K BALAKRISHNA RAO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant was temporarily appointed as an Upper Division Stenographer on 14.8.1976 on being sponsored through Employment Exchange. The appellant thereafter participated in a direct recruitment process of Upper Division Stenographers conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and was selected on 17.1.1979. He was allotted to the Department of Printing at Hyderabad. On the request of the appellant, he was re-allotted to the Commercial Taxes Department on 25.7.1979 for appointment as Upper Division Stenographer. He joined the Commercial Taxes Department as Upper Division Stenographer. On 21.2.1980, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Krishna Division, passed an order to the effect that the services of the appellant, a temporary Upper Division Stenographer in the office of the Deputy Commissioner (C.T., Vijayawada, who was selected and allotted to Krishna Division for appointment as Upper Division Stenographer by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission are regularized in the cadre of Upper Division Stenographer with effect from 14.8.1976, the date of his first or temporary appointment, under Rule 23(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules. But, it was clarified that his seniority will be decided in due course. It was declared that the appellant had completed his probation satisfactorily in the cadre of Upper Division Stenographer on the afternoon of 19.8.1978. The appellant was posted as Senior Assistant (Upper Division Clerk, which was said to be an equivalent post to Senior Stenographer (Upper Division Stenographer).

(3.) A draft seniority list of Upper Division Clerks was published and objections were invited. The appellant was shown at Serial No. 60. Claiming that he was entitled to be at Serial No. 39 in the light of the order passed under Rule 23(a) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules regularizing his service with effect from 14.8.1976, he filed an objection and a representation. Since his objection and subsequent representation did not yield fruitful result, the appellant approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal with a claim numbered as R.P. No. 3055 of 1987. Apparently, he did not implead any of the other Upper Division Clerks who would have been affected if his claim for being ranked at Serial No. 39 was accepted. But the Administrative Tribunal without regard to that fact allowed his application. A petition for reconsideration of the question, filed by two persons who were affected, was rejected by the Tribunal. This resulted in the affected persons, approaching this Court by way of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. This Court by judgment dated 29.8.1997 in Civil Appeal No. 5890 of 1997, set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remanded the claim of the appellant to the Tribunal for being decided afresh on merits after hearing the aggrieved parties who were before this Court. Thereafter, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant mainly on the basis that the appellant had sought a transfer to the Commercial Taxes Department from the Department to which he was originally allotted on selection and had thereby become junior most in the Department in terms of Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules. The Tribunal also did not accept the contention of the appellant that his seniority should be counted from 14.8.1976 in any event and not from 5.8.1980. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court accepted the claim of the appellant to the extent that the appellant had to be treated as an Upper Division Clerk with effect from 25.7.1979 as the re-allotment of the appellant to the Commercial Taxes Department as Probationer in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks was on 25.7.1979. But, the High Court also took the view that since the appellant had been re-allotted to the Commercial Taxes Department at his request, in terms of Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, he had to be placed as junior-most in the cadre in that Department in terms of Rule 27(1)(iii) of the Rules. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up to this Court.