J CHANDRASHEKHAR REDDY K MAHENDRA Vs. D ARORA CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:D ARORA CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two contempt petitions are filed by the Deputy Executive Engineers who were appointed to the said posts directly during the period 31-12-1982 to 31-12-1987. According to the petitioners in Contempt Petition No. 294 of 1992, the respondent-Goverment has committed a breach of the directions given by this Court in its decision dated 24-2-1988 in K. Siva Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1988) 3 SCR 18 . (Writ Petitions Nos. 17165-68 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'Siva Reddy's case (supra)). The contention is that as per the directions given in that decision, the State Government was required to regulate and adjust the appointments made in the vacancies of Deputy Executive Engineers from 31-12-1982 to 31-12-1987 according to the quota of recruitment prescribed in the 1965 Rules, viz., 371/2 per cent direct recruits and 621/2 per cent promotees and give them deemed dates of seniority worked out on the basis of the said quota, right from the inception when the 1965 Rules came into operation. However, this extreme contention was not advanced by Shri Chidambaram appearing for the petitioners in Contempt Petition No. 63 of 1993. According to him, the Government had committed a breach of the directions given in Siva Reddy's case (supra) since it had not adjusted the appointments and seniority of the direct recruits appointed between 31-12-1982 and 31-12-1987 by taking into consideration, the vacancies which were in existence as on 31-12-1982 as well, The Government had only taken into consideration the vacancies which arose between 1-1-1983 and 31-12-1987 for the purpose.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to state briefly the factual context in which the direction in Siva Reddy's case (supra) came to be given. As is stated in the decision in that case itself, on 27-6-1967, Special Rules called Andhra Pradesh (Roads and Buildings) Engineering Service Rules were promulgated which were given retrospective effect from 1-4-1965. Rule 3(1) of the said Rules prescribed the method of recruitment to the category of Assistant Engineers (now called Deputy Executive Engineers). The modes of appointment were (1) by direct recruitment; (ii) by promotion of Junior Engineers and (iii) by recruitment by transfer from other categories with which we are not concerned. Sub-rule 3(A) of the said Rule 3 prescribes that 371/2 per cent of the vacancies in the Deputy Executive Engineer's posts will be filled up by direct /recruitment and 62 1/2 percent by promotion of Junior Engineers and by transfer from the other categories mentioned therein. It appears that notwithstanding the quota laid down by the said rule, it was not followed as far as direct recruits were concerned with the result that the direct recruits were under-recruited. The Court opined that there was no justification at all for the State Government not to work out the quota of recruitment prescribed for direct recruits under the said Rules. The Court further held that at least from 1982, the dispute with regard to the under-recruitment of direct recruits had been systematically raised and the Administrative Tribunal had by the decision in the connected appeals which were heard along with Siva Reddy's case (supra) directed the State Government to work out the said quota rule properly. The Supreme Court further held that "reopening 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" (Emphasis supplied). The Court then gave the direction in question of which the breach is alleged in the present petitions in the following words. "We, therefore, direct that as on 31-12-1982 the State Government must ascertain the exact substantive vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineers in the service. On the basis that 371/2% 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% of the substantive vacancies and in regard to 371/2% of the vacancies the shortfall should be filled up by direct recruitment. General Rules shall not be applied to the posts within the limits of 371/2% of the substantive vacancies and even if promotees are placed in those posts, no seniority shall be counted. The State Government shall take steps to make recruitment of the shortfall in the direct recruitment vacancies within the limit of 371/2% of the total substantive vacancies up to 31-12-1987 within four months from to day by following the normal method of recruitment for direct recruits. The seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Engineers shall be redrawn up, as directed by the Tribunal, by the end of September 1988, keeping the directions referred to above in view. There shall be a direction issued to the State of Andhra Pradesh to make recruitment to the category of Assistant Engineers by strict compliance of Special Rules henceforth. In view of what we have stated above and following the principle indicated in the connected Civil Appeal which we have separately disposed of today, we are of the view that the regularisation made in respect of the promotees of the years 1972 to 1975 should not at this point of time be disturbed particularly when the regularisation has been subsequent to the actual commencement of continuous service in the post of Assistant Engineer. We would, however, reiterate that the directions given in Writ Petition No. 12401 of 1985 is equally applicable to the petitioners in the group and the State Government is directed to give effect to the judgment with meticulous care."

(3.) Before we analyse this direction, it is necessary to clarify one point. The General Rules to which a reference is made in the aforesaid direction are the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules promulgated with effect from 7-3-1962. So far as the present controversy is concerned, the bearing of the said Rules is only to the effect that the seniority of those direct recruits who were to be appointed in the quota of 37 1/2 per cent in the vacancies from 31-12-1982 till 31-12-1987 to make up the shortfall, was not to be governed by the length of continuous service as against the promotees as would be the case under the General Rules.