STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. B PRASHANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions arise out of the claim of the 1st respondent in each of these writ petitions that they should be appointed as Probationary Revenue Inspector with effect from the date on which the substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre arose in the category of Senior Assistants, in terms of Rule 11(i)(ii) of Annexure-IV to Rule 29(2) of the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules. The 1st respondents filed OA Nos.41887 of 1991, 6168 of 1994 and 6689 of 1994 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, for short 'the Tribunal' assailing the validity of the final Seniority list of the Senior Assistants prepared by the concerned District Collectors and also claiming seniority in terms of provisions of paragraph 11(i)(ii) of Annexure-IV to Rule 29(2) of the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules. The learned Tribunal allowed the applications and directed the petitioners herein to fix the seniority of the 1st respondent in the category of Senior Assistants keeping in view of paragraphs (2) and )(11) of Annexure IV to Rule 29(2) of A.P. Ministerial Service Rules. Hence these three writ petitions by the State authorities assailing the validity of the said common order.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader for Services-I would strenuously contend that the interpretation placed by the learned Tribunal on the provisions of paragraphs 11 (i)(ii) of Annexure IV to Rule 29(2) of the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules is illegal and unacceptable and the Tribunal ought to have seen that those provisions have nothing to do with the fixation of seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants. The learned Government Pleader would maintain that the only relevant rule that it applicable to the facts of this case is Rule 33(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, and if Rule 33 (a) is applied, no exception could have been taken to the actions of the District Collectors in fixing the seniority of the 1st respondents in these writ petitions taking into account the entry into the service in the cadre of Probationary Revenue Inspector. The learned Counsel would also place reliance on G.O. Ms. No.607, General Administration (Services.A) Department, dated 6-11-1992. On the other hand, Sri J. Manohar Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants - 1st respondents, wouid contend that by force of Rule 11 (i)(ii) of Annexure IV of Rule 29(2) of the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, the appointments of the 1st respondents to the post of Probationary Revenue Inspector should be deemed to be with effect from the date on which the substantive vacancy arose in the permanent cadre of the senior Assistants in the Revenue Department. The learned Counsel would maintain that if the deeming provision incorporated in Rule ll(i) is applied in the case of the 1st respondents - appointees, the rank assigned to them in the final seniority list prepared by the District Collectors would not be in consonance with the Rule 11 (i) read with Rule 33(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules.

(3.) In the premise of the similar contentions raised before it, the learned Tribunal framed the following point for consideration and decision.