C. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

A               C. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY AND ORS.
                                         v.
              STAIB OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

                             NOVEMBER 10, 1989
B              [RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]

          Service Law: Andhra Pradesh (Roads and Buildings) Engineer-
    ing Service Rules, 1965-Rule 3( 1)-lnter se Seniority-Direct Recruits
    and Promotees-Drawing up of list-Government circular dated
    12.8. 1988--Fixing Guideline-Validity of.
c
          Pursuant to this Court's direction in K. Siva Reddy' & Ors. v.
    State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1988] Suppl. SCC 225, the State
    Government issued Circular dated 12.8.1988, fixing the guideline for
    drawing up of inter se seniority list of direct recruit and promotee
    Deputy Executive Engineers in Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service.
D
    This Circular was challanged by the petitioners. Promotee Engineers,
    in a Writ Petition filed in this Court, contending that since they had put
                                                                                   ·•
    in continuous service of 6 to 7 years by 1982 and their services had been
    regularised in the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the'year.1974-
    75, direct recruits appointed in the year 1982 could not, under any law,
    be placed above them.
E
          Dismissing the writ petition, this Court,

          HELD: Promotees had exceeded the quota and even 2ot regulari-
    sed in respect of the PoSts in excess of the limit. Taking into considera-
    tion the fact thai regularisation had been done after the promotees had
p . put in some years of service and disturbing regularisation would consi-
    derably affect the officers concerned, regularisation was not interfered
    with. This Court's intention was not to take away the benefit of
    regularisation in respect of the officers belonging to the promotee group
    in excess of their quota but the Court did not intend to allow such
    regularised officers in excess of the quota to also have the benefit of such
G service for purposes ofseniority. !l42H; 143A-B]

          A reading of the judgment in Siva Reddy's case clearly indicates
    that this Court intended what the Government have laid down by way
    of guideline. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere with the
1-1 Government direction. ,I1438 J


                                        140
                  C.R. REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. [MISRA, l.[             141

      K. Siva Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1988]
                                                                             A
 Suppl. SCC 225, referred to.

          CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 369 of
. 1989.

          (Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia).                    B

       K. Madhava Reddy, .S. Rajeswar Mehta Dave and Ms. Neelam
 for the Petitioners.

     M.K. Ramamurthi, M.A. Krishnamurthy, Mrs. C. Ramamurthy,
 GVS Surayanarayana Raju in person TVSN Chari, Jagan Rao, DRK.
 Reddy, G VS Surayanarayana for the Respondents.
                                                                             c

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       RANGANATH MISRA, J. Promotee Engineers of the Roads &
 Buildings Wing of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service are the            D
 petitipners in this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution and
 challenge is to the Government circular of 12.8.1988 (Annexure A)
 fixing the guideline for the drawing up of the seniority list pursuant to
 a direction issued by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, decision
 whereof is reported in 1988 Suppl. SCC 225-K. Siva Reddy & Ors. v.
 State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.                                              E

       While petitioners are promotees, the respondents are direct
recruits. Petitioners allege that they had put in continuous service of
6- 7 years by 1982 and their services having been regularised in the post
of Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 1974-75, direct recruits
appointed in the year 1982 cannot under any law be placed above              F
them.

       As noticed in Siva Reddy's case (supra), substantive vacancies in
the category of Assistant Engineers had to be filled up from two
sources-37-1/2% by direct recruitment and the remaining 62-1/2% by
transfer of Supervisors and Draughtsmen and by promo:ion of Junior           G
Engineers. Direct recruits had complained that notwithstanding this
prescription, there had been no recruitment of Assistant Engineers
and the promotees from the other two modes had come into the cadre
far in excess of the limit provided by the Rules. The Chief Engineer by
his order dated June 8, 1984 regularised the temporary service of
promotees of the years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 in the cadre of          H
     142        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1989] Supp. 2 S.CR

A · Assistant Engineers (later designated as Deputy Executive Engineers).
    They had, therefore, asked the quashing of the regularisation and
    drawing up of a seniority list on the basis of the ratio fixed under
    r. 3( l) of the Special Rules. This Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment
    stated:

B               "Reopening of the question of inter se seniority on the basis
                of non-enforcement of the rules from the very beginning.
                may create hardship and that would be difficult to mitigate
                but we see no justification as to why the benefit of the
                                                                                 (
                scheme under the rules should not be made available to
                direct recruits at least from 1982. When the State Govern-
                ment by rules duly framed prescribed the method of
c               recruitment and put the scheme into operation it had the
                obligation to comply with it. The explanation offered by
                the State Government for non-compliance of the require-
                ments of the rules does not at all impress us. We therefore,
                direct that as on December 31, 1982, the State Government
J)              must ascertain the exact substantive vacancies in the cate-
                gory of Assistant Engineers in the service. On the basis that
                37-1/2 per cent of such vacancies were to be filled up by
                direct recruitment, the position should be worked out.
                Promotees should be confined to 62-1/2 per cent of the
                substantive vacancies and in regard to 37-1/2 per cent of the
E               vacancies the shortfall should be filled up by direct recruit-
                ment. General Rules shall not be applied to the posts
                within the limits of 37-1/2 per cent of the substantive vacan-
                cies and even if promotees are placed in those posts, no
                seniority shall be counted. The State Governme'nt shall
                take steps to make recruitment of the shortfall in the direct
f               recruitment vacancies within the limit of 37-1/2 per cent of
                the total substantive vacancies up to December 31, 1987
                within four months from today by following the normal
                method of recruitment for direct recruits. The seniority list
                in the cadre of Assi,tant Engineers shall be redrawn up, as
                directed by the Tribunal, by the end of September 1988,
                keeping the directions referred to above in view ... ·, .. "

     With a view to implementing this direction the State Government came
     out with the impugned order dated 12.8.1988 marked Annexure,'A'.

         In Siva Reddy's case this Court found that promotees had
 H exceedec,l the quota and even got regularised in respect of the p,osts in
                C.R. REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. [MISRA, J.]                 143

excess of the limit. Taking into consideration the fact that regularisa-       A
tion had been done after the promotees had put in some years of
service and disturbing regularisation would considerably affect the
officers concerned, regularisation was not interfered with. This
Court's intention obviously was not to take away the benefit of
regularisation in respect of the officers belonging to the promotee
                                                                               B
group in excess of their quota but the Court did not intend to allow
such regularised officers in excess of the quota to also have the benefit
of such service for purposes of seniority. A reading of the judgment in
Siva Reddy's case clearly indicates that this Court intended what the
Government have laid down by way of guideline. We see no justifica-
tion to interfere with the Government direction. A draft seniority list
on the basis of such direction has alfeady been drawn up and has been          c
circulated. We are told that objections have been received and would
be dealt with in usual course by the appropriate authorities. This writ
petition had been entertained in view of. the allegation that the
Government direction was on a misconception of what was indicated
in the judgment and in case there was any such mistake the same
                                                                               D
should be rectifie~ at the earliest. Now that we have found that the Govern-
ment order is in accord with the Court direction, this writ petition must
be dismissed and individual grievances, if any, against the draft senior-
ity list would, we hope, be considered on the basis of objections filed
by the competent author,ity.
                                                                               E
      There shall be no order as to costs.

N.P.V.                                                 Petition dismissed.




                                                     ·l