GOPAL KRISHNA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Kuppuswaml, J, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for revision of the common gradation list of Junior Engineers published under The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are these : Respondents 3 to 16 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 1951-55. 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 Acdhra 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 23-11-67. 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 rest respectively 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 restrospectively regularise the services of respondents 3 to 161 and put them above the appellants so as to affect their lights. 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) (I) of the State and Subordinate Services Rules.

(2.) 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 inter viewed and selected by the Service Commission and that being the case, they were regular appointees to the posts of Junior Engineers and thit they continued to work in that capacity on 1-11-55 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. Our learned brother Kuppuswami, J , took the view that ths appointments of respondents 3 to 161 were not stop-gap or fortuitious and that after selection by the Andhra Public Service Commission their appointments were regular and came into effect on the day when they were so selected i. e., 1-5-56 which was the last date of the interview. He was also of the view that though the appointments of respondents 3 to 161 were under Rule 10 (a) (i) (\) the rules require that a regular appointment should be made after selection by the Public Service Commission and that was done by the Andhra Public Service Commission by interviewing the Andhra Junior Engineers and that the list of candidates selected at those interviews was published on 11-10-1956. It was also pointed out by the learned single Judge that the temporary service put in by respondents 3 to 161 prior to 1-5-1956 was not at all taken into account while regularising their service as Junior Engineers. It is in that view that the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition Mr: Gururaja Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised the same contentions that were raised before our learned brother. According to him, unless an order of appointment is issued by the Government or competent authority appointing the Junior Engineers selected by the Andhra Public Service Commission, their appointments cannot be deemed to be regular appointments and in this case no such order was issued. It is on this ground that the learned counsel for the appellants proceeded to argue that respondents 3 to 161 must be deemed to be temporary appointees appointed in stop-gap or fortuitous vacancies and the fact that they were continuously in service from the respective dates of appointment in the years 1954 or 1955 and they continued to work as Junior Engineers on 1-11-1956 the relevant date or subsequently thereafter, makes no difference to their status as temporary Junior Engineers appointed to fill in stop-gap vacancies.

(3.) In other words, it is his case that mere selection by the Andhra Public Service Commission of respondents 3 to 161 does not clothe them with any rights to count the service with effect from a date anterior to 1-11-1956. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon several decisions starting with P.K. Roy's case [1] and ending with Subba, Rao's case [2]. Mr. Shivsbankar, the Principal Government Pleader appearing for the Government and M/s. Y. Suryanarayana, P.L.N. Sarma & M. Jagannadha Rao appearing for sone of the Junior Engineers respondents contended that the appointments of respondents 3 to 161 were not made as stop-gap or fortuitous arrangements. They were appointed temporarily and later interviewed for filling up the regular vacancies and the fact that the Service Commission had interviewed and selected them established that the appointments were made in accordance with the rules. They also contend that the four principles evolved at the Chief Secrataries conference were adhered to in the preparation of the common gradation list and there has been no violation of any of those principles or instructions of the Central Govt. In support of their contention they relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of this court in S.A. Hussain v. State 1,3] and another decision reported in S B. Patnaik v. State of Orissa. [4] and passages from the decision relied upon by Mr. Gururaja Rao.