Service Law — Seniority — Promotion — Direct recruits vs promotees
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules — Rule 33
Quota–rota rule — Applicability — Scope
A. Seniority — Quota/rota rule — Limited application
Quota or rota prescribed under the service rules applies only for the purpose of recruitment and not for determination of inter se seniority, which must be fixed strictly in accordance with Rule 33(a) and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules.
(Paras 5–7)
B. Promotees occupying direct recruit slots — Effect
Promotees or appointees by transfer who temporarily occupy vacancies earmarked for direct recruits cannot claim seniority over direct recruits, and their probation does not commence from the date of such temporary occupation but only from the date they occupy vacancies meant for promotees.
(Paras 5, 7)
C. Final seniority list — When can be revised
Even where a seniority list has attained finality, the Government is not barred from revising such seniority list for the limited purpose of placing direct recruits in their rightful cyclic slots, in accordance with service rules.
(Paras 7–9)
D. Disturbance of seniority — Distinction
The principle that settled seniority should not be disturbed after long lapse of time applies only when revision is sought inter se between promotees, and not where revision is undertaken to accommodate direct recruits in their prescribed quota positions.
(Para 9)
E. Government circulars — Binding nature
Government Circular Memo dated 21-04-1999, issued pursuant to judicial pronouncements, governs fixation of seniority and probation and is binding on promotees who accepted promotion subject to those conditions.
(Paras 5–6)
F. Tribunal orders — Scope of judicial review
Where the Tribunal has considered all relevant Government Orders, circulars and statutory rules and applied settled principles of service jurisprudence, the High Court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(Paras 6, 8, 10)
FINAL DECISION
Order of A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2540 of 2017 dated 01-09-2017 upheld.
Writ Petition dismissed.
No costs.
(Paras 10–11)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
1. Status of parties
• Petitioners — promotees / appointees by transfer
• Respondents 4 to 10 — direct recruits
2. Service background
• Petitioners initially appointed as Junior Assistants
• Later appointed by transfer as Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspectors (2006)
• Final seniority list of Zone-I issued on 22-08-2007
Positions of petitioners in seniority list:
| Petitioner | Serial No. |
|---|---|
| Petitioner 1 | 140 |
| Petitioner 2 | 143 |
| Petitioner 3 | 156 |
3. Promotions
• Petitioner 1 promoted in 2007
• Petitioners 2 & 3 promoted in 2010
• Promotions remained unchallenged initially
4. Cause of dispute
• Vacancies meant for direct recruits were temporarily filled by promotees
• Direct recruits later sought placement in their cyclic quota slots
• Government reopened seniority pursuant to:
-
High Court order in W.P. No.10646 of 2006
-
Government Memo dated 03-02-2017
-
Consequential memo dated 08-02-2017
5. Tribunal proceedings
• Petitioners challenged revision before AP Administrative Tribunal
• Tribunal dismissed O.A. No.2540 of 2017 on 01-09-2017
• Present writ petition filed challenging Tribunal order
ANALYSIS OF LAW
1. Governing statutory framework
• Rule 33 — AP State and Subordinate Service Rules
• Circular Memo No.16/Ser.A/93 dated 21-04-1999
• G.O. Ms. No.607 dated 06-11-1992
2. Legal principles applied
The Court reaffirmed that:
• Quota/rota is relevant only at recruitment stage
• Seniority must follow Rule 33
• Temporary occupation of direct recruit slot does not create seniority rights
(Paras 5–7)
3. Probation principle
The Court accepted Government clarification that:
• Promotee’s probation begins only when he occupies promotee vacancy
• Direct recruit’s probation begins from panel year of joining
(Para 7)
4. Revision of seniority
The Court drew a crucial distinction:
✔ impermissible: disturbing seniority among promotees after long delay
✔ permissible: inserting direct recruits into statutory cyclic slots
(Para 9)
5. Tribunal’s reasoning upheld
The Tribunal:
• Examined all applicable Government Memos
• Followed Circular dated 21-04-1999
• Applied uniform policy across zones
• Prevented perpetuation of illegality in seniority
Hence, no arbitrariness or illegality was found.
(Paras 6–8)
RATIO DECIDENDI
The binding legal principle laid down is:
Promotees or appointees by transfer who temporarily occupy vacancies earmarked for direct recruits cannot claim seniority over direct recruits; quota or rota applies only for recruitment and not for fixation of inter se seniority, which must be determined strictly under Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, and revision of seniority for placing direct recruits in their rightful cyclic slots does not amount to impermissible disturbance of settled seniority.
No comments:
Post a Comment