Holding

The four‑year weightage for upgraded Junior Engineers under G.O. No. 559 must be counted from the date of their appointment, and seniority should be fixed on that notional date.

Summary

The case concerned the inter‑se seniority of supervisors who were upgraded to Junior Engineers after obtaining engineering degrees and of engineers directly recruited as Junior Engineers in the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Subordinate Service. The State and the upgraded supervisors challenged an Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order that interspersed the upgraded engineers among regular recruits based on a notional appointment date. The Supreme Court examined various Government Orders, especially G.O. No. 559 (1977), and held that the four‑year weightage for upgraded engineers must be reckoned from their actual appointment date, not from the date they obtained the degree. It further upheld the retrospective regularisation of directly recruited Junior Engineers and directed that a common seniority list be prepared, with promotions reviewed accordingly. The Court also ruled that approval from the Public Service Commission was not required given the elapsed time.

Issues considered

The appropriate basis for calculating the four‑year weightage for upgraded Junior Engineers: date of degree acquisition or date of appointment.
Whether the inter‑se seniority list interspersing upgraded engineers among regular recruits is workable and lawful.
Whether retrospective regularisation of directly recruited Junior Engineers is legal.
Whether approval of the Public Service Commission is required for the appointments and seniority fixing.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1962s. Rule 10, s. Rule 23-A

Subjects

seniorityinter‑se seniorityweightagepromotiongovernment orderspublic service commissionretrospective regularisationjunior engineerservice rules

Judgment

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. A
v.
K.S. MURALIDHAR AND ORS.

JANUARY 22, 1992

[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND K. JAY ACHANDRA B
REDDY, JJ.]

Civil Services:

A.P. Engineering Subordinate Service Rules:
c
"-, Seniority-{Jovernment orders issued from time to time~S'upervisors
upgraded as Junior Engineers ·on acquiring degree-Degree holders di-
rectly appointed as Junior Engineers on temporary basis~egularisation
of-Weightage given IO both categories for service rendered-Jnter--se
seniority-Fixation of-Directions issued.
D
The A.P. Engineering Subordinate Service Rules were amended
in 1972 by way of Government order. It provided that supervisors
who acquired B.E./A.M.I.E. degree while in service would be en-
titled to count 50% of the service rendered as Supervisors prior to
~- . acquiring the said qualification subject to a maximum of four years.
·However, this was subject to certain conditions, the Chief among E
them was that they should be considered to have been placed below
the last of the Junior Engineer of the year, after giving such weightage.
Order dated 10.6. 76 required that the Supervisors who acquire the
degree qualification while in service should be appointed, as Junior
Engineers with immediate effect. The abovesaid order was amended
on 8,11.76 giving benefit of the weightage to only those who ac- F
quired the degree qualification prior to 28.2.72.

'"' In 1977, by another order of the State Government, the post of
Junior Engineer was made Gazetted post.

In separate petitions before the Andhra Pradesh Administra- G
.tive Tribunal, the Supervisors upgraded as Junior Engineers in-
cluding those who acquired the degree qualification after 28.2.72, as
well as the State of A.P. agitated the issue regarding inter-se senior-
ity between the upgraded Junior Engineers and the direct recruit
Junior Engineers. The Tribunal heard all the matters together and
gave a find,ing that there was no bar to the retrospective regularisa- H.

295
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) I S.C.R.

A tion of the directly recruited Engineers from the dates of their ini-
tial appointments. The Tribunal also upheld the actien of the Gov-
ernment in giving the benefit of the notional date of appointment to
the upgraded Junior Engineers and the benefit of the date of regu-
larisation of thier services from the dates of thier notional appoint-
ments subject to maintenance of order or ranking given by the Pub-
B lie Service Commission. The Tribunal also ordered that the ranking
given by the Public Service Commission in respect of directly re-
cruited Junior Engineers has to be mainta.ined and each of them
would be entitled to count his seniority from the date on which his
service has been regularised or from the date of regularisation of
the service of the person immediately below in the order of ranking
C given by the Public Service Commission, whichever was earlier.
In respect of upgraded Junior Engineers who acquired degree
qualification after 28.2.1972, the Tribunal gave a specific direction
that their seniority has to be fixed on the basis of specific notional
date of appointment given to them by interspersing their names
D among regular Junior Engineers as arranged in chronological order
of dates from which such regular Junior Engineers •• entitled to
0

count their seniority.

Aggrieved against the Tribunal's order, the State Government
and the Supervisors upgraded as Junior Engineers, nreferred the
E present appeals.

On behalf of the State, it was contended that the direction of
the Tribunal particularly interspersing was not workable, since the
upgraded Junior Engineers have put in long years of service and
were discharging the same duties as the directly recruited Junior
F Engineers and this factor should be taken into account in fixing the
notional date of appointment aild inter-se seniority.

On behalf of the upgraded Junior Engineers, it was contended
that in G.O. Ms No.559 it is specifically laid down that Supervisors
who have acquired graduate qualification may be appointed as Jun-
G ior Engineers after 28.2.75 and the weightage of four years should
he reckoned from the dale of acquiring the degree qualification i.e.
28.2. 72 or thereafter; and their seniority should not he fixed from
the date of the order of appoitment.

On the other hand, the direct recruit Junior Engineers con-
H tended that the upgraded Junior Engineers can under no circu·m-
·STATE v. MURALIDHAR · 297

stances be treated as seniors to the directly recruited Junior Engi- A
neers for the appoinment of Junior Engineers was suspended for
some time and in view. of the exigencies the degree-holders were
appointed on temporary basis and they have served for a number of
years; the Government decided to make regular appointments and
accordingly a Special Qualifyng Test was held in which they quali-
fied and. they were given the appointments; and a seniority list strictly B
on the basis of performance in the test and on merit was prepared
by the Public Service Commission and a retrospective effect was
given. It was further contended that so far as the upgraded Junior
Engineers are concerned all the relevant .G.O.Ms. make it clear that
the crucial date has to be reckoned O!' the basis of tlie actual date of
appointment and not on the date of acquiring the degree. C

_, Disposing .of the matters, this court,

HELD: 1.1. The,weightage of four years i'n respect of upgraded
Junior Engineers as provided in G.O.Ms. No.559 has to be reckoned
from the date of appointment and not the date of their acquiring the D
degree qualification. On the basis of that notional date, their illter-
se seniority has to be fixed. (311 B-C)

1.2. G.O. Ms. No. 559 makes it abundantly clear that the ap-
pointments of the upgraded Junior Engineers who acquired the graduate
qualification while in servic~, would be prospective only and that E
they would be entitled to the weightage of four years of service
rendered before the appointment. It does not anywhere indicate
that the weightage should be from the date of acquiring the degree
qualification. It is only after acquiring such degree qualification
that a Supervisor is appointed as Junior Engineer and having re-
gard to the service rendered by him, the Government, as a policy, F
decided to give weightage of four years for the purpose of consider-
ing the eligibility for promotion as Assistant Engineer. (308 C-D]

2.1. The regularisation of the degree-holders Junior-Engineers
who passed the Special Qualifying Test by giving retrospective ef-
fect cannot be held to be illegal, and their seniority among them- G
selves shall be subject to the order of ranking given by the Public
Service Commission on. the basis .of the Special Qualifying Test.
(311 DJ

2.2. The degree-holders were appointed temporarily because of
a ban and later the Government again, as a policy decision, decided H
298 SIJl'REME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S.C.R.

A to make regular appointments by direct recruitment but enabled
..,,. .
the degree-holders who were in temporary service to appear in a
. Special Qualifying Test. Here again, as a matter of policy, the Gov-
ernment decided to give some weightage to the service rendered by
them before the appointment by selection. Thus, the Government,
in fixing the seniority for the purpose of future promotion of the
B. appointees-both the upgraded Junior Engineers as well as those
selected by the Public Service Commission in the Special Qualifying
Test has taken into account the past service rendered by them.
[308 E-F]

· 3. In the case of upgraded Junior Engineers weightage of four
c years service was given and in the other case two years, weightage
was given. As a matter of policy, the Government gave weightage to
both the categories discharging the same duties. The upgraded Jun-
ior Engineers who having got the benefit of· four years' service,
therefore, cannot say that similar weightage should not be given to
the direct recruits who, prior to the selection, were working on
temporary basis. [308 F; 309 B, F]

Devi Prasad and Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,
AIR 1980 SC 1185, relied on. .,.

Smt. M. Nirmala and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
E etc., [1986] 3 SCC 647; Ashok Gulati and Ors. v. B.S.Jain and Ors.,
[1986] Sup. SCC 597; Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers.
Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1990] 2 SCC 715; Masood
Akhtar Khan and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., [1990] 4
sec 24, referred to.
F 4. The Tribunal has rightly pointed out that under Rule 23-A
of the A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 if a person
having been appointed temporarily under Rule 10 to a post borne
on the cadre is subsequently appointed in the service in accordance
with the rules, he shall commence his probation from such subse-
quent date or the earlier date as the appointing authority may de-
G termine. The Tribunal was also right in holding that there was no
bar to the retrospective regularisation of the service of the direct
recruit Junior Engineers. [308 G-H; 309 A]

5. In the light of this Judgment, the State Government 'shall
prepare a com.moo seniority list of the degree holder Junior Engi-
H neers and the upgraded Junior Engineers and that list shall be the
299
.. /
. STATE v. MURALIDHAR [REDDY, J.]

basis for all the subsequent promotions. Any promotion already A
given shall be reviewed and readjusted in accordance with the said
seniority list. [311 D-E]

6. Since this litigation has been pending for about two dec-
ades, it is high time a finality has to be reached by resolving the .
controversies and in this context the approval of the Public Service B
Commission in respect of these appointments need not be sought, if
the Government has not already obtained the approval of the Public
Service Commission. [311 A-BJ
......
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 752 of 1984
etc. etc. c
From the Judgmeni and Order dated 1.8.1983 of Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Representation Petition No. 799 of
1977.

K. Madhava Reddy, T. V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Manjula Gupta, B. Kanta D
Rao, D. Prakash Reddy, B. Rajeshwar Rao, Vimal Dave, K. Ram Kumar,
Y. Prabhakara Rao, K.R. Nagaraja, Krishan Kumar and G. Prabhakar for
~ the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J, The questions involved in these
matters being common they are being disposed of by a common judgment.
All these matters arise out of a common order of the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal passed in Representation Petitions Nos. 799/77, 548179 and 140/
81. S.L.P. (Civil) No. 5218/85 is filed against a separate order·of the
Tribunal in R.P. No. 1473/80. The dispute is regarding the inter-se senior- F
ity between the Supervisors who are upgraded as Junior Engineers and the
degree-holders who are directly appointed as Junior Engineers. All of
them belong to the different branches.in the A.P. Engineering Subordinate
Service. First we shall state the relevant facts in each of the appeals and
then. formulate the points that arise for consideration. For convenience
sake we shall refer to the parties as arrayed before the Tribunal. G

CIVIL APPEAL NOS 752 AND 754184:

These two appeals are filed against the order in R.P. No. 799177.
->--... TI1e first one is filed by the State of A.P. and the other poe by upgraded
Super\lisors-Junior Engineers. The petitioners before the Tribunal are all H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S.C.R.

A Junior Engineers in Irrigation and Power Department. They were initially
appointed as temporary Junior Engineers in the year 1969/70. Later they
appeared in a special qualifying test ('SQT' for short) held by the Public
Service Commission and on the basis of the result of the test their services
were regularised in the post of Junior Engineers with retrospective effect
from the date of the temporary appointment subject to the maintenance of
B the order of ranking given by the Public Service Commission in the test.
The respondent Nos. 3 onwards in these R.Ps. are also Junior Engineers in
the same department but they were appointed as Supervisors and on ac-
quiring the degree they have been redesignated as Junior Engineers. Sev-
eral G .0 .Ms were issued by the Government and the important one 'is
G.0.Ms. No. 559 (I & P) Department dated 18.7.77. The post of Junior
C Engineer was made Gazetted post. The case of the petitioners is that the
respondents acquired degree qualification after 28.2.72 therefore they were
-
'
not entitled to be appointed as regular Gazetted Junior Engineers and at
any rate they cannot be treated as seniors on the basis of reckoning their
seniority from the date of acquiring degree qualification and that the
seniority of these graduate Supervisors should be reckoned from the date
D of their actual appointment as Junior Engineers and not from the date of·
acquiring degree qualification. The respondent Supervisors, on the other
hand, contended that they are entitled to upgradation and weightage of
service from the date of their first appointment as Supervisors.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 753184:
E
This appeal is filed against the order in R.P. No. 548179. The peti-
tioners in this R.P. are all Supervisors who graduated after 28.2.72. Their
contention was that they were appointed much before the respondents
namely the directly recruited Junior Engineers and the services of the
respondents Junior Engineers should not be regularised in such a way so
t as to affect the seniority of the petitioners and that the seniority of the
petitioners should be reckoned from the notional date ofappointrnent.

UVIL APPEAL NO. 755184:

This appeal is filed against the order in R.P. No. 140/81. The sole
G petitioners before the Tribunal, who is a respondent here, questioned G.O.Ms.
No. 466 Transport, Roads and Building and sought a declaration that he
should be declared as senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 5 and promote him
to the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner before the Tribunal was
directly recruited Junior Engineer. He also passed the SQT held in the
year 1975. The respondents before the Tribunal were upgraded Supervi-
H sors who acquired the graduate qualification. G.O. Ms. No. 466 was is-
STATE '" MURALIDHAR [REDDY, J.) 301
. ~

sued directing that the respondent before the Tribunal namely the up- A
graded Supervisors should be treated seniors to· all the directly recruited ·
Junior Engineers whose services were regularsied on the basis of the SQT.
The Tribunal held that the findings· in the other R.Ps. Nos. 799/77 and
548/79 apply to the facts of this case also and accordingly directed to
prepare an inter-se seniority list in the Transport, Roads and Buildings
Department on the lines indicated therein. R. P. was disposed of with those B
observations. The upgraded Supervisors-Junior Engineers who were the
respondents before the Tribunal have filed this appeal.

These matters were heard together by the Tribunal. After consider-
- .;... ing the various G.0.Ms. and the arguments the Tribunal held that there
was no bar to the retrospective regularisation of the services of the di-
reetly recruited Junior Engineers from the dates of their initial appoint-
c
ments. It also held that the action of the Government in giving the benefit
of the notional date of appointment to the upgraded Junior Engineers and
the benefit of the date of regualrisation of their services from the dates of
their notional appointments subject to maintenance of order of ranking
given by the Public Service Commission i~' justified. The Tribunal further D
held that the order of ranking given by the· Public Service Commission in
respect of directly 'recruited Junior Engineers has to be maintained and
,.,. each of them ·will have to be treated as being entitled to count his senior-
ity from the date on which his service has been regularised or from the
date of the regularisation of the ·service of the person immediately below
him in the order of ranking given by the Public Service Commission, E
whichever is earlier. in paragraph 23 of the Order the Tribunal specifi-
cally held thus :

"23. We are of the opinion that once the dates from which the
directly-recruited Junio.r Engineers can claim seniority are thus
~ fixed on the basis of this fomrnla, it should not be difficult to
F
fix their inter-se seniority vis-a-vis the upgradedlunior Engi-
-~
neers on the basis of the notional dates of appointment given
~
to th~ latter. In this connection we would like to point out that,
whereas in the case of an upgraded Junior Engineer who ac-
quired degree qualification before 28.2.1972, seniority will have
to be fixed by putting him below all the regualr Junior Engi-
G
neers including directly-recruited Junior Engineers who are
entitled to claim seniority from any date during the year in
which ·such upgraded Junior Engineer has been given the
notional date of appointr. 'nt, this practice cannot be followed
in case of an upgraded J nior Engineer who has acquired de-
-;-.~
gree qualification after 20.2.1972, in view of the fact that the H
provision for fixing his seniority below 0th.er Junior Engineers
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] I S.C.R.

A of the particular year (as was made in G.O . .Ms. No. 893 dated
' .
15 .6.72) was not made in the amended Rule as issued under
G.0.Ms. No. 54 dt. 15.2.1983. His seniority will, therefore,
have to be fixed on the basis of the specific notional date of
appointment given to him by interspersing his name among the
regular Junior Engineers as arranged in chronological order of
B dates from which such regular Junior Engineers (including di-
rectly recruited Junior Engineers) are entitled to count their
seniority."
It is this part of the Order that has given rise to all these appeals
~foreuL ~·

c The State of A.P. being aggrieved by this Order filed C.A. No. 752/
84 and both petitioners and respondents namely the Junior Engineers di- -
rectly recruited and upgraded Supervisors as Junior Engineers are the
main respondents before us. Civil Appeal Nos. 753-54 are filed by the
upgraded Supervisors - Junior Engineers. In these two matters the Junior
Engineers directly recruited are the respodents. Thus in all these matters
D the Junior Engineers directly recruited are the respondents.

It is contended on behalf of State of A.P. that the direction given by
the Tribunal particularly interspersing is not workable. Learned counsel
for the State, however, pointed out that the upgraded Supervisors have put
in long years of service and they have been discharging the same duties as
E directly recruited Junior Engineers and that this fact also has to be borne
in mind in fixing the notional date of appointment of the two categories of
officers and in fixing their inter-se seniority.

Shri B.Kanta Rao, learned counsel appearing for all the upgraded
Supervisors-Junior Engineers contended ·that in G.0. Ms. No. 559 it is
F specifically laid down that Supervisors who have acquired graduate quali-
fication may be appointed as Junior Engineers after 28.2. 72 and the weightage
of four years shouid be reckoned from the date of acquiring the degree
qualification i.e. 28.2.72 or thereafter. He also contended that the senior-
ity of the upgraded Supervisors-Junior Engineers should not be fixed
from the date of the Order of appointment dated 8.8. 77. On behalf of the
G directly recruited Junior Engineers Shri K.Madhava Reddy, learned coun-
sel submitted that the upgraded Supervisors can under no circumstances
be treated as seniors to the directly recruited Junior Engineers. According
to him appointment of Junior Engineers was suspended for some time and
in view of the exigencies the degree-holders were appointed on tempo-
rary basis and they have served for a number of years. Later the Govern-
H ment decided to make regular appointments and accordingly a Special
.. ,;-.
STATE v. MURALIDHAR [REDDY, J.J

Qualification Test was held and such of those temporary Junior Engineers
who were degree-holders got qualified and were given the appoinments
303

A

• and a seniority list strictly on the basis of perfotrnance in the test and on
merit was prepared by the Public Service Commission and a retrospective
effect was given. His further .submission was that so far as the upgraded
Supervisors are concerned all the relevant G.0.Ms. make·it clear that the
crucial date has to be reckoned on the basis of the actual date of appoint- B
ment and not on the date of acquiring the degrees.

For appreciating these rival contentions it becomes necessary to
refer to some of the G.O.Ms. particularly with a view to arrive at the
("crucial date") in respect of each of these categories for the purpose of

' fixation of the seniority. In respeci of upgraded Supervisors who acquired
a degree, certain G.0.Ms. were issued from time to time. In the year 1972
G.O.Ms. No. 893 dated 15.6.72 was issued amending the special rules for
the A.P. Engineering Subordinate Service. The same provided that Super-
visors who while in service acquire B.E./A.M.l.E. degree qualification,
c

shall be entitled to count 50% of the service rendered as Supervisors prior
to the acquisition of such qualification subject to a maximum limit of four D
years.This was subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was
that they should be considered. to have been placed below the last of the
~-
Junior Engineer of the year after giving such weightage. In the year 1976
another G.O.Ms No. 45 I (I & P) dated I 0.6. 76 ordered that the Supervi-
sors who acquire the graduate ·qualification while in service should be
appointed as Junior Engineers with immediate effect. On 8. I I .76 G.O.Ms. E
No.815 (I & P) was issued. Clause 4 of the Conditions stipulated in
G.O.Ms. No.893 was amended and the benefit of the weightage was di-
reeled to be given effect only to those who acquired the aforesaid degree
qualification prior to 28.2.72. Then came the important G.0.Ms. No. 559
(I & P) dated'JS.7.77. Relying on the contents of the above G.0.Ms. the
upgraded Supervisors claimed that the weightage of four years should be F
'~ reckoned from the date of acquiring the qualification and not from the
· date of actual appointment.

The directly recruited Junior Engineers also based their claim on
. G.O.Ms. Nos.· 45 I and 559 and they· further contended that the upgraded
Supervisors should be treated as regularly appointed only with effect from G
· the date ofH1eir appointment.

It may not be necessary for the purpose of this case to extract the
entire contents of the G.O. Ms. that preceded G.O. Ms. Nos, 45 I and 559.
L It would suffice if we just give the gist of those respective G.0.Ms. Under
G.O.Ms. No. 787 dated 9.6.71 the Government declared that posts of H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S.C.R.
', ,
A Junior Engineers would be filled in by graduate Engineers which will be
made a separate category and they will be made gazetted. Therefore G.O.Ms.
No.240 dated 28.2.72 was issued. Under the said G.0.Ms. 1870 posts of
Supervisors in Public Works Department were declared to constitute a
category of Junior Engineers and similarly in the Roads and Buildings
Department 620 posts were declared to constitute as a category of Junior
B Engineers as distinct from Supervisors and both these categoriei; were
made gazetted with effect from that date. The G.0.Ms. also provided for
temporary appointments in the case of qualified Junior Engineers being
not available for filling up all such gazetted posts, and all these posts of
Junior Engineers in both the Departments were declared to be within the
purview of the A.P. Public Service Commission and the method of recruit-
c ment to the post ofJunior Engineer should be by direct recruitment. Then
came the G.O. Ms. No. 893 dated 15.6.72 amending the special rules for
the A.P. Engineering Subordinate Service under which the Supervisors
who acquired the qualification were declared to be entitled to count 50%
·of their service subject to a maximum limit of four years for the purpose
of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from Junior Engineer. G.O.
D Ms. No. 782 dated 3.5.74 was issued permitting the Junior Engineers
recruited during emergency on temporary basis to apply for SQT held by
the Public Service Commission. Accord.ingly the Rules were amended as
per G.0.Ms. No. 786 dated 7.8.74 and the adhoc rules were framed ena- _._
bling the computation of period of two years with or without break in the
service rendered by such degree-holders Junior Engineers who appeared in
E the SQT held by the P11blic Service Commission and were de~lared to be
selected and thus their services were regularised retrospectively giving
them the benefiLof the service of two years rendered prior to the actual
selection.,~· co1;formity with the same Rule 33A was also relaxed for the
purpose.·Of fixing their inter-se seniority. The next important G.O.Ms.
with which we are concerned is G.0.Ms. No. 451 dated 10.6.76. It reads
F as under:

"GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

ABSTRACT

G Establishment-Irrigation and Power Department-Appointment
of Supervisors who have acquired Graduate Qualification as
Junior Engineers-Orders-Issued.
Irrigation and Power (Ser.II) Department
o:o. Ms. No. 451 Dated: 10-6-1976
H
ORDER: C9nsequent on the declaration of the posts of Junior
STATE v. MURALIDHAR [REDDY,J.] 305

. " Engineers as Gazetted with effect from 28.2.1972, the upgradation
of Supervisors who acquired Graduate Qualification while in
A

service, as Junior Engineers, ceased ..Since then representa-
lions have been made to Government by several Associations
that the benefit of upgradation should be extended also to
Supervisors who acquired.the Graduate qualifi.cation on or af-
ter 28.2.1972. B

"2. On a reconsideration of the matter, the Government are of

.
the view that some consideration should be shown. to the Su-
pervisors who have acquired the Graduate qualification while
in service. Accordingly the Government have decided that the
Supervisors in P.W. (Irrigation) Department who have acquired c
Graduate qualification while in service should be appointed
temporarily as Junior Engineers (Prospectively) with immedi-·
ate effect.

The Chief Engineer (General) is requested to take action ac-
cordingly,. Orders regarding other consequential matters will D
issue separately.

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF A.P.)

M.GOPALAKRJSHNAN,
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT'' E

Under this G.0. Ms. it is proposed to extend the benefit ofupgradation
to Supervisors who acquired the graduate qualification on or after 28.2. 72
but the second para makes it clear that they should be appointed tempora
rily as Junior Engineers and that too.prospectively only.
F
; The next and the important G.O.Ms. is No.559 dated 18.7.77 which
·"' reads as under:

"GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

ABSTRACT G

ESTABLISHMENT-lrrigation & Power Department
Appointment by transfer of Supervisors who have acquired
l_ Graduate qualification from 28.2.1972 onwards as Junior En-
gineers-Further orders-Issued. H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19921 I S.C.R.

A IRRIGATION & POWER(SERVICE- III) DEPARTMENT ..
·
G.O. Ms. No.559 Dated 18th July, 1977
Read the following:-
G.O. Ms. No.451, Irrigation.& Power (Ser.III) Department,
dated 10.6.1976.
B
ORDER:
It was ordered in the G.O., cited that the Supervisors in the Public
, Works (Irrigation) Department; should be appointed temporarily as Junior

c
Engineers (Prospectively) with immediate effect. It wa.5 also indicated
therein that orders regarding other consequential matters would issue sepa-
rately.
. \ .
2. Accordingly, matters relating to weightage, seniority, etc., have
been examined by the Government. and the following orders are issued:-
(i) Supervisors who acquire Graduate qualification may be
appointed as Junior Engineers on or after 28.2.1972, subject to
D the availability of vacancies in the cadre of Jumor Engineers.
They will not be entitled for appointment as Junior Engineers
automatically from the date of acquisition of degree qualifica-
ti on;
(ii) A Supervisor, who is appointed as Junior Engineer, shall
E
be entitled to count I/3rd of the service rendered by him as
Supervisor, before his appointment as Junior Engineer, subject
to a maximum of four years, for the purpose of computing the
service as Junior Engineer, which will render him eligible for
consideration for promotion as Assistant Engineer.
F (iii) The se11iority of the Supervisors, who are appointed as
Junior Engineers, shall be fixed with reference to the notional ,,.'-
date arrived at after giving weightage of service;
(iv) A Supervisor, who is appointed as Junior Engineer, shall
put in a minimum service of one year as Junior Engineer to
become eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineer;
G
(v) No Supervisor shall ~rdinarily be eligible for appointment
as Junior Engineer unless he has put in a minimum service ·of
three years as Supervisors. A supervisor with less than three

H
years of service, who is appointed as Junior Engineer for any
special reason, shall not be entitled to any we'ightage for his
past service.
j
STATE v. MURALIDHAR (REDDY, J.] 307

J 3. Necessary amendment to the Special Rules for the Andhra Pradesh A
Engineering Service will be issued separately. The Transport, Roads &
Buildings/Panchayati Raj/Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban De-
velopment Department will issue amendments to the Special Rules with
which they are concerned in accordance with the above decisions in con-
sultation with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission.
B
4. The cadre strength.of Junior Engineers was last fixed in G.O.Ms.
No. 240, Public Works (VI) Department, dated 28.2.1972. Since then a
large number' of posts of Junior Engineers/Supervisors have been sanc-
tioned by Government. The Chief Engineer (General) is requested to sub-
mit proposals for suitably enhancing the strength of the two orders.
c
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF A.P.)

M.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT."

G.O. Ms. No. 451 is referred to in this G.0.Ms. and in the Preamble D
it is clearly noted that the appointments of the upgraded Supervisors as
Junior Engineers should be temporary and prospectively only. In Para-
graph 2 (i) it is also made abundantly clear that they will not be entitled
for appointment as Junior Engineers automatically from the date of acqui-
sition of degree quaiification. Coming to the weightage it is clarified in
paragraph 2 (ii) to the effect that a Supervisor who is appointed as Junior E
Engineer shall be entitled to count I/3rd of the service rendered by him as
Supervisor, before his appointment as Junior Engineer, subject to a miximum
or'four years and the same would be taken into account to render the
appointee eligible for consideration for promotion as Assistant Engineer.
Paragraph 2 (iii) is very important regarding the seniority and the same
has to be fixed with reference to the notional date arrived at after giving F
weightage of service. Paragraph 2 (v) gives a clue that the weightage
could be from the date of appointment. The Goverlll)lent, however, issued
proceedings dated 8.8.77 and fixed the seniority of these upgraded Super-
visors who acquired th~ degree qualification from the date of acquiring
the degree. We have already noted that vide G.0. Ms. No. 893 the special
rules were amended. After the G.O. Ms. No. 559 was issued, representa- G
tions were made by the Association of Andhra Junior Engineers as well as
from the Diploma"holders Engineers Association. Having considered these
. representations, the Government came out with another G.O. Ms. No. 593
dated 29. 7. 77 and clarified that the rules only refer to the date of appoint-
ment and does not refer to selection and that the seniority of an individual
or a class or category has to be fixed according to the date of his first H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S.C.R.

A appointment and not with reference to the date of selection and the Chief
Engineer (General) was requested to fix the seniority accordingly. The
'- .
Chief Engineer (General) vide proceedings No. Re. Gel. Ml/58062n4-75
dated 8. 8. 77 fixed the seniority. But in doing so he has taken the date of
passing the examination by the upgraded Junior Engineers as the date of
appointment. As already noted this fixation of seniority was questioned
B before the rpbunal.

From the above resume of all the G.0.Ms. it. is clear that an inter-
pretation ofG.O. Ms. No. 559 would be decisive in these matters.

In our view the G.O. Ms. No. 559 makes it abundantly clear that the
c appointments of these upgraded Supervisors who acquired the graduate
qualification while in service, would be prospective only and that they
would be entitled to the weightage of four years of service rendered
before the appointment. The G.O. Ms. does not anywhere indicate that the
weightage sh.ould be from the date of acquiring the degree qualification. It
must be borne in mind that it is only after acquiring such degree qualifica-
D tion that a Supervisor is appointed as Junior Engineer and having regard
to the service rendered by him the Govern,ment as a policy decided to
give weightage of four years for the purpose of considering the eligibility
for promotion as Assistant Engineer. In this context it is pertinent to note
that the degree-holders were appointed temporarily because of a ban and
later the Government again as a policy decision decided to make regular .
E appointments by direct recruitment but enabled the degree-holders who
are in temporary service to appear in a SQT. Again as a matter of policy
the Government decided to give some weightage to the service rendered
by them before the appointment by selection. It can thus be seen that the
Government in fixing the seniority for the purpose of future promotion of
the appointees both the upgraded as well as those selected by the Public
F Service Commission in SQT has taken into account the past service ren-
dered by them. In the case of upgraded Junior Engineers weightage of
four years' service is given and in the other case two years' weightage is
given. In this context it is contended on behalf of the upgraded Junior
Engineers that tlie regularisation of the direct Junior Engineers retrospec-
tively that is with effect from two years prior to the date of their appoint-
G ments is unwarranted. In this context the Tribunal has rightly pointed out
that under Rule 23-A of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules,
1962 if a person having been appointed temporarily under Rule I 0 to a
post borne on the cadre is subsequently appointed in the service in accord-
ance with the rules he shall commente his probation from such subsequent
date or the earlier date as the appointing authority may determine. We
H agree with tl1e Tribunal that there is no bar to the retrospective regularisa-
STATE v. MURALIDHAR [REDDY, J.) 309

tion of the service of the direct Junior Engineers. However, in the ·instant A
case, it was a special selection by SQT restricted to the directly recruited
Junior Engineers who had put in two years of service and the objective
was. to regularise their services. As stated supra as a matter of policy the
Government gave weightage to both the categories. In Devi Prasad and
others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1980 SC 1185,
G.O. Ms. No.893 referred to above was questioned on the ground of B
unreasonableness in the matter of giving weightage to the upgraded
supervisors.This Court held that in the light of their experience there is
nothing unreasonable in giving them limited benefit or weightage. It was
further observed as under: ·

"Ultimately; it is a matter of Government policy to decide C
what weightage should be given as between two categories of
Government servants rendering somewhat similar kind of ser-
vice. Jn the present case, there may be truth in the case of the
appellants that they are hit hard because of the new rule. Dr.
Chitale tried to convince us of the hardship that his clients
sustain consequent on this rule and weightage conferred thereby. D
But mere hardship without anything arbitrary in the rule does
not call for judicial intervention, especially when it flows out
of a policy which is not basically illegal. However, Govern-
ment must be interested in keeping its servants specially in
strategic areas like engineering contended and efficient. Jn so
producing contentment, it may have.to evolve a flexible ·policy E
which will not strike a group as inflicting hardship on them. A
·sense of justice must permeate both the groups."
However, the upgraded Junior Engineers who having got the benefit
of four years' service cannot be heard to say that similar weightage cannot
be given to the direct recruits who prior to the selection were working on F
temporary basis.

Shri Kanta Rao, learned counsel relied on the decisions of this Court
in Smt. MNirmafa and others v. State oj'Andhra Pradesh and others etc.,
[1986]3 SCC 647; Ashok Gulati and others v. B.S. .lain and others.,
[1986] Supp. SCC597; Direct Recmit Class fl Engineering Ojjicers' Asso- G
· ciation v. State ofMaharashtra and Others, [1990] 2SCC 715 and Masood
Akhtar Khan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and ot/Jet:<,[1990] 4
sec 24 and contended that both the categories were discharging the san1e
duties and there should not be any discrimination.

Learned counsel also relied on some unreported judgments of the H
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1929, 1006 and 2387/
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S.C.R.

A 73 and also Writ Petitions Nos. 3897/72. We have perused all these judg-
ments and we are of the view that such a question did not arise in these
.. '
cases. The question to he considered is from which date the weightage of
four years' service should be given to the upgraded Junior Engineers
namely the Supervisors. Is it the date of acquiring the degree qualification
or the date of their appointment? Having given our earnest consideration
B and for the reasons stated above we hold that the weightage can he given
only from the date of their appointment.

The Tribunal in the course of its order, however, observed that in
accordance with the existing rules ~he appointments of these Junior Engic
neers from the notional date have· to be cleared by the Public Service
c Commission and the appointments cannot be held to he regular appoint-
ments as Jong as they are not approved by the Public Service Commission,
Having referred to the Rules, the Tribunal in paragraph 18 observed thus:

"We thus find that the appointment of the upgraded JEs as
well . as the direct JEs to the Gazetted posts have not been
D made strictly in accordance with the Rules and, hence, it is
necessary for the Government to issue specific orders after
following the procedure laid down in the Rules, in regard to
their appointment to the Gazetted posts of 'Junior Engineers'."

Having so observed the Tribunal suggested some working fonnula in
E the meanwhile. In evolving this fonnula the Tribunal further held thus:

"Thus, after having examined the points raised for and against
the action taken by the Government in giving the upgraded
Junior Engineers the benefit of the notional dates of appoint-
ment given to them and in giving the direct Junior Engineers
F benefit of the dates of the regularisation of their services from
the dates of their initial appointment subject to the mainte-
nance of the order ranking given l>y the P.S.C., we feel that the
v'1
Government action in this respect was quite justified."

Towards the end the Tribunal, however, observed that the seniority
G of the upgraded Junior Engineers who acquired the degree qualification
before 28.2.72 will have to be fixed by putting them below all the regular.
Junior Engineers.Likewise those who have acquired th_e degree qualifica-
tion after 28.2.72 their seniority hate to be fixed on the basis of notional
date of appointment by "interspersing" among the regular Junior Engi-
neers. The learned counsel for the State of A.P. subinitted that this exer-
-~
H cise of "interspersing" becomes impossible at this stage.
STATE v. MURALIDHAR [REDDY,.J.]. 311

·- --;·
Having given our careful consideration particularly to the fact that A
this litigation has been pending for the last so many years, about two
decades. We feel that it is high time a finality has to be reached by
resolving the controversies and in this context we are of the view that the
approval of the Public Service Commission in respect of these appoint-
ments need not be sought, if the Government has not already obtained the
· approval of the Public Service Commission. To sum up, our conclusions B
are as under:

(i) .The weightage of four years in respect of upgraded Junior Engi-
neers as provided in G.O. Ms. No. 559 has to be reckoned from
the date of appointment and. not the date of their acquiring the
degree qualification; C
(ii) On the basis· of that notional date, their inter-se seniority has to
be fixed; ·
(iii) The regularisation of the degree-holder Junior Engineers who
passed the SQT by giving retrospective effect cannot be held to
be illegal, and their seniority among themselves shall be subject D
to the order of ranking given by the Public :Service Commission
on the basis of the SQT;
(iv) The Government shall prepare a common seniority list of the
degree'holders Junior Engineers and the upgraded Junior Engi-
neers on the above lines and that list shall be the basis for all the
subsequent promotions. Promotions, if any, already given shall E
be reviewed and readjusted in accordance with the said seniority
list; and
(v) The approval of the Public Service Commission in respect of
these appointments and their seniority thus fixed need not be
sought at this distance of time.
Accordingly Civil Appeal Nos. 752-55/84 are disposed of as per the F
directions given above. There will be no order as to costs.

SLP.(C) No. 5218185:

This Special Leave Petition arises out of a separate order passed by
the. A.P. Administrative Tribunal in R.P. No. 1473/80. The petitioners G
before the .Tribunal belong to A.P. Panchayati Raj Engineering Depart-
ment in Zone No. 1. They are all graduates in. Civil Engineering and were
temporarily appointed as Junior Engineers originally in the Public Works
Department in 1969. Their services were tenninated for want of vacan-
. ;.-....___
cies. However, during the year.1973 they were again appointed in the A.P.
Panchayati Raj Engineering Department. They also appeared in the Spe-
H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1992] I S.C.R.

A cial Qualifying Test and they were selected by the Public Service Com-
mission and they were appointed as regular Junior Engineers. They com-
menced their probation. The respondents before the Tribunal were ap-
pointed as Supervisors and after they acquired the degree qualification
they were designated as Junior Engineers. The grievance of the petitioners
was that the respondents could not have been put above the petitioners in
B the matter of seniority and their seniority should have been reckoned from
· the date of their acquiring the graduate qualification. G.O. Ms. No. 422
issued by the Department declaring them as seniors to the petitioners, was
specifically questioned before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the
impugned G.0.Ms. is vitiated firstly on the ground that the principles of
natural justice have not been observed and secondly that the petitioners
C before the Tribunal who were the direct recruits and who were selected by
the Public Service Commission after holding the SQT, are entitled to
count their service in the ranking of Junior Engineers from the date of
their appointment subject to the order regarding the maintenance of rank-
ing given by the Public Service Commission. The said order of Tribunal is
questioned in this Special Leave Petition by the upgraded Junior Engi-
D neers who were ·the respondents before the Tribunal. In this petition also
the grounds raised are the same as in Civil Appeal Nos. 752-55/84. The
conclusions reached by us in the above matters also govern the points in
this petition. Accordingly this Special Leave Petition is disposed of in
tenns of the directions given in Civil Appeal Nos. 752-55/84. There will
be no order as to costs.
E
W.l'. (C) No. 3566/RS:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. The petitioners are all upgraded Junior Engineers of A.P. Panchayati
Raj Engineering Service. They have questioned G.O.Ms. No. 376/84 un-
F der which some promotions were made on the basis of the inter-se senior-
ity list of the direct recruits and upgraded Junior Engineers. The conclu-
sions reached hy us in Civil Appeals Nos. 752-55/84 also govem the
points raised in this Writ Petition. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dis-
posed of in terms of the directions gi·ven in Civil Appeals Nos. 752-55/84.
There wi II be no order as to costs.
G
G.N. Matters disposed of.