1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8200/2011
ARISING OUT OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 598 OF 2009
K. Balarama Raju ...Appellant
Versus
CH. V. Subramanya Sarma & Ors. ...Respondents
With
CIVIL APPEAL No._8201/2011
ARISING OUT OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 5318 OF 2009
Mohd. Sanullah Ansari & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
CH. V. Subramanya Sarma & Ors. ...Respondents
With
CIVIL APPEAL No._8202/2011
ARISING OUT OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 13379 OF 2009
High Court of A.P. ...Appellant
Versus
CH. V. Subramanya Sarma & Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G E M E N T
H.L. Gokhale, J.
Leave granted.
2
2. These three appeals arise from the judgment and Order dated
19.12.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
allowing Writ Petition No. 11920/2008 filed by Ch. V. Subramanya Sarma who is
joined as respondent No. 1 in all these three matters. The appellant in the
first Appeal arising out of SLP No. 598/2009 and the two appellants in Appeals
arising out of SLP No. 5318/2009 were respondents to the aforesaid Writ
Petition. All the three appellants and the first respondent are employees of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court, and the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 11920/2008 was
concerning their seniority and promotion. The said Writ Petition challenged the
decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on its administrative side granting
seniority to these three appellants over the first respondent. The Writ Petition
having been allowed, these three appellants have filed SLP Nos. 598/2009 and
5318/2009. The third SLP is filed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
3. All the aforesaid three appellants and the first respondent at
the relevant time were working on the administrative side of the High Court at
Hyderabad in categories (4) and (5) alongwith other employees of Division-II i.e.
Assistants/Examiner & Typist/Copyists. They were interested in their promotion
to the immediately higher post of Computer Operators which is in Category 3 (b)
of Division-II.
4. The service conditions of all these three appellants as well as
the first respondent are governed under the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service
Rules, 1975 framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
3
exercise of his powers conferred under Article 229 (1) and (2), of the
Constitution of India. The High Court administration issued a circular dated
24.10.2000 calling for particulars from the members of the High Court
establishment for filling up these posts of Computer operators in accordance with
the above referred rules. As far as this promotion is concerned, it was to be
effected on the basis of a written and an oral test which were to be conducted
by the officials of the National Informatics Centre (NIC).
5. It was the case of the first respondent that under Rules 7 (7)
and 8 (4) of the aforesaid rules the requisite qualification for the post of a
Computer Operator was to possess a degree in Typewriting, capability in English
in higher grade, and post-graduate diploma in computer programming or post
graduate diploma in computer applications. He had this qualification and
therefore he applied for that post, and when the test was conducted on
1.11.2000, he cleared that examination. Nine other candidates also cleared the
said test including the three appellants in SLP Nos. 598/2009 and 5318/2009.
However, they did not posses the aforesaid requisite qualification of post
graduate diploma in computer programming or post graduate diploma in
computer application. The High Court Administration however issued an order
dated 7.11.2000 permitting them alongwith two others to acquire the requisite
prescribed qualification within one year failing which they were to be reverted.
In this order dated 7.11.2000 the three appellants in SLP Nos. 598 and
5318/2009 were shown at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3, whereas the first respondent
4
was shown at Serial No. 4. The order issued by the Registrar (Administration)
dated 7.11.2000 reads as follows:-
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH ::
HYDERABAD
SUB-ESTABLISHMENT - HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD -
Promotion to Category 3 (b) of Division II i.e. Computer Operators-
Orders - Issued.
READ:- 1. G.O.MS.NO. 156 Law (LA & J Courts.C) Department,
Dated 18.10.2000
2. High Court's Circular ROC NO. 6017/2000/Estt.,
dated 24.10.2000 ...
ORDER ROC NO. 6939/200/Estt. 2 dated 7.11.2000
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice is pleased to pass the following
order:-
The following members working in Category 4 and 5 of Division II
i.e Assistants/ Examiners and Typists/Copyists who have appeared
for the Written and Oral Test conducted by the N.I.C. officials on
1.11.2000 and who have qualified in the tests, are promoted and
appointed as Computer Operators on temporary basis.
______________________________________________________
S.No. Name
Designation
Sarvasri
1. K. Balarama Raju
Assistant
2. Mohd. Sanaullah Ansari
Assistant
3. T. Tirumala Devi
Typist
4. Ch. V. Subrahmanya Sarma Typist
5. M.V.S. Navinchandra
Copyist
6. N. Chandrasekhar Rao
Copyist
5
7. V. Satyanarayana
Typist
8. L. Lakshmi Babu
Typist
9. P. Nagarjuna Rao
Assistant
10. L. Ramachandra Rao
Assistant
The members shown at S.Nos. 1, 2 ,3, 9 and 10 shall
acquire the requisite prescribed qualifications within one year failing
which they shall be reverted.
The above said appointments are made purely on
temporary and on an adhoc basis without any preferential claim to
future re-promotion or seniority and are liable to be reverted at any time
without any notice and without assigning any reason."
Sd/-
Registrar
(Administration)
6. It so transpired that this period for passing of the examination
was further extended by the High Court for all the five candidates at Sr. Nos. 1,
2, 3, 9 & 10 above by one more year by a further notification of Registrar
(Administration) dated 23.11.2001, during which period they acquired the
necessary qualification. The respondent No. 1 objected to the fact that the
candidates who did not possess the requisite qualifications at the outset were
shown senior to him. He submitted his representation for getting his correct
seniority in the category of computer operators. He made a representation on
2.11.2001, but that was rejected by the order passed by the High Court on
15.11.2003. He then sought the review of that order by his application dated
19.2.2004 but he did not receive any response.
6
7. Thereafter, the Registrar (Administration) prepared the
gradation/seniority list of computer operators as on 1.7.2005 and invited the
objections/representations on or before 10.11.2005 vide his notification dated
23.9.2005. The respondent No. 1 once again submitted his objection on
10.10.2005. In the meanwhile, the Registrar (Administration) proceeded to
finalise the seniority of the computer operators for consideration for promotion to
the next higher post namely that of Deputy Section Officer. In the gradation list
of 19 employees that was finalized, the two appellants of SLP No. 5318/2009
were shown senior to respondent No. 1 herein. Since we are concerned with
these three persons, we reproduce the entries with respect to them.
"HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD GRADATION (SENIORITY)
LIST IN THE CATEGORY 3(B) OF DIV. II i.e. COMPUTER OPERATORS AS ON
01-07-2005
Sl. No. Name Date of Birth Date of Educational
Sarvasri: entrance into Qualifications
Govt.
service/Date
of Apptt. To
the Category
1. Mohd. Sanaullah Ansari 14-07-1963 21-02-1990 B.SC, LL.B,
*07-11-2000 Type (E) (H)
PGDCA
Department Pay Rs. Status of Whether Punishments Remarks
al Tests the qualified for and detents
Employee the next
promotion
Accounts Rs. 5640 Approved Qualified Nil Nil
Translation Probationer
Sl. No. Name Date of Birth Date of Educational
Sarvasri: entrance into Qualifications
Govt.
service/Date
of Apptt. To
the Category
7
2. T. Tirumala Devi 13-06-1966 12-07-1994 M.Com, BAL,
*07-11-2000 PGDCP, Type
(E) (H)
Department Pay Rs. Status of Whether Punishments Remarks
al Tests the qualified for and detents
Employee the next
promotion
CPC, Rs. 5150 Approved Qualified Nil Nil
Accounts Probationer
Translation
Sl. No. Name Date of Birth Date of Educational
Sarvasri: entrance into Qualifications
Govt.
service/Date
of Apptt. To
the Category
3. Ch. V.Subrahmanya Sarma 24-04-1961 20-12-1985 B.Com, LLB.
*07-11-2000 Type (E) (H),
Type (T) (H)
PGDCA, PGD
in Cyber Laws
& Legal
Information
System
Department Pay Rs. Status of Whether Punishments Remarks
al Tests the qualified for and detents
Employee the next
promotion
CPC, Rs. 6950 Approved Qualified Nil Nil
Accounts Probationer
Translation
As far as the appellant of Appeal No. 598/2009 K. Balarama Raju is
concerned he was at Sl. No. 1 in the earlier order dated 7.11.2000. He was
already promoted to the higher post in Category 1 of Division-II i.e. Translators
& Deputy Section Officers by High Court order dated 11.3.2005 and therefore,
his name did not figure in this seniority list of Computer Operators.
8. The further representation of the respondent No. 1 dated
10.10.2005 was rejected by the High Court by its proceedings dated 16.11.2007.
8
He was however, subsequently promoted to the post of Deputy Section Officer
under High Court order dated 10.12.2007, but was placed much junior to these
appellants. He therefore, challenged the proceeding of the High Court dated
16.11.2007, communicating rejection of his representation in response to the
gradation list of computer operators as on 1.7.2005 by filing Writ Petition No.
119/2008.
9. The first respondent contended before the High Court that he
had the necessary qualification when the examination for the posts of computer
operators was conducted, whereas the appellants of SLP Nos. 598 and
5318/2009, did not have those qualifications at the outset, but acquired the
same within the subsequent period of two years which was permitted by the
High Court. He submitted that therefore, the High Court was wrong in giving the
ranks in the gradation list, and he should have been shown senior to these three
appellants. As against that, the submission of the three appellants was that they
had passed the preliminary examination conducted by the High Court alongwith
the first respondent, and had obtained more marks than him. It is therefore,
that they were shown at S.Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above the first respondent in the
order dated 7.11.2000, although they had acquired the requisite diplomas
subsequent to the preliminary examination. They had been granted the
relaxation to obtain the qualification which was permissible. The subsequent
seniority list of the computer operation as on 1.7.2005 was based on this order
dated 7.11.2000, and the decision of the High Court administration was correct.
9
10. The Division Bench has taken the view that since the first
respondent had those qualifications right at the outset, the first respondent
ought to have been shown senior over the three appellants in SLP Nos. 538/2009
and 5318/2009. The High Court therefore allowed the Writ Petition filed by the
first respondent, and set-aside the gradation list published under notification
dated 23.9.2005. It directed the Registrar (Administration) to refix the seniority
of the computer operators, taking the date of their acquiring requisite
qualifications as per rules 7 (7) and 8 (4) of the relevant rules, and accord
consequential benefits arising therefrom.
11. The three appellants are aggrieved by this judgment and
order, and have therefore, filed SLP Nos. 598/2009 and 5318/2009. The High
Court administration has also filed SLP No. 13379/2009. SLP No. 598/2009 came
up for consideration on 23.1.2009 when a notice was directed to be issued
therein, and the impugned order was stayed until further orders. The other two
petitions have been directed to be tagged along with SLP No. 598/2009. The
respondents have filed their counter affidavits and the appellants have filed their
rejoinder affidavits.
12. Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy and Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned
Advocates have appeared in support of SLP NO. 598/2009, Mr. L.N. Rao, Senior
Advocate appeared for the appellant in SLP No. 5318/2009 and Ms. C.K.
Sucharita, Advocate appeared in support of SLP No. 13379/2009. Mr.
10
Narasimha, Senior Advocate has appeared for the first respondent in all the 3
appeals to defend the judgment and order passed by the High Court.
13. The principle submission of the appellants is that the High
Court had granted the time to acquire the necessary additional qualifications.
The qualifications were not considered sacrosanct by the High Court at the
outset. The Chief Justice had the necessary power to grant the relaxation. The
appellants as well as the first respondent had appeared for the common written
and the oral test which included the aspect of capability of computer operation.
The appellants have obtained higher marks than the first respondent, and
therefore, the High Court administration was right in placing them at a higher
position in the gradation list. The appellants and High Court administration are
relying on Rule 23 of the above Service Rules. This rule reads as follows:-
"Rule 23- Relaxation of Rules by the Chief Justice:-
Nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit or abridge the
power of the Chief Justice to deal with the case of any member
of the service or any other person to be appointed to the service
in such manner as may appear to him to be just or equitable;
Provided that where any such rule is applicable to the case of any
person, the case shall not be dealt with in any manner, less
favourable to him than that provided by that rule."
14. As against that, the submission of the first respondent is that
on the basis of the aforesaid rules 7 (7) and 8 (4) the candidates had to have the
necessary qualifications and special qualifications at the outset. The first
respondent had the necessary qualification, and therefore, he ought to have
been shown at a higher seniority position than that of these three appellants,
11
which is what the High Court has done on the judicial side. These rules read as
follows:-
"Rule 7 - Qualifications
(7) FOR THE POSTS OF COMPUTER OPERATORS:
Must have passed Degree in Arts or Science or Commerce of a
University in India Established or incorporated by or under a Central
Act, Provincial act or a State Act or from any Institution recognized
by the University Grants Commission.
OR
Must have passed Degree in B.C.A. (Bachelor of Computer
Application) of a University in India Established in incorporated by or
under a Central Act, Provisional Act or a State Act or from any
Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission.
NOTE: If the Candidate passed the Degree in B.C.A, he
need not pass the Special Qualifications as prescribed in
Schedule-I (Under Rule-8) of the A.P. High Court Service Rules,
1975.
[AMENDMENT-III: Above words shall be added as sub-rule 7
after sub-rule 6 in Rule 7 for the posts of Computer Operators as per
A.P. Gazette 412 Part I extraordinary dated 08.10.1999.]
Rule 8 - Special Qualifications
*(4) FOR COMPUTER OPERATORS: In addition to the
Graduation, a Computer Operator must have passed Typewriting
English Higher Grade and Post Graduate Diploma in Computer
Programming or Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application
(One Year Course) which is recognized by the Central or State
Government.
*[AMENDMENT-V: Above words shall be added as sub-rule 4 after
sub-rule 3 for the posts of Computer Operators vide A.P. Gazettee
No. 412 Par I Extraordinary dated 08.10.1999]."
15. The principle submission of the first respondent before the
High Court was that the three appellants did not have the requisite qualifications
12
when the Registrar, Administration issued the circular dated 24.10.2000 calling
for the names with particulars for the posts of Computer Operators with
qualifications as per the above rules 7 (7) and 8 (4). This circular clearly stated
that:- (i) The applicants had to be graduates; (ii) They had to have passed the
typewriting (English) exam by the higher grade; and (iii) they ought to posses
Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Programming or Post Graduate Diploma in
Computer Application which is recognised by Central Government or State
Government. This circular dated 24.10.2000 stated as follows:-
"HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: HYDERABAD
R.O.C.NO.6017/2000/Estt. Dated:
24.10.2000
CIRCULAR
The members of the High Court Establishment, who are
graduates and who have passed Type Writing (English) by the
Higher Grade and Post Graduate Diploma in Computer
Programming OR Post Graduate Diploma in Computer
Application (ONE YEAR COURSE), which is recognized by the
Central Government or State Government are requested to furnish
the said information to the Registrar (Administration) by
25.10.2000 along with true copies of the said certificates.
Sd/-
REGISTRAR
(ADMINISTRATION)"
16. Pursuant to this circular, the applicants were called for a
written test by another circular dated 31.10.2000. This circular stated that the
oral interview will also be conducted at the same venue after the written test
was over. The circular contained the list of candidates who were called to give
13
that test, and it included the names of the three appellants as well as the first
respondent. The circular further informed the candidates as follows:-
"They are further informed that they have to produce their
certificates regarding `Computer Course' and proof regarding the
duration of the course attended by them, in original, and in proof
of passing of Typewriting English by the Higher Grade, before Sri
M.S.K. Prabhu, Deputy Registrar, by 11.00 A.M., without fail. If
any candidate fails to produce the concerned certificates and proof,
it will be deemed that he/she has no requisite qualification to hold
the post.
The staff members are permitted to appear for the Written
Examination and interview subject to their holding the requisite
qualification, as per rules."
Thus, it was very clear that the staff members were permitted to
appear for the written examination and interview subject to their holding the
requisite qualifications, as per the rules.
17. The first respondent and three appellants did pass that
examination, but the three appellants did not have the requisite diploma. That
was also the deficiency with two other employees who otherwise got good
marks. It appears that the High Court was in need of ten Computer Operators
and, therefore, the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to pass the order dated
7.11.2000 which has been referred to earlier. This order also clearly stated that
the three appellants and the two other candidates listed in that order dated
7.11.2000 had to acquire the necessary qualification within one year failing
which they were to be reverted. The last part of this order dated 7.11.2000 is
relevant and reads as follows:-
14
"The above said appointments are made purely on temporary
and on an adhoc basis without any preferential claim to future re-
promotion or seniority and are liable to be reverted at any time
without any notice and without assignment any reason."
The first respondent pointed out that the three appellants did not
acquire the necessary qualifications within one year, and they sought extension
of one more year during which period they obtained the necessary qualifications.
It was submitted that the seniority of the respondent no.1 will have to be
counted from the date when he joined as Computer Operator pursuant to the
order dated 7.11.2000. The relaxation in the order dated 7.11.2000, clearly
stated that as far as the three appellants are concerned, their appointments were
purely temporary and without any preferential claim to the future re-promotion
or seniority and they were liable to reverted. They could claim their seniority
only from the date when they obtained the qualification and could not have a
seniority position higher than that of the respondent no.1.
18. The High Court Administration had justified the grant of
seniority to the three appellants on the footing that the Chief Justice had the
power under the above referred rule 23 to deal with the case of any member of
the Court Service or any other person to be appointed to the service in such
manner as may appear to him to be just or equitable. The High Court needed
ten Computer Operators, and the three appellants had otherwise passed the
examination and therefore, although they obtained the diploma certificates later
than the first respondent, they were shown at higher position on the basis of the
marks they had obtained in the test. The three appellants were to be reverted
15
since they did not obtain the necessary qualification within the initial period of
one year. It was a matter of grace and because of the requirement of the High
Court that the Chief Justice gave them further extension of one year as sought
by them. Such persons were liable to be reverted from the particular post and
could not claim seniority over a person who is duly appointed with all necessary
qualifications.
19. The three appellants had relied upon the judgments of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in two other connected matters wherein the
selections based on the merit list submitted by the NIC reflected in the order
dated 7.11.2000 had come to be challenged. The first one was W.P. No.
22501/2000 wherein the challenge was to the policy decision to fix the cut off
marks to 45% to consider the case of the qualified candidates for the post of
Computer Operators. In the second petition bearing W.P. No.2217/2001 it was
contended that sufficient time had not been given for preparation, and that the
ratio of 2:1 between the Assistants/Examiners and Typists/Copyists had not been
maintained. The Division Bench which heard those two petitions did not find any
substance in those arguments and it was held that there was nothing wrong in
keeping appropriate minimum marks, and that the aforesaid ratio would not
apply to direct recruitment.
Consideration of the Rival Submissions -
16
20. To appreciate the rival submission, we may refer to the
relevant rules. The Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975 contain in all
29 Rules, three Schedules and one Annexure. Rule 1 gives the short title,
commencement and extent of the rules. Rule 2 gives the definitions. Rule 3 is
on the constitution of the service. It states that the service shall consist of the
divisions, categories and sub-categories of officers, as mentioned therein.
Division I consists of the Gazetted Posts, Division II the Non-Gazetted Posts and
Division III the Miscellaneous Posts. Division II consists of 5 categories.
Category-1 is of Translators and Deputy Section Officers, Category-2 consists of
Overseer, Category-3 consists of (a) Assistant Section Officer and (b) Computer
Operators, Category-4 consists of (a) Assistants (b) Readers and Examiners (c)
Telex Operator (d) Telephone Operator and Category-5 consists of (a) Typists
and (b) Copyists.
21. As noted earlier, the three appellants and the first respondent
were concerned with their promotion from Categories-4 and 5 to Category-3 (b),
viz. that of Computer Operators. Subsequently, they all have been promoted to
the posts of Deputy Section Officers which is in Category-1 of Division II. We
are, however, concerned with their seniority when they were selected for the
posts of Computer Operators. Their seniority as Computer Operators will be a
relevant factor for deciding their subsequent seniority as Deputy Section Officers.
22. Rule 4 defines the appointing authority. Rule 5 gives the
method of appointment to the service and states that the appointment to the
17
post and category mentioned in Column (1) of the table below the rule shall be
made in the manner specified against them in Column (2) thereof. As far as the
Category-3 (a) Assistant Section Officer and (b) Computer Operators are
concerned, it will be filled by either of the two methods:-
(i) By direct recruitment; or
(ii) By promotion from categories 4 and 5 in the ratio of 2:1 in
every cycle of three vacancies, the second vacancy shall be filled from Category
5 by a person qualified under rule 8. If there is no qualified and suitable
member, the turn will lapse and the vacancy shall be filled by next turn in the
order or rotation. No account shall be taken of any such lapsed turns in filling
future vacancies.
23. It is not disputed that the present selections were by direct
recruitment and that is why the test for selection was taken by NIC. Sub-rule 2
of Rule 5 states that the Chief Justice may determine the proportion of vacancies
to be filled by each method where appointment to any category or post is
provided by more than one method and also specify the manner in which such
appointment shall be made in case of direct recruitment. Sub-rule 3 is on
seniority and it reads as follows:-
"(3) Seniority:- (a) The seniority of a member of the service in a
Category or post shall unless he has been reduced to a lower rank
as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first
appointment to the service, category or post, where any difficulty
or doubt arises in determining the seniority, is shall be determined
by the appointing authority. If any portion of the service of such
person does not count towards probation under Rule 16, his
18
seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of the
service, which counts towards probation.
(b) The appointing authority may at the time of passing an
order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a Category
of the service fix the order of preference among them and where
such order has been fixed, the seniority shall be determined in
accordance therewith.
(c) Where a member of any division or Category is
reduced to a lower division or Category, he shall be placed at the
top of the later, unless the authority ordering such reduction
otherwise directs."
24. Rule 6 is on reservation of appointments, and Rule 7 gives the
qualification. Rule 7 (7) gives the qualifications for the posts of Computer
Operators which rule we have already referred. Rule 8 gives the special
qualifications and that Rule 8 (4) gives the qualifications for the Computer
Operators which also we have already mentioned.
25. We are concerned with the promotions and they are dealt
with in Rule 15 and the temporary appointments and promotions are dealt with
in Rule 16. These two Rules read as follows:-
"Rule-15. Promotions:- (1) All promotions shall be made by
the appointing authority in accordance with Rule-5.
(2) All categories in Division-I and Categories 1 to 3 of
Division-II shall be selection categories and promotion there to
shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being
considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal.
Provided that "the claims of any member of the Scheduled
Castes or the Scheduled Tribes shall be considered for such
promotion on the basis of seniority, subject to fitness".
Rule-16. Temporary Appointments and Promotions:-
19
(1) Where it is necessary to fill a vacancy in any division,
category, sub-category, or post in the service and there would be
undue delay or administrative inconvenience in appointing a person
who is qualified for or entitled to such appointment or a duly
qualified person is not available, the appointing authority may
appoint any other suitable person temporarily until an appointment
is made in accordance with these rules.
(2) (a) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall be replaced
as soon as possible by a member of the service, who is entitled to
promotion, under these rules or the case may be, by a candidate
qualified to hold the post under the rules.
(b) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall not be
regarded as a probationer in such division, category or post or be
entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential
claim to future appointment, to such division, category or post.
If such a person is subsequently appointed to the division,
category or post in accordance with these rules, he shall
commence his probation in such division, category or post from the
date of such subsequent appointment or from such earlier date as
the appointing authority may determine."
26. From the narration of facts and reference to the rules above,
it is clear that as far as the first respondent is concerned he had the necessary
qualifications when he appeared for the examination of Computer Operators. His
appoint is pursuant to the order dated 7.11.2000 with immediate effect and his
probation will start immediately thereafter under Rule 10 (1) on probation which
reads as follows:
"Rule 10. Probation-(1) Every person
appointed to the Service otherwise than by promotion, or by
transfer shall be on probation for a total period of two years
on duty within a continuous period of three years."
27. As far the three appellants are concerned, their appointments
were purely temporary and on adhoc basis, and they were liable to be reverted if
they were not to acquire the necessary qualification within one year. The order
20
dated 7.11.2000 further stated that their appointments are without any
preferential claim to future re-promotion or seniority. These three appellants did
not obtain the necessary qualification within the period of one year. On their
request they were given a further extension of time of one year by subsequent
order dated 22.11.2001 issued by the Chief Justice. This order reads as follows:-
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT OF A.P. :: HYDERABAD.
Sub:- ESTABLISHMENT - HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERBAD
- S/Sri K. Balarama Raju, Mohd. Sanaullah Ansari, T.
Tirumala Devi, P. Nagarjuna Rao and L. Ramachandra Rao,
Computer Operators, High Court A.P., Hyderabad -
Extension of time for passing of the requisite qualifications -
Granted - Orders - Issued.
Ref.: Applications submitted by
S/Sri.
1. K. Balarama Raju, dt. 27.10.2001
2. Modh. Sanaullah Ansari, dt. 27.10.2001
3. T. Tirumala Devi, dt. 5.11.2001
4. P. Nagarjuna Rao, dt. 27.10.2001
5. L. Ramachandra Rao, dt. 5.11.2001.
ORDER R.O.C. No.7595/2001 - Estt.2. dt. 22-11-2001.
The Hon'ble Chief Justice is pleased to pass the following
order:
In the circumstances stated by Sarvasri K. Balarama Raju,
Mohd. Sanaullah Ansari, T. Tirumala Devi, P. Nagarjuna Rao and L.
Ramachandra Rao, Computer Operators, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad, in their applications read above, they are granted
extension of time for a further period of one year from 7-11-2001
to enable them to acquire the requisite qualifications.
REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION)"
28. The three appellants did not have the diploma certificates
when they appeared for the examination, yet in view of their marks in the
21
examination they were appointed as computer operators since the High Court did
not get adequate number of qualified persons. They were therefore appointed
under Rule 16 (1) on purely temporary basis and were liable to be reverted, if
they did not get the qualification in the time provided. Rule 16 (2) (b) states
that such a person who is appointed under Rule 16 (1) shall not be regarded as
a probationer by reason of any such appointment to any preferential claim to
future appointment to such division, category or post. Second part of Rule 16
(2) (b) states if such a person is subsequently appointed to the division, category
or post in accordance with these rules, he shall commence his probation from
the date of his subsequent appointment or from such earlier date as the
appointing authority may determine. The power of the Chief Justice under Rule
23 states that if relaxation under the rule is made applicable to the case of any
person, the case shall not be dealt with in any manner, less favourable to the
candidate than that provided by that rule. However, this rule cannot be read to
mean that while granting the benefit under this rule, the beneficiary can be
placed at an advantage as against the one who is otherwise qualified and does
not need the relaxation. The first respondent had the necessary qualification
when he appeared for the examination, and on his appointment by direct
recruitment under the order dated 7.11.2000, his probation will start immediately
thereafter under Rule 10 (1). The probation of the three appellants will start
only after they obtain their qualification. The power of relaxation exercised by
the Chief Justice in their case can only get them into the service since adequate
number of computers operators were not available and their appointments will
22
get regularized when they get their qualification. The selection was done after a
test and on the basis of merit. Possessing the necessary diploma certificate was
a part of the qualification and merit. The passing of the examination required
minimum 45 marks. Obviously those who had the qualification and who
obtained 45 marks and above will have to be placed at the top of the list in
seniority. Those who did not have the qualification at that time but obtained it
later on, even if they had obtained higher marks in the test will have to be
placed at a position lower than these candidates having qualification, and
necessary marks. As far as the first respondent is concerned, his probation
having started earlier he will complete the same earlier to the appellants no.1, 2
and 3 and will have to be reckoned senior to them. The governing rules will
have to be read and applied meaningfully in this manner so that no prejudice will
be done to a candidate who otherwise had the qualifications and who is
appointed after passing the test. It is settled law that one should have the
qualifications on the date when the applications are invited. Any such relaxation
to permit unqualified candidates cannot be to the prejudice of the qualified
candidates. They can be taken into the service but cannot steal a march over
the qualified and the selected candidates.
29. The three appellants had contended that the petition filed by
the first respondent suffered on account of latches and delay in moving the High
Court. We have already pointed out that when the order dated 7.11.2000 was
issued, the first respondent represented on 2.11.2001, but the representation
23
was rejected on 15.11.2003. He moved for a review on 19.2.2004, but the same
was not responded. When the seniority of the Computer Operators was
published by notification dated 23.9.2005 and objections were invited, the first
respondent submitted his objection on 10.10.2005. That representation was
rejected by the High Court's Proceeding dated 6.11.2007 and the first
respondent was placed junior to the three appellants. He challenged that
communication by his W.P. No.11920/2008. Thus, there was no delay or
latches on the part of the first respondent in moving the High Court.
30. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the
judgment and order of the High Court which accepted the legitimate seniority of
the first respondent above the three appellants. The High Court has allowed the
Writ Petition No. 11920/2008 filed by the first respondent, set aside the
gradation list of computer operators as on 1.7.2005 and further directed the High
Court administration to refix their seniority and to grant the consequential
benefits. We approve this judgment and order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the
Andhra Pradesh High Court, although also for the reasons given in this
judgment. These three appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The interim stay
granted by this court will stand vacated. The High Court administration will now
proceed to take steps as directed in the said judgment and order in accordance
with the law laid down herein. In the facts of the case, there will be no order as
to costs.
........................................J.
24
( J.M. Panchal )
.........................................J.
( H.L. Gokhale )
New Delhi
Dated: September 26, 2011
25
