RAGBAVULU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals are filed by the appellants with the permission of this Court against a common order passed in W.P. 4229 of 1969, 3711 of 1969, 163 of 1970 and 1505 of 1970 by our learned brothif Vaidya J., on 3-3-1971, whereby the learned Judge gave some directions while disposing of the writ petitions. The facts in brief are that the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Kaj Engineering Service Special Rules were brought into force.by G.O.M.S. No. 291 dated 23rd March, 196,3. According to Rule 2 of those Rules, appointment to the category of "Assistant Engineer" can be made either by direct recruitment or by transfer. The appointment by transfer can be made from among-(a) Junior Engineers., or (b) Supervisors of the Andhra Pradesh Pancbayat Raj Engineering Subordinate Service, or if no qualified and suitable candidates are available for recruitment by transfer under item (2), by transfer from any other service on tenure basis. According to Explanation (c) to Rule 2 (4) out of every 8 vacancies among Assistant Engineers, 3 shall be filled up or reserved to be filled up by direct recruitment on the results of the competitive examination and the remaining 5 by transfers; provided that fifty persent of the permanent vacancies to be filled up or reserved to be filled up by direct recruitment shall be reserved for Graduate Engineers who are commissioned in the Armed Forces on a temporary basis during the period the Proclamation of Emergency is in operation and are later released. Clause (d) of that provision is more relevant and reads :

(2.) In so far as the first argument is concerned, the learned Advocate for the appellants subsequently told us that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, be does not desire to press that point and would prefer it to be left to be argued in some other relevant case. We are therefore relieved from considering the first contention. We then turn to the second contention. While interpreting Rule 4 (4) (ii), our learned brother Vaidya J . bad said that appointment of Assistant Engineer by transfer from the ranks of Supervisors, possessing Upper Subordinate or L. C. E. Diploma or an equivalent qualification permits computation of 10 years' service not only which was rendered as Supervisor, but also service which be has rendered in the lower category of service. The same interpretation was put in regard to service of 20 years relating to Supervisors possessing Lower Subordinate Diploma. The contention of Sri Anantha Babu was that the word "service" used in that provision would mean "service as Supervisor" and totaf service which a person has put in the department, Vaidya J. was more influenced by the omission of the words in that category which were used in clause (i) of Rule 4(4) (ii) and were omitted from clause (ii) of that provision. We are inclined to agree with his view not only for the reason which the learned judge has given but also because if 10 years or 20 years' service as Supervisors was intended, then nothing could have been simpler than to mention it as was done in the same provision earlier. Except in very few and rare cases, no Supervisor having the Upper Subordinate qualification could ever expect, to become Assistant Engineer after completng 10 years' service as such. The same reasoning but with greater tbrce applies to a Supervisor who has merely Diploma of Lower Subordinate It is not possible for many of the, to complete 20 years' of service as Supervisor with a view to get promotion as Assistant Engineer. The omission of the words in that category or service as such brings out the intention of the framers prominently that persons possessing lower qualifications should have more experience in order to earn I promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Thus, while a Graduate Engineer is required to put hi S years' service, a Supervisor possessing lower qualification is required to put in double or four times' service though not in the same category is Supervisor. On the last occasion, we requested the Government Pleader to find out what the intention was in framing Rule 4 (.4) (ii). He brought the Note File whereby the rules were framed for our pcrsual. The record clearly brings out the intention of the rule makers, that the totality of service of Supervisor as such was contemplated to be taken into account for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Apart from that file, the intention appears clear to us from the working of the Rule and the context in which the Rule is framed. We therefore, agree with the learned judge that 10 years or 20 years of service referred to in Rule 4 (4) (ii) do not mean service as Supervisors, but the.total service put by a person even from the lower category of service from where he was promoted as Supervisors.

(3.) That takes us to the third contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants. On interpreting Rule 2 (4) (d), Vaidya, J, gives the following directions: