of A.P. Vs. A.V. Venugopala Rao  INSC 580 (14 November 1994)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Venkatachala N. (J)
1995 SCC (1) 179 1994 SCALE (4)1118
the impugned order dated 28-4-1994, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal in OA No. 6190 of 1993 directed that the direction issued by the
Tribunal "will not preclude the authorities from putting an existing
Executive Engineer in additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer or an
existing Superintending Engineer similarly wherever required. The Committee
also will examine the aspect that where there are no controversies, the
consideration of promotion of Executive Engineers should be placed before the
Tribunal for any further directions. Any incharge arrangements to the posts of
Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers or Chief Engineers made after
interim order, are revoked and they stand divested of that charge, within one
week." This part of the order is now mainly assailed in this appeal.
Before issuing of notice to the respondent by our proceedings dated 13-7-1994, Shri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Senior Counsel had
stated that pending finalisation of the seniority list, the incharge
arrangement was made to keep senior most in the provisional list of the
respective divisions who are eligible for promotion to the post of Executive
Engineer as in-charge so as to avoid heart-buming among the officers and that
arrangement is being worked out satisfactorily. The impugned directions would
create administrative problems.
when such statement was made, we directed the learned counsel to place on
record the provisional seniority list and orders of in-charge given to the
stated seniormost persons in the respective divisions. Accordingly, they have
placed on record the provisional seniority list and also order of in-charge
arrangement from the respective divisions. This position has not been controverted.
the learned counsel for the respondent in the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the respondent has controverted the correctness and legality of the
provisional seniority list as such. Since that matter is now pending
adjudication in the Tribunal, we direct the Tribunal to look into the matter.
to what is done, is an interim arrangement of the Government for smooth
functioning of the department, we think that the Tribunal was not justified in
upsetting the interim arrangement which has got a rational and reasonable basis
to avoid administrative hardship or heart-burning to the persons who claimed to
the posts of respective Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers and the
Chief Engineers, as the case may be. Under these circumstances, the above-
quoted order of the Tribunal is set aside and the interim in-charge arrangement
made by the State Government 181 would continue till the disposal of OAS
pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter
as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the
date of the receipt of this order. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.