G HANUMANTHA REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner's cry for justice dates back to the year 1944 when he, who secured the 7th rank in the Hyderabad Civil Service (HCS) competitive examination held in the year 1943-44 was appointed to the post of Deputy Tahsildar only in contravention of established convention that he ought to have been appointed to the post of Tahsildar (the persons who secured ranks from 1 to 6 having been appointed to the HOS) whereas those who secured the 10th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 16th and 18th ranks and one who did not even sit for the examination at all, are stated to have been straight away appointed to the post of Tahsildar.

(2.) The writ petitioner, who is the appellant in W.A.No.381/81, filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ directing the respondents (the Union of India, the Union Public Service Commission and the State of Andhra Pradesh) to take steps for consideration of the petitioner's case for inclusion in the select list commencing from 1958 and to assign him his due place on the basis of his seniority in the cadre of Deputy Collectors reckoning from 16-9-1949. The writ petitioner's appeal is mainly on the ground that the direction to the respondents ought to have been to include his name in the 1958 select list for appointment to the I.A.S. cadre, not in the 1969 list as directed by the learned Judge. The appeal (W.A.726/81) by the Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission (Respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition) raises the contention that no review of the 1969 list was possible and the learned Judge ought not to have directed the respondents to prepare a fresh list for 1969.

(3.) We do not consider it necessary to state the facts of the prolonged litigation and the correspondence that passed between the parties extending to decades. Suffice to notice that to mitigate, to some extent, the hardship of the petitioner arising out of his not having been appointed to the post of Tahsildar initially, he was granted four advance increments in the cadre of Deputy Collector in 1960 when he was working as Deputy Collector seniority was allowed for the period covered by those four advance increments refixing it in the cadre of Deputy Collector with effect from 16-9-1949 as per G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 12th January, 1965. Review of promotion to the said cadre of Deputy Collectors resulted in the assignment of seniority to the petitioner with effect from 16th September, 1949 and that was published in G.O.Ms.No.226, dated 28-7-1975. The select list of I.A.S. for the year 1969 was set aside by the Supreme Court by the decision in Union of India v. M.L. Kapoor, AIR 1974 SC 87.