SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Division Bench of the High Court by the common impugned order disposed of Writ Petitions Nos. 34839, 35775 of 1997 and 6758 of 1998. This appeal is filed by the respondent No. 4 in W. P. No. 35775/97. Some of the Head Constables including the respondent No. 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as respondent) in this appeal were appointed temporarily as out of seniority, Sub-Inspector (OSSI) w.e.f. 3-12-1983 without following Recruitment Rules. The appellant was appointed as direct recruit on 12-9-1985. Between 1996 and 1997, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued various Government orders relaxing relevant Recruitment Rules in favour of the respondent and others regularising their services with effect from the date of their temporary appointments affecting the seniority of the appellant. The appellant challenged the same before the A. P. Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the State Government had power to relax the recruitment rules with retrospective effect but however, the Tribunal held that the services rendered by the respondent and other similarly placed persons could not be counted as officiating service for determining their seniority as their appointment was not in accordance with the rules and they had not qualified for appointment. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the respondent and other promotees filed writ petitions before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned order, allowed the writ petitions holding that the recruitment rules could be relaxed with retrospective effect. The High Court also held that even if their initial appointment was not made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules, they had continued in the post uninterruptedly till their services were regularised by relaxing the rules and so their officiating services had to be taken into account for the purpose of seniority. Hence, this appeal is filed questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned order of the High Court.

(2.) It may be useful to notice few more facts.

(3.) The substantive posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police were calculated and apportioned between direct recruits and promotees in 1983. According to the Special Rules, promotees could not exceed 30% of the cadre. There were 200 vacancies out of which 65 were allotted to the promotees and 127 to direct recruitment. The appellant and the other direct recruits were appointed on 12-9-1985 after selection made by APPSC. They underwent training and passed all the tests at the end of training. The Government issued various orders in 1996-97 relaxing the relevant recruitment rules in favour of the respondent and few others regularising their services with effect from the date of their temporary appointment. Pursuant to the said orders, the Commissioner of Police issued orders regularising the services of the respondent and other respondents similarly placed with effect from the date of their temporary appointment. Under these circumstances, the appellant and other direct recruits filed O.As. before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal challenging the relaxation of the Rules and the consequential regularisation of the services of the respondent and others. The Tribunal partly allowed the O.As. holding that the Government were competent to relax the rules in exercise of the powers conferred under R. 47 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 (for brevity General Rules) relating to service conditions with retrospective effect. However, by referring to the various decisions of this Court, the Tribunal took the view that the services rendered by the respondent and other OSSIs could not be counted as officiating service for determining their seniority as their appointments were not in accordance with the rules, they were not qualified for the appointment and that retrospective regularisation of their services adversely affected the interest of the appellant and others who were regularly appointed as direct recruits. In the view it took, the Tribunal held that the impugned orders, to the extent they affected the seniority of the appellant and others, were invalid. The respondent and other promotee OSSIs filed writ petitions before the High Court against that part of the order of the Tribunal.