimnagar, and assigned the respondents as security guards in Warangal. After the bifurcation, a vacancy arose in Karimnagar and a junior employee, Mr. T.J. Reddy, who was lower on the combined seniority list, was promoted to Security Head Guard because he was senior within the new Karimnagar list. The respondents filed a writ petition seeking promotion, arguing that their seniority in the original combined list entitled them to the same promotion. The High Court allowed the petition, but the Supreme Court held that the valid regional division required distinct seniority lists, and the respondents could not claim seniority from the pre‑bifurcation list. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, finding no basis for the respondents' promotion claim.

Issues considered

Whether employees in a newly created region can rely on seniority accrued in a pre‑bifurcation combined seniority list for promotion in another region.
Whether a valid regional bifurcation necessitates the maintenance of separate seniority lists for each region.
Whether the High Court erred in directing the corporation to consider the respondents for promotion despite the existence of a distinct seniority list.

Subjects

service lawsenioritypromotionregional bifurcationcadreseniority listadministrative lawwrit petition

Judgment

A A.P.S.R.T.C. & ORS. ~ ~

v.
B. BO DAN REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

JANUARY 17, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]

Service Law:
'( ~

Seniority-Division of corporation il"to different regions-Promotion
in one region-Employees in other region not entitled to promotion by
c claiming seniority in combined list.

The respondents were appointed by the appellant-Corporation as
Security guards at Warangal. The Corporation created different regions
'Karimnagar' and 'Warangal' Region for managing its affairs. When an
option was called for in regard to their posting in the Warangal region and
D Karimnagar region, respondents opted for the former region. They were,
therefore, absorbed in the Warangal region of appellant-Corporation. -1

Subsequently some posts were created in the Karimnagar region. One 'T' r
who was junior to the respondents in the combined seniority list was
promoted to the post of Security Head Guard as he became the senior most
E in the Karimnagar region.

Respondent filed writ petition for consideration of their case for
promotion. By reason of the impugned judgment, the writ petition was
allowed d.irecting the appellant-Corporation to consider the eases of the
respondents for promotion from the post of Security Guard to Security
F Head Guard from the date on which their junior had been promoted. Hence
,.:'_.....
the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The bifurcation of the rlivision is not in dispute. Warangal
G division, thus, became a new division. It has also not been disputed that
cadre of the employees is maintained region-wise. Therefore, separate
seniority lists were required to be maintained only on that basis. Once
there has been a valid division of two regions as a result of which a new
region came into being, a distinct and separate seniority list of the
H employees was required to be maintained. If the respondents had opted for
1102
:
A.P.S.R.T.C. v. B. BODAN REDDY [SINHA, J.] 1103

--. t remaining in the cadre of the employees of the Warangal region, only A
/ because a vacancy had fallen in the Karimnagar region and the same had
been filled up from amongst the employees thereof, no exception thereto
could be taken. The High Court did not consider this aspect of the matter
and proceeded on the basis that as the respondents might be otherwise
qualified, they were entitled to be considered for promotion opining that the
respondents are and should not be deprived from being considered therefor
B
when their juniors have been promoted. The High Court committed a
manifest error in coming to the aforementioned conclusion inasmuch as
there having been a valid division of the cadre, the question of the
respondents becoming senior to the said 'T' in the Karimnagar Region did
not and could not arise as a new seniority list came into being. C
(Para 4] [1104-C-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6449 of2000

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 22.6.2000 of the Hig9 Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 27767/1995 D
1 R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P. Vijay
Kumar and G. Ramakrishna Prasad for the Appellants.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
S.B. SINHA, J. : 1. The Respondents herein were appointed by the
appellant-Corporation as Security Guards. Different regions have been
created by the Corporation for managing its affairs. The divisions of
Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Warangal and Khammam formed part of one region
known as 'Karimnagar Region ofKakatiya' in the appellant-Corporation. The F
Warangal region, however, was carved out therefrom known as 'Warangal
Region'. The respondents herein had been working at Warangal. When an
option was called for in regard to their posting in the Warangal region and
Karimnagar region, they opted for the former region. They were, therefore,
absorbed in the Warangal region of the appellant-Corporation.
G
2. It is stated that subsequently some posts were created in the
Karimnagar region. One Mr. T.J. Reddy, who was junior to the respondents
""" ~. in the combined seniority list was promoted to the post of Security Head
Guard as he became the senior most in the Karimnagar region.
H
..
·~

1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] l S.C.R

3. A writ petition was filed by the respondents herein for consideration -<. ·<-
A
of their cases for promotion. An interim order was passed by the learned
Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ,directing the appellant-
Corporation to consider their cases. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was
preferred before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, however, although
initially suspended the operation of the said interim order passed by the
-'
B learned Single Judge, thought it fit and expedient to withdraw the writ
petition itself before it and determine the same on its own merits. By reason
of the impugned judgment, the writ petition had been allowed directing the "'( ~
appellant-Corporation to consider the cases of the respondents for pr(jmotion
from the post of Security Guard to Security Head Guard from the date on
.c which their junior had been promoted .

4. The bifurcation of the division is not in dispute. Warangal division,
thus, became a new division. It has also not been disputed that cadre of the
employees is maintained region-wise. Therefore, separate seniority lists were
required to be maintained only on that basis. Once there has been a valid
D division of two regions as a result of which a new region came into being,
a distinct and separate seniority list of the employees was required to be '1
maintained. If the respondents had opted for remaining in the cadre of the '(
employees of the Wararig~l region, in our opinion, only because a vacancy
had fallen in the Karimnagar region and the same had been filled up from
amongst the employees thereof: no exception thereto could be taken. The
E
Division Bench of the ij'igh Court, in our opinion, did not consider this
aspect of the matter. T~e Division Bench proceeded on the basis that as the
respondents might be otherwise qualified, they were entitled to be considered
for promotion opining that respondents are and should not be deprived from
being considered therefor when their juniors have been promoted. In our
F opinion, the Division Bench committed a manifest error in coming to the ..;.
aforementioned conclusion inasmuch as there having been a valid division ""-"\

of the cadre, the question of the respondents becoming seriibr to the said
Mr. T.J. Reddy in the Karimnagar Region did not and could not arise as a
new seniority list came into being.
G 5. The impugned judgment, for the reason aforemention~d, is set aside
and the appeal is allowed. As none appears for the respondents, there shall
be no order as to costs.
J., Jr
D.G. Appeal allowed.