S NARAYANACHARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1116 and 1129 were originally appointed as Panchayat Inspectois in the Local Self-Government Department of the erstwhile Hyderabad Government. After the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh the Government sanctioned 59 posts of Divisional Panchayat Officers of which 26 were earmarked for Telangana personnel. The Inspector-General of Local Administration, by his Roc. No. 43513/58-02 dated 15th September, 1958, appointed the petitioners and others to the 26 posts temporarily. Meanwhile on 31st July, 1958 the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of his powers under Article 309 of the Constitution, made Special Rules for the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Subordinate Service. Divisional Panchayat Officers were constituted as Category I of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Subordinate Service and appointments to Posts of Divisional Panchayat Officers were to be made by promotion from Deputy Panchayat Officers and Panchayat Inspectors on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability were approximately equal. Appointments to posts of Divisional Panchayat Officers could also be made by transfer in exceptional cases from posts carrying the same scale of pay as that of Divisional Panchayat Officers in other Government Executive Services. Of the 26 persons appointed temporarily by the Inspector-General of Local Administration ten persons, including the petitioners, were Panchayat Inspectors and were therefore, eligible to be promoted as Divisional Panchayat Officers. One person by name Abdul Sattar was an Assistant Labour Inspector and he was eligible to be appointed as Divisional Panchayat Officer by transfer as the post of Assistant Labour Inspector carried the same scale of pay as that of Divisional Panchayat Officer. Fourteen of the remaining fifteen, were previously employed as octroi Inspectors and one was employed in the collectorate as clerk. They were not eligible to be appointed as Divisional Panchayat Officers under the prescribed statutory rules. On 5th March, 1961 the services of the 11 persons, who were eligible to be appointed as Divisional Panchayat Officers, were regularised from the dates noted in the proceedings of the Director of Local Administration Roc No. 6914/61-02. The ordinary rule for determining the dates of regularisation, namely, that the date of regular appointment should be reckoned with reference to the seniority amongst the candidates, was followed. To give an illustration, Narayanachari, 1st petitioner in W.P. No. 1116/67 though he joined duty on 21st September, 1958 was regularised with effect from 25th September, 1958 because his senior, Narayanaswami, 2nd petitioner in W.P. No. 1117/67 joined duty on 25th September, 1958. Services of the other fifteen persons were not then regularised as they were ineligible to be appointed to the service on regular basis. Subsequently, the Government by G.O.Ms. No. 38, dated 20th January, 1964, relaxed rule 2 (a) of the Special Rules for the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Subordinate Service and regularised the services of fourteen out of fifteen. One of them was omitted because disciplinary proceedings were pending against him at that time.

(2.) Unfortunately, the dates of regularisation of these fifteen persons were determined without keeping in view the dates of regularisation of those that were already regularised in 1961 and without bearing in mind the repercussions which such determination may have on the latter. The eleven persons whose services were regularised in 1961 were treated as one unit and the fourteen persons, whose services were regularised in 1964, were treated as a separate unit and their respective dates of regularisation were not determined with reference to any inter se seniority already fixed between them.

(3.) The result was, that when a combined seniority list was prepared in 1967 on the basis of the dates of regularisation, the eleven persons, who were eligible for promotion as Divisional Panchayat Officers under the statutory rules and whose services were regularised even in 1961 found themselves below every one of the fourteen persons who were ineligible for promotion under the rules whose services were regularised in 1964 only after the rule was relaxed in their favour. The petitioners contend that they carne to know of the determination of the dates of re gularitation only after the combined seniority list was published in 1967 and they claim that they have immediately filed these writ petitions for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 38 dated aoth January, 1964. They contend that the several Octori Inspectors had only one or one and a half years' service when they were temporarily appointed as Divisional Panchayat Officers. The scale of pay of Octroi Inspectors was lower than that of Panchayat Inspectors. They were not eligible for regular appointment as Divisional Panchayat Officers. Their services were regularised only subsequent to the rcgularisation of services of the Divisional Panchayat Officers promoted from amongst Panchayat Inspectors. In any view of the matter, the petitioners contend that there was no justification for regularising the services of Octroi Inspectors with effect from dates earlier than those of the petitioners so as to make all of them senior to those whose services were regularised earlier. In the counter affidavit filed OK behalf of the Government it is stated that the inter se seniority list of the Divisional Panchayat Officers was drawn up with reference to the dates of their regular appointment. It is not, however, stated in the counter affidavit, nor is it contended before me by the learned Government Pleader that while determining dates of regularisation of the second batch the dates of regularisation of the first batch already regularised were kept in view. Records of the Government produced before me also do not show that the Government had in view the likely repercussions which the allotment of particular dates of rtgularisation of the second batch may have on the first batch. In fact, the two batches appear to have been treated as separate units. No attempt was made to determine dates of regularation keeping in view all the 26 candidates and their respective and arival claims.