Holding

The three‑year service requirement for promotion to Additional Director may be satisfied by total service including Class‑II, and seniority based on specialty should not be the basis for promotion to administrative posts.

Summary

The respondents, originally recruited as Civil Assistant Surgeons, claimed they were bypassed for promotion to the post of Additional Director of Medical and Health Services despite being ranked higher in the original select list. The dispute centered on whether the three‑year service requirement under Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the A.P. Medical and Health Services, 1982, must be satisfied solely in Class‑I categories 2 and 3, or may include service in the lower Class‑II cadre. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal held that the total period of service, including lower‑cadre service, should be considered, provided the candidate has at least two years as a Professor. The State appealed, arguing that seniority for promotion should be determined only within the feeding cadre and that the three‑year period must be in Class‑I. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that seniority based on specialty should not dictate promotion to administrative posts and that the three‑year service can be counted across cadres. The Court also directed the State to amend the Rules for clarity.

Issues considered

Whether the three‑year service requirement for promotion to Additional Director must be satisfied only in Class‑I categories 2 and 3 or may include service in Class‑II.
Whether seniority for promotion should be determined solely within the feeding cadre or may consider total service across cadres.
Whether the existing wording of the Rules is arbitrary and requires amendment.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Services Ruless. Rule 10, s. Rule 33(a)
Special Rules for the A.P. Medical and Health Services, 1982s. Rule 2

Subjects

promotionsenioritymedical servicesadministrative tribunalrule interpretationarbitrarinessservice tenurespecial rules

Judgment

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH A
v.
DR. N. RAMACHANDRA P.AO AND ORS.
M. PANDURANGA RAJU AND ORS.

MAY 3, 1990 B
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.]

Services: The Special Rules for the A.P. Medical and Health
Services, 1982-Rules 2 and JO-Teaching and Non-Teaching Cadres-
Promotion to the post of Additional Director of Medical and Health
Services and equivalent posts-Seniority determined in order of spe- c
ciality should not be basis for promotion-Proper amendment of Word-
ings of rules with perspicuity-Need for.

A.P. Subordinate Services Rules-Rule 33(a)-Seniority-
·~ Determination of. D
Under Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the A.P. Medical and Health
Services, 1982, which provided for the method of recruitment to diffe-
rent classes and categories in the A.P. Medical and Health Services.
there were three requirements for eligibility for consideration for pro-
motion to the Class I, Category I posts of Additional Director (Medical
E
Education) and equivalent posts. These were (i) the person should be in
categories 2 and 3 posts of Professors, (ii) he should have a minimum
service of two years in the said categories, and (iii) he should have a
total service of not less than three years.

The respondents were all originally recruited as Civil Assistant
F
Surgeons, upon selection by the State Public Service Commission. In
the Select List prepared by the Commission, respondents No. I to 12
were recruited above the other respondents. However, they were not
)._
· considered for promotion to the category of Additional Director and
other equivalent posts. Hence the aggrieved respondents took their
grievance to the State Administrative Tribunal. The dispute before the
G
Tribunal was whether the requirement of three years service should be
only in Class I, Categories 2 and 3, or it was inclusive of service in Class
II. The Tribunal held that it should be on the basis of total period of
service including in the lower categories, subject to the condition that
the person should be holding the post of Professor or equivalent post for
at least two years.
H

55
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990) 3 S.C.R.

In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the State, it was
A
contended that the seniority for zone of consideration for promotion
should always be of the feeding cadre and not from any other cadre, and
that the minimum of three years must be in Class I in any category and
can never be in Class II service.

B Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

HEW: I. I The juniors who get accelerated promotion on account
of fortuitous circumstances depending upon their speciality and availa-
bility of vacancies in such speciality should not be allowed to march
over their seniors for appointment to administrative posts. Any
advantage gained by jQniors on such fortuitous circumstances of having
C some speciality and p~i>motion should not impair the rights of their
seniors for promotion to posts where speciality or teaching experience is
not called for. The seniority determined jn order of speciality should
not, therefore, be the basis for promotlow to administrative posts.· Any
rule providing for the contrary may be vulnerable to attack on the
D ground of arbitrariness. [62G-H; 63A]

1.2 It would be unreasonable and unjust to exclude the service
and overlook the vertical seniority in the substantive cadre to which
everyone was selected by the Public Service Commission. In medical
profession, there are specialities but it is generally accepted that they
E are not of equal importance or utility. However, the promotions are '
allowed on the basis of the respective specialities and the availability of
promotional vacancies in such specialities. A junior with relatively less
important speciality may be fortunate enough to get quick promotion
than his senior with a different speciality. [62E-G] r
'
F 1.3 The seniority in the category of professors in the teaching and
non-teaching cadre or in the lower cadre based on speciality-wise will
not be relevant for preparation of a panel for promotion to the cadre of
Additional Director and other equivalent posts in Category I. Equally.
the service rendered as Deputy Civil Surgeon in Category S cannot also
he the basis for preparing the panel for consideration. Furth.r more.
G Rule 2 does not expressly exclude the service in Class II Cadre for
preparing panel for consideration for promotion to the Category of
Additional Director and equivalent posts. [628-E]

2 Imprecise drafting of the Rules has led to misunderstanding
and litigation. It would, therefore. be proper for the State Government
H to have the wordings of the Rules properly amended with perspicuity to
STATE OF·A.P. v. DR. N.R. RAO & ORS. [SHE1TY, J.l 57

give effect to the view indicated herein. l63B-C] A

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3131
and 3132 of 1988.

From the 'Judgment and Order dated 15.4.1987 of the A.P.
B
Administrative Tribunal in R.P. No. 1909 of 1985.

----..... K. Madhava Reddy, G. Prabhakar and Narasimhu P.S. {NP) for
'r the Appellant.

S. Ramachandran, B. Kanta Rao and N. Venkatarayudu for the
_.-- Respondents. C

Ms. Rani Chhabra and B. Rajeshwar Rao for the lnterveners.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. These appeals are directed
against the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad
dated April 15, 1987 directing the State Government to consider the
cases ~f Officers for promotion to the category of Additional Director
of Medical and Health Services and equivalent posts on the basis of
,. seniority including service in their lower cadre.
E
../
The appointment in the A.P. Medical and Health Services is
regulated by the statutory rules called "The Special Rules for the A.P.
Medical and Health Services, 1982" (called shortly as the "Rules").

All the respondents were originally recruited as Civil Assistant
Surgeons upon selection by the State Public Service Commission. The F
minimum qualification for Civil Assistant Surgeon is MBBS. The post
of Civil Assistant Surgeon is equivalent to the post of Assistant Pro-
fessor. They are inter-transferable posts but a Post Graduate Degree is
necessary for posting as Assistant Professor. The Civil Assistant
Surgeon is also posted as Tutor in the teaching side if he has no Post
Graduate Degree qualification. In the select list prepared by the G
Public Service Commission, respondents 1 to 12 were ranked above the
other respondents, but they were not considered for promotion to the
category of Additional Director and other equivalent posts. Their
juniors in the original cadre were appointed to such posts, and that was
their grievance before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal.
H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

All Ci~il Assistant Surgeons including Assistant Professors and
A Tutors are eligible for promotion as Deputy Civil Surgeon on the basis
of seniority of Assistant Professors/Civil Assistant Surgeons and
Tutors. It is said that the post of Deputy Civil Surgeons are not cadre
posts. They are just like Selection Grade posts covering 15% of total
cadre strength of Civil Assistant Surgeon posts. They are common
B both in teaching cadre as well as in non-teaching cadre.

From the very beginning after formation of Andhra Pradesh
State, the Civil Assistant Surgeons are appointed by direct recruitment
except perhaps in the year 1984, when there was direct recruitment of
Assistant Professors with the minimum qualification of Post Graduate
degree in the concerned speciality.
c
The Rules contain inter alia two parts; Part-I and Part-II. We are
concerned with Part-I only. It consists of the following three branches:

Branch-I Teaching cadre
D Branch-II Nciri-teadiing cadre
Branch-III Laboratories

Branch-I Teaching cadre again consists of Class-I and Class-II.
Under Class-I, there are six categories of posts. They are as follows:

E Category-1 Additional Director of Medical and Health
Services (Medical Education), Principals of Medical
Colleges, Superintendents of Medical Colleges,
Superintendents of Teaching Hospitals and Princi-
pal, Government Dental College.

F Category-2 Professors-Clinical.

Category-3 Professors- Non-Clinical.

Category-4 Dental Professors.

G Category-5 Deputy Civil Surgeons-Clinical and non-clinical.

Category-6 Deputy Civil Surgeon-Dental.

Class-JI consists of the following three categories:

H Categ0ry I Assistant Professors-Clinical and non-clinical.
STATE OF A.P. v. DR. N.R. RAO & ORS. [SHETIY, J.l 59

Lategory-2 Assistant Professors-Dental:.
A
Category 3 Tutors.

Rule 2 under Branch-I Teaching cadre provides for method of
recruitment to different classes and categories. This ·Rule is important B
and may be read in full:

"Rule 2 Appointment-Appointment to the. various classes and
categories shall be made as follows:

Class and Category _Method of Recruitment
c
Class-I Category-1' (i) By promotion from among the holders
Additional Director of of the post of Professors included in Class-I
Medical & Health Services Categories 2 and 3 of this branch with not
(Medical-Education), less than three years service of which at
Principals of Medical least two years service in the said D
Colleges, Superintendents category on first year in which panel is
of Teaching General prepared.
Hospitals and Principal,
Government Dental Provided that the post of Principal,
College. Government Dental College shall be filled
in by promotion fromamong the holders of E
/ the posts included in Class-I, Category-4.

(ii) who have completed 45 years of age on
first January or 1st July of the year in which
panel is prepared.
F
Category-2 (i) By promotion from among the holders
)._
of the posts of Deputy Civil Surgeons
(clinical) included in Class-I, Category-5
of this branch;

(ii) By promotion from the holders of G
posts of Assistant Professors {clinical)
included in Class-II, Category-] of this
branch if persons from item (i) are not
available."

Similar are the provisions for promotion to the posts of pro- H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

fessors (non-clinical) in Category-3:
A
"Category-3: (i) By promotion from among the holders
of the posts of Deputy Civil Surgeons (non-
clinical) included in Class-I,Category-5 of
this branch;
B
(ii) By promotion from the holders of
posts of Assistant Professors (Non-clinical)
included in Class-II, Category-I of this
branch if persons from item (i) above are
not available."
c It will be convenient, if at this stage, we also read the
amendment to the foregoing Rules made on March 29, 1988. They
are as follows:

AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL RULES FOR THE
D ANDHRA PRADESH MEDICAL AND HEALTH
SERVICES

(G.0.M.No. 182, Health, Medical and Family Welfare
(A-1) 29 March, 1988)

E 1. Constitution ......... . \

2. Appointment: Appointment to the various categories
of posts shall be made as shown in the Table below:

Category of Post Method of Recruitment
F
Category: I
Additional Director of By promotion from among the holders of
Medical & Health Services the post of Professors in Categories 2 and 3
(Medical Education), with not less than three years of service of
Principals of Medical which at least two years shall be in one of
G Colleges, Superintendents the said categories as on first January or !st
of Teaching General July of the year in which panel is
Hospitals and Principals prepared.
Government Dental
College.

H There are three requirements for eligibility for consideration
STATE OF A.P. v. DR. N.R. RAO & ORS. [SHETI'Y, J.] 61

for promotion to the category of Additional Director and equivalent
posts: (i) He should be in cadre. 2 and 3 in Class I; (ii) He should have a A
minimum service of two years in the said categories; and (iii) He
should have a total service of not Jess than three years.

Two years service in the category appears to mean two years
service as Professor and this is not in doubt or dispute. The dispute, B
ho'.·.,ever, is about the requirement of service of three years. Whether
that service should be only in Class-I categories 2 and 3 or inclusive of
service in Class-II is the question for consideration. The Tribunal
appears to have accepted the latter view. It has been held that promo-
tion to the post of Additional Director and equivalent posts is to be
made on the basis of total period of service in including service in the
lower categories subject to the condition that the person should be c
holding the post of Professor or equivalent post for at least two years:

Mr. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants argued
that the view taken by the Tribunal would be contrary to the rule of
seniority in the cadre of Professors. The seniority for zone of con- D
sideration for promotion should always be of the feeding cadre and not
from any other cadre. Reference was made to Rule 10 of the Rules and
also to Rule 33(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate
Services Rules. Counsel also contended that the minimum three years
of service provided under rule 2 in any event must be in class-I in any
/ category and it can never be in Class-II Service. E

We are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for
the appellants, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this
case. Rule 10 of the Rules requires determination of seniority on unit
wise. It reads:
) F
"10. Seniority. For purposes of seniority and appointment
_)
as full members the posts included in this branch shall con-
stitute separate units as indicated below:

Unit 1 Class I Category-1, viz. Additional Director of Medical G
and Health Services (Medical Education),
Principals of Medical Colleges, Superintendents
of Teaching General Hospitals.

Unit2 Class I Category-2 viz. (i) Professors (Clinical and non-
clinical). H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

Unit3 Class I Dental Professors.
A
provided that Deputy Civil Surgeons and Assistant Pro-
fessors shall have separate Seniority in order of speciality"

Rule 33(a) of the A.P. Subordinate Sei-Vice Rules provides that
B seniority ot a person in service, class, category or grade shall, unless he
has been reLuced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by
the date of his first appointment to such service, class category or
grade. It seems to us that the seniority in the category of professors in
the teaching and non-teaching cadre or in the ldwer cadre based on
speciality wise may not be relevant for preparation of a penal for
C promotion to the cadre of Additional Director and other equivalent
posts in Category-I. Equally the service rendered as Deputy Civil
Surgeon in category 5 cannot also be the basis for preparing the panel
for consideration. As observed earlier, Deputy Civil Surgeon is a
common category in all the Branches; Branch-I teachig cadre; Branch-
11 non-teaching cadre and Branch-III Laboratories. It is a part of the
D category of Civil Assistant Surgeons, and not cadre post. It is just like
selection grade post covering in all 15% of total cadre strength of Civil
Assistant Surgeons. The posts are distributed in all the three Branches
and promotion tu the posts depends upon the available vacancies in
every branch.

E Furthermore, Rule 2 does not expressly exclude the service in \

Class-II Cadre for preparing panel for consideration for promotion to
posts with which we are concerned. We also consider that it would be
unreasonable and unjust to exclude the service and overlook the
vertical seniority in the substantive cadre to which everyone was
selected by the Public Service Commission. In medical profession
F there are specialities and specialities, but it is generally accepted that
they are not of equal importance or utility. However, the promotions
are allowed on the basis of the respective specialities and the availa-
bility of promotional vacancies in such specialities. A junior with rela-
tively less important speciality may be fortunate enough to get quick
promotion than his senior with a different speciality. We are of the
G opinion that the juniors who get accelerated promotion on account of
fortuitous circumstances depending upon their speciality and availa-
bility of vacancies in such speciality should not be allowed to march
over their seniors for appointment to administrative posts. Any ad-
vantage gained by juniors on such fortuitous circumstances of having
some speciality and promotion should not impair the rights of their
H seniors for promotion to posts where speciality or teaching experience
STATE OF A.P. v. DR. N.R. RAO & ORS. [SHETfY, J.) 63

is not called for. The seniority determined in order of speciality should A
not therefore be the basis for promotion to admini~trative posts. Any
r rule providing for the contrary may be vulnerable to attack on the
ground of arbitrariness.

We therefore, concur with the view expressed by the tribunal
B
and dismiss these appeals with costs.

Before parting with the case, however, it is necessary to point
out that the imprecise drafting of the present Rules has led to misun-
derstanding and litigation and it would be prop;f for the State
Government to have the wordings of the Rules properly amended with
perspicuity to give effect to the view indicated. C

N.P.V. Appeals dismissed.

. ./ '

_,l