KOMARAIAH P Vs. A YEGNESWARUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals are directed against a common judgment passed by His Lordship Sri Justice B. Subhashan Reddy in Writ Petition Nos. 5837 and 5838 of 1993. Since the questions of law, facts involved and the grounds of challenge are almost identical in both the appeals the same are clubbed and disposed of by a common Judgment.

(2.) The appellants and respondents in these two appeals are officers of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation').They are borne on the cadre either as Assistant Traffic Managers or Assistant Mechanical Engineers (hereinafter referred to as A.T. Ms. and A.M.Es. respectively). The issue to be considered in these appeals relates to one of fixation of seniority of promotees vis-a-vis direct recruits to the next higher post. As far as the service conditions of either employees or officers of the Corporation are concerned, they are governed by two sets of Regulations, which came to be framed by the Corporation in view of the powers conferred by Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The said two sets of Regulations are: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service Regulations') and The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Regulations'). The relevant provisions of these two Regulations whtch will have bearing on the issue involved will be dealt with at a little later stage. The Respondents herein were the petitioners in the Writ Petitions. At the time of filing of the Writ petitions, they were working as either A.T.Ms. or A.M.Es. Aggrieved by the notification dt. 28-12-89,relating to seniority of A.T.Ms, and A.M.Es., they approached this Court in two writ petitions referred to above for the relief that (i) the said notification dt. 28-12-1989 be quashed, (ii) a writ of mandamus be granted declaring that the writ petitioners are entitled to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment and (iii) to declare that the Corporation's Regulation prescribing the quota rule has been broken down and as such placing the direct recruits appointed subsequent to the promotion of the writ petitioners, in the seniority list is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. So also the Regulations relating to Service and Recruitment of the employees of the Corporation are vitiated.

(3.) A few facts which are necessary to resolve the real issue involved, as told by the parties, are as follows: According to the Writ petitioners, they were all appointed in different capacities by the Corporation prior to 1971. As per the Recruitment Regulations of the Corporation, the Corporation is empowered to appoint to the post of A.T.Ms, or A.M.Es., which are posts of Class I Junior Scale Officers, either by direct recruitment, or by promotion, or by transfer or deputation. The Corporation was filling up the posts of A.M.Es. and A.T.Ms, by both sources, namely, promoting from the cadre of Mechanical Foreman or by direct recruitment. From 1966 till 1989, in a span of 25 years, the posts of A.M.Es. and A.T.Ms.were filled up by direct recruitment only for 7 times i.e., in the years 1966,1971,1973,1977,1984,1986 and 1988. As and when the necessity to fill up the post was existing in order to see that the administration of the Corporation runs smoothly, the said posts was being filled up by way of promotion, drawing the suitable and qualified candidates from the feeder categories and after selection. Between 1966 and 1986, nearly 80 people were promoted after due selection. From the date of their promotion, the Writ petitioners are working in the promotion post, without any break. For the said posts there was selection by way of direct recruitment in the year 1984, preceded by its earlier direct recruitment in the year 1977. Thus there was no direct recruitment for a period of 7 years. It was given to understand that when the posts were not filled up by direct recruitment, the Corporation was filling the posts by promotion. In all the promotion orders, the condition imposed was that the promotions are purely temporary and are under Regulations 30 or 34. Regulation 30 of the Recruitment Regulations does not apply to the case of the writ petitioners,as they were all promoted after subjecting them for strict scrutiny and selection. Since their promotions were purely on the basis of merit and performance, their promotions are deemed to have been regularised, in spite of using the word in the promotion orders as 'temporary'. Their promotions were neither on ad hoc basis nor to meet the exigencies nor to avoid delay in filling up of the direct recruitment. Their promotions were not by way of any fortuitous circumstances. Since their promotions were purely regular, they were entitled for all the benefits which the direct recruits are entitled, particularly, in view of their continuance in service for a long period.If the Corporation was very much interested in making appointments by way of direct recruitment, it should have made as and when the vacancy had arisen, in stated of waiting for a considerable period of time. When the writ petitioners had been discharging their duties in the promotion posts without any blemish drawing increments and enjoying other benefits, it was not proper on the part of the Corporation to push them down in the list of seniority and placing the direct recruits above them, who in fact were recruited very recently and are also quite young in age. The action of the Respondent Corporation in treating the writ petitioners as juniors to their own juniors does not stand to reason,that too when the so called direct recruits were still born when these writ petitioners were promoted. It is most unfair and also a fraud on the part of the Corporation in treating these direct recruits who were appointed nearly 8 to 10 years subsequent to the dates of promotion of the Writ petitioners, as their seniors in the absence of convincing reasons. The above action of the Corporation was quite illegal and resulted in taking away the long years of accumulated service put in by the writ petitioners, thus running contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court of India and other High Courts, in similar set of a rcumstances.