of A.P.& Anr Vs. Y. Sagareswara Rao  INSC 448 (5 September 1994)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Venkatachala N. (J)
1995 SCC Supl. (1) 16 JT 1995 (1) 134 1994 SCALE (4)585
Consequential to the reorganisation of the Panchayat Raj System under the A.P. Mandal
Parishads & Zilla Praja Parishads and Zilla Pranalika, Abhivrudhi Mandais
Act, 1986 (Act No. 31 of 1986) (for short the 'Act') the Governor exercising
the power under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution read with Sec. 28 (c)
of the Act made the A.P. Mandal Development Officer in A.P. Panchayat Raj
service (executive branch ) Ad hoc Rules in G.O.Ms. No.3 dated January 3,1989 whereunder Rule 2 prescribed the
method of appointment, namely appointment to the post of Mandal Development
Officers shall be made by transfer from the categories, namely, Superintendents
working in Zilla Praja Parishad offices, Divisional Panchayat officers and
Extension officers working in the erstwhile Panchayat Samithies, under G.O.Ms.
No.4 dated January 3,1989 Panchayati Raj & Rural Development, a committee
of five members was constituted to select the candidates by conducting special
qualifying tests and prescribed the marks for the written examination and also
number of persons came to be appointed, a list of which was attached to SLP
paper book for Zone III. The list has been mentioned-in the light of the orders
issued by 135 the Government in G.O.Ms. No.3 dated January 3,1989 panchayati Raj and Rural Development dated April 30, 1989 there in the respondent's seniority
was determined. The respondents filed O.A. in the Tribunal contending that his
scale of pay as an Veterinary Asstt. Surgeons (Extension officers) was. a gazetted
post on par with the Block development officer in the erstwhile Panchayat Samithies.
scale of pay was also the same. He was also in the gazetted cadre and that,
therefore, when the block development officers were absorbed and given the
previous service the respondents also should have given the same benefit to him
under Rule (for short the 'Rules'). That contention was found favour with the
Tribunal and it allowed the O.A.No. 38356/91 on October 1, 1993, Calling that order in question the present appeal was
is contended for the State that the Extension Officers were subordinate to the
Block Development Officer and that, therefore when the recruitment was made in
terms of G.OMs. No. dated January 3,1989
and the Committee had assigned the order of seniority on the basis of merit,
the respondent cannot be given seniority tagging his previous service and that,
therefore, Rule 37(e) has no application.
the contention appealed but after looking to the orders passed as regards
Veterinary Asstt. Surgeons we find that there is no force in the contention.
The respondent admittedly stands on different footing. In GOMs. No. 2/9 Panchayati
Raj Department dated June 17, 1972 they made an amendment to the Rule and taken
out the asstt. Veterinary Surgeons from the purview of the Extensions Officers.
In G.O.Ms. No. 169 Panchayati Raj dated July 3,1973 the posts of Asstt. Veterinary
Surgeons had been made Gazetted and consequently they have been taken out from
the purview of the administrative control of the Block Development Officers. In
consequence the Veterinary Asst Surgeons no longer remained to be subordinate
to the Block Development Officer. He had the pay scale at par with the Block
Development Officers. Under those circumstances the respondent is entitled to
tag his previous service since admittedly the B.D.Os. were given their benefit
and the appointment is by transfer though by process of selection, Rule 33(c)
of the Rule stands attracted.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. The benefit of this order cannot go to the
other subordinate Extension Officers who continued to be subordinates to the
erstwhile Block Development Officers.