Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dismissed special leave petitions challenging the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which had upheld the reversion of the petitioners from the post of Junior Assistants to their original Last Grade Posts. The petitioners were children of deceased employees of Zilla Praja Parishads in Andhra Pradesh. They were initially appointed on compassionate grounds as Watchmen etc. under the quota for deceased employees' children on a consolidated pay around December 1983. In December 1988, they were regularized as employees in the Zilla Praja Parishad on a regular scale of pay. In 1991-1992, they were promoted to the post of Junior Assistants. However, in April 1993, a show-cause notice was issued to them asking why they should not be reverted to their Last Grade Post since five years' service in the Last Grade Post was required for promotion to Junior Assistant. The petitioners had worked for hardly three years in the Last Grade Post. They relied on G.O.Ms.No.627 dated 21st of December, 1983, contending that the minimum qualifying service was ordinarily three years and in no case less than two years. The respondent authorities rejected their contentions based on Rule 3(17) of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1966, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.589 dated 19th November 1986, which requires a minimum of five years service in the Last Grade for promotion to Junior Assistant. The petitioners were reverted by order dated 29.5.1993. They challenged the reversion before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their applications. The Supreme Court examined the question whether five years' service was necessary. It noted that the Ad hoc Rule in G.O.Ms.No.627 of 1983 reduced the ordinarily five years service to three years with at least two years in the category from which promotion or transfer is made, but this Ad hoc Rule dealt only with promotions within the Service and transfers, not with promotions or appointments from a lower grade Service to a post in a higher grade Service. The Court held that the post of Junior Assistant is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1966. Rule 3(17) inserted by G.O.Ms.No.589 of 1986 specifically reserves 33.3% of the posts of Junior Assistants in Panchayati Raj Bodies for Record Assistants, Attenders and other equivalent categories who possess minimum general educational qualification and who have put in minimum services of five years in that category. This later specific Rule directly applied to the petitioners and prevailed over the general Ad hoc Rule. The Court also held that Rule 4(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, which incorporates the Ad hoc Rule, applies only to promotions within the Service of members of the Service, not to recruitments under Rule 3 from other lower grade Services. Since Rule 3(17) does not refer to Rule 4, the petitioners could not claim the benefit of Rule 4(2) or G.O.Ms.No.627. Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion and dismissed the special leave petitions with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion Qualifications - Qualifying Service for Promotion from Last Grade Service to Junior Assistant - Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1966, Rule 3(17) - Petitioners promoted as Junior Assistants in Panchayati Raj Bodies were reverted because they lacked five years' service in Last Grade Service; they claimed benefit of G.O.Ms.No.627 reducing qualifying service to three years. Court held that Rule 3(17) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.589 dated 19.11.1986 specifically prescribes five years' service for this recruitment, and being a later specific rule, it prevails over general ad hoc rule. Held that reversion was justified. B) Service Law - Interpretation of Ad Hoc Rules - Applicability of G.O.Ms.No.627 to Promotions from Lower Grade to Higher Grade Service - Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1966, Rule 4(2) - The ad hoc rule contained in G.O.Ms.No.627 and incorporated in Rule 4(2) applies only to promotions within the same Service or by transfer, not to recruitments from a lower grade Service to a higher grade Service under Rule 3. Court held that Rule 4(2) has no application to recruitment under Rule 3(17). Held that petitioners cannot claim benefit of Rule 4(2) or G.O.Ms.No.627.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners need to have five years' service as Watchmen, Attenders etc. for appointment as Junior Assistants; whether G.O.Ms.No.627 dated 21.12.1983 or Rule 4(2) of Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1966 applies to promotions from lower grade service to higher grade service
Final Decision
Special leave petitions dismissed; reversion upheld; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Later specific rule requiring five years' service prevails over general ad hoc rule reducing qualifying service
- Rule 4(2) of Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules
- 1966 applies only to promotions within the same service
- not recruitment from lower grade to higher grade service
- Government Order reducing qualifying service to three years does not apply to recruitment under Rule 3(17)
