GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR.versusY. SAGARESWARA RAO

A                    GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR.
                                 v.
                        Y. SAGARESWARA RAO

                             SEPTEMBER 5, 1994

B            [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

          Service Law : A.P. Mandal Development Officers in A.P. Panchayat
    Raj Service (Executive Branch) Adhoc Rules, 1989/A.P. State and Subor-
    dinate Service Rules :
c
           Rule 2/Rule 33(c}-Appointment to the post of Mandal Development
    Officers by transfer of officers from erstwhile Zilla Praja Parishad and
    Panchayat Samithies-Seniority-Counting of Past service-Absorbed with
    benefit of previous experience-Veterinary Assistant Surgeons (Extension Of-
    ficers) in the same grade (Gazetted) and in the same scale of pay-Claim
D   benefit of past service-Held: Entitled .to tag previous service.

           Consequent upon the re-organisation of Panchayat Raj System, the
    Mandal Development Officers in A.P. Panchayat Raj Service (Executive
    Branch) Adhoc Rules were framed. Rule 2 thereof prescribed the methods
E   of appointment to the post of Mandal Development Officers, by transfer
    of Superintendents in Zilla Praja Parisbad Officer, Divisional Pancbayat
    Officers and Extension Officers of erstwhile Pancbayat Samithies. Can-
    didates were selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of written
    examination and viva voce, and appointed as Mandal Development Of-
    ficers and their inter se seniority was determined.
F
          Respondent, who ·was earlier working as Veterinary Asstt. Surgeon
    (Extension Officer) Challenged the order before the State Administrative
    Tribunal claiming benefit of past service on par with Block Development
    Officers who were also Gazetted Officers and in the same scale of pay and
G   in their absorption were given the benefit of past service. The Tribunal
    allowed the claim, against which the State preferred the present appeal.

          It was contended that the Extension Officers were subordinate to the
    Block Development Officen and since the Selection Committee bad as-
    signed the order of seniority on the basis of merit, the Respondent cannot
H   be given seniority tagging bis previous service.                      ··
                                        112
                          oovr. OF AP. v. Y.S. RAO                      113

         Dismissing the appeal, this Court                                     A
      HELD : 1.1. In G.O. Ms. No. 2/9 Panchayatht Raj Department dated
June 17, 1972 amendment was made to the Rules taking out the Asstt.
Veterinary Surgeons from the purview of the Extension Omcers. In G.O.
Ms. No. 169 Panchayathi Raj dated July 3, 1973 the posts of Asstt.
Veterinary Surgeons had been made Gazetted and consequently they have B
been taken out from the pumew of the administrative control of the Block
Development Officers. As such the Veterinary Asstt. Surgeons no longer
remained to be subordinate to the Block Development Officer. Their pay ·
scale was at par with the Block Development Officers. Under the cir·
cumstances the respondent is entitled. to tag his previous service since C
admittedly the B.D.Os. were given benefit and the appointment is by
transfer though by process of selection, Rule 33(c) of the A.P. State and
Subordinate Services Rules stands attracted. [114-G-H; 115-A~B]

       1.2. However, the benefit of this order cannot go to the other subor·
  dinate Extension Officers who continued to be subordinates to the            D
. erstwhile Block Development Officers. [115-B]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6865 of
 1994.

   . From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.93 of the Andhra Pradesh            E
 Administrative Tribunal in 0.A. 38256 of 1991.

         K.M. Reddy and Guntar Prabhakar for the Appellants.

      V. Nageshwara Rao, P.S. Narsimha and V.G. Pragasam for the               F
 Respondent.

         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         Leave granted.

       Consequential to the re-organisation of the Panchayat Raj Systems       G
 under the AP. Mandal Parishads & Zilla Praja Parishads and Zilla
 Pranalika, Abhivrudhi Mandals Act, 1986 (Act No. 31 of 1986) (for short
 the 'Act') the Governor exercising the power under proviso to Art. 309 of
 the Constitution read with Sec. 28(c) of the Act made the AP. Mandal
 Development Officers in AP. Panchayat Raj Service (executive branch)          H
    114                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Ad hoc Rules in G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated January 3, 1989 whereunder Rule
   2 prescribed the method of appointment , namely, appointment to the p0st
   of Mandal Development Officers shall be made by transfer from the
   categories, namely, Superintendents working in Zilla Praja Parishad Of- .
   ficers, Divisional Panchayat Officers and Extension officers working in the
   erstwhile Panchayat Samitbies, under G.O. Ms. No 4 dated January 3, 1989
B Panchayati Raj & Rural Development, a committee of five members was
   constituted to select the candidates by conducting special qualifying tests
                                                                                     -
   and prescribed the marks for the written examination and also viva voce.
   Consequently number of persons came to be appointed, a list of which was
   attached to SLP paper book for Zone III. The list has been mentioned in
C the light of the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated
  ·January 3, 1989 Panchayati Raj and Rural Development dated April 30,
   1989 therein the respondents' seniority was determined. The respondents
   filed OA in the Tribunal contending that his scale of pay as an Veterinary
   Asstt. Surgeons (Extension officers) was a Gazetted post on par with the
D Block Development Officer in the erstwhile Panchayat Samithies. This
   scale of pay was also the same. He was also in the gazetted cadre and that,
   therefore, when the block development officers were absorbed and given
   the previous service, the respondents also should have given the same
   benefit to him under Rule 33(c) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service
   Rules (for sh!lrt the 'Rules'). That contention was found favour with the
E Tribunal and it allowed the O.A. No. 38256/91 on October 1, 1993. Calling
   that order in question the present appeal was filed.

           It is contended for the State that the Extension Officers were subor-
    dinate to the Block Development Officers and that, therefore, when the
F   recruitment was made in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated January 3, 1989
    and the Committee had assigned the order of seniority on the basis of
    merit, the respondent cannot be given seniority tagging his previous service
    and that, therefore, Rule 37(c) has no application. Initially the contention .
    appealed but after leoking to the orders passed as regards Veterinary
    Asstt. Surgeons we find that there is no force in the contention. The
G   respondent admittedly stands on different footing. In G.O. Ms. No. 2/9
    Panchayathi Raj Department dated June 17, 1972 they made an amend-
    ment to the Rules and taken out the Asstt. Veterinary Surgeons from the
    purview of the Extension Officers. In G.O. Ms. No. 169 Panchayatbi Raj
    datt:d July 3, 1973 the posts of Asstt. Veterinary Surgeons had been made
H   Gazetted and consequently they have been taken out from the purview of
                           GOVf. OF AP. v. Y.S. RAO                     . 115

    the administrative control of the Block Development Officers. In conse-      ·A
    quence the Veterinary Asstt. Surgeons no longer remained "to be subor-
    dinate to the Block Development Officer. He had the pay sea.le at par with
    the Block"Development Officers. Under those circumstances the respon-
    dent is entitled to tag his previous service since admittedly the B.D. Os.
    were given their benefit and the appointment is by transfer though by
    process of selection, Rule 33(c) of the Rules stands attracted.              B
         The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The benefit of this Court cannot
    go to the other subordinate Extensio11 Officers who continued to be
    subordinate to the erstwhile Block Development Officers:

    G.N.                                                   Appeal dismissed.




•