SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik, R.P. Sethi and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

Petition for Spl. Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5615 of 1999. D/d. 4.4.2000

K.S. Reddy and others - Petitioners

Versus

Principal Secy. to Govt. of A.P. - Respondents

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Gopal Subramaniam Sr. Advocate, Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Mr. R. Santhana Krishnan, Mr. S.K. Patnaik, Mr. D. Mahesh Babu and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Mr. V. Balaji and Y. Prabhakar Rao, Advocates.

Constitution of India, Articles 16 and 309 - Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 33 - Inter Section seniority - Direct recruits - Promotees - Direct recruits to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers assailing principles on which inter Section seniority between them and promotees is determined - Contention that promotion, though in excess of quota as provided under Statutory Recruitment Rules, is protected by the judgment of this Court but not the seniority - Held, in the earlier decision it has also been laid that the seniority inter Section of such promotees beyond quota will not be disturbed in any manner - Hence, it cannot be said that Court has protected only promotion and not seniority - Special leave petitions dismissed accordingly.

[Paras 2, 3 and 4]

Cases Referred :-

K.R. Prasad v. B. Roshan, 1988 Supp SCC 220 : AIR 1988 Supreme Court 862 : 1988 Lab IC 959.

C. Radhakrishna Reddy v. State of A.P., 1990 Supp SCC 638.

I.D. Hanmanth Rao v. State of A.P., 1990 Supp SCC 524.

J. Chandrashekhar Reddy v. A.D. Arora, 1994(1) SCT 623 (SC) : 1994(2) SCC 228 : AIR 1994 Supreme Court 526.

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - The direct recruits to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineer in the Department of Irrigation, State of Andhra Pradesh, are the petitioners assailing the principles on which the inter se seniority between them and the promotees has been determined.

2. The main plank of the arguments advanced by Mr. Subramaniam, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of their claim is that, by the judgment of this Court what was protected in respect of those promotees prior to 31.12.1982 is the factum of promotion even though that might have been in excess of the quota as provided under the Statutory Recruitment Rules but not their seniority and, according to the learned counsel, if a person has been appointed beyond the quota provided under the statutory Rules, then by compassion his promotion may not be disturbed, but, by no stretch of imagination, he can get seniority also on that score. In support of this contention, a number of decisions of this Court have been placed before us starting from K.R. Prasad v. B. Roshan, 1988 Supp SCC 220 : AIR 1988 Supreme Court 862 : 1988 Lab IC 959; C. Radhakrishna Reddy v. State of A.P., 1990 Supp SCC 638; I.D. Hanmanth Rao v. State of A.P., 1990 Supp SCC 524 as well as J. Chandrashekhar Reddy v. A.D. Arora, 1994(1) SCT 623 (SC) : 1994(2) SCC 228 : AIR 1994 Supreme Court 526, the last one arising out of a contempt proceeding filed in this Court.

3. The original decision had been rendered by Justice R.N. Misra (as His Lordship then was) and the very learned Judge in the subsequent decision has also interpreted as to what has been held in the first decision and has categorically said that the promotees prior to 31.12.1982 even beyond the quota meant for them will be allowed to continue in the promotional post and also their seniority inter se will not be disturbed in any manner. It may be stated that so far as the seniority of these persons are concerned, it is not governed by the Recruitment Rules, but by the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules.

4. Having examined all the decisions placed before us, we do not find that in any decision a view has been taken that only the Court has protected their promotion and not their seniority, and possibly that is the reason why recently a Bench of this Court in the case of J. Chandrashekhar Reddy (supra) did not interfere with on being approached by the direct recruits of R and B Department. In that view of the matter and on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we are not inclined to reopen the matter and examined any further. The Special Leave Petitions accordingly stand dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.