O. GOPAL KISHAN RAO AND OTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Kuppuswami, J., dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for revision of the common gradation list of Junior Engineers published under G.O. No. 984 dated 23-11-1967.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are these : Respondents 3 to 161 are all graduates in Engineering. They were appointed as Junior Engineers by the Government of Andhra prior to the formation of Andhra Pradesh. Their appointments were on various dates in the year 1954-55. They were originally appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules but were all interviewed by the Andhra Public Service Commission in the months of April and May 1956, the last interview of the candidates being on 1-5-56. They were regularised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh after the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh retrospectively with effect from 1-5-56. With the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh a common gradation list had to be prepared fixing the interese seniority of the Junior Engineers of the former State of Hyderabad and the Junior Engineers of the State of Andhra Bearing in mind the four principles laid down at the conference of the Chief Secretaries, a provisional common gradation list of Junior Engineers and Supervisors of both the regions was prepared on 20-4-1963 and G.O. Ms. No. 480 G.A. (SR. 1) Department was issued. Then representations were made by the affected Junior Engineers questioning the seniority list. The appellants filed writ petition No. 5568/68 challenging the legality of the final gradation list published by the Government in G. O. 984 No. G.A. (S.R. 1) Department dated 25-11-67. Their grievance was that respondents 3 to 161 should have been shown below them as they were appointed temporary under Rule 10 (a) (1) (i) of the State and Subordinate Services Rules. The Government of Andhra Pradesh then retrospectively regularised the services of respondents 3 to 161 with effect from the date subsequent to the selection of respondents 3 to 161 by the Andhra Public Service Commission. It is the case of the appellants that the Government is not entitled to retrospectively regularise the services of respondents 3 to 161 and put them above the appellants so as to affect their rights. This order of the Government retrospectively regularising the services of respondents 3 to 161 runs contrary to the instructions of the Central Government and the principles of integration of services determined by the Chief Secretaries at the conference. The appellants "? case is that the appointments of respondents 3 to 161 should have been declared as stop-gap or fortuitous by the Government notwithstanding the fact that on 1-11-56 they continued to work as Junior Engineers in view of the fact that they were inducted into service under Rule 10 (a)(i)(1) of the State and Subordinate Services Rules.

(3.) The case of Respondents 3 to 161 before our learned brother and before us is that their appointments were not stop-gap or fortutious. Though they were appointed on a temporary basis under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) they were interviewed and selected by the Service Commission and that being the case, they were regular appointees to the posts of Junior Engineers and that they continued to work in that capacity on 1-11-56 the crucial date and thereafter and therefore the Central Government has rightly determined their seniority. It is also their case that the Government is competent to retrospectively regularise their services in view of the fact that there was no break in service and that they were also selected by the Andhra Public Service Commission before the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. They, therefore, contend that no case has been made out for interfering with the impugned final common gradation list.