G RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts leading to this writ petition, civil appeals and the special leave petition lie in a narrow compass. By GO Ms. 244 dated 6/03/1963, Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Engineering Subordinate services Rules came into force. That was given retrospective effect to from 1/11/1960. The petitioners and the appellants who were Overseers were promoted as Supervisors. Some of them prior to 1-11-1960 and after that date but that is not consequential for our purpose, GO Ms. 51 was passed in the year 1972. That prescribed five years qualifying service promotion from the post of Overseer to the post of Supervisor. Admittedly, the writ petitioners and the appellants did not possess this qualification of five years' service. However, that condition came to be relaxed under GO Ms. 254 dated 21/03/1977. On 31/08/1978 GO Ms. 923 came to be issued making GO Ms. 254 dated 21/03/1977 applicable to (1) promotee supervisors and (2) direct recruit supervisors. This was questioned unsuccessfully before the Central Administrative Tribunal in Representation Petition No. 47 of 1979. It upheld the seniority of the petitioners and the appellants similarly situated. On 14/01/1980, this Court dismissed the special leave petition against the judgment of the Tribunal. After all these proceedings, representation petition No. 1045 of 1978 was filed challenging the seniority accorded to the petitioners and the appellants. By the impugned judgment dated 22-4-1983, the seniority accorded to the petitioners and the appellants was set aside. Thereupon, the Government issued GO Ms No. 4/01/1985 restoring the seniority. The short question is, whether the petitioners and the appellants are entitled to the original seniority accorded to them ?

(2.) MR. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants would urge that the Tribunal has completely overlooked the scope of the GO Ms. No. 254 dated 21-3-1977. It was issued for two purposes (1) relaxation of Rs. 34 and (2) relaxation of five years' service requirement for promotion to the post of Supervisor from that of Overseer. In the teeth of this Government Order, the Tribunal could not have held adverse to the petitioners/appellants therein on the ground that in the earlier proceedings before the High Court these persons were not regular members (approved probationers) of service as overseers. It was not brought to its notice that R.34 stood in the way of the petitioners/appellants being regarded as approved probationers as overseers. If the said GO is to have its full effect then it follows whatever deficiency there was as far as petitioners/appellants were concerned they stood removed. Therefore, the seniority originally accorded ought to prevail.

(3.) WE have given our careful consideration to the above arguments. In order to appreciate this controversy, we think it is worthwhile to extract GO Ms 254 dated 21-3-1977.