A.G. Sainath
Reddy Vs. The Govt. of A.P. & Ors [2003] Insc 123 (28 February 2003)
Doraiswamy
Raju & Arijit Pasayat
ARIJIT
PASAYAT, J Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (in short 'the Tribunal'). The controversy lies within a very narrow
compass i.e. the date of seniority of the appellant and, therefore, a brief
reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
Appellant
joined as Welfare Officer in Andhra Pradesh Jails Department on 8.9.1978. He
completed his probation on 5.10.1981. On 16.6.1983, nine posts of Deputy
Superintendent of Jails were notified to be filled up and on 25.8.1983 an
advertisement was issued by a requisite Gazette Notification by the Andhra
Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short the 'Commission') for filling up
the aforesaid vacancies by direct recruitment. Five years' service is required
for an employee other than a direct recruit to be eligible for consideration
for the said post. On 16.10.1984, 11 prisons welfare officers and jailors were
appointed as Deputy Superintendents of Jails on ad hoc basis. Appellant joined
as Deputy Superintendent of Jails on 20.10.1984 on the aforesaid ad hoc basis.
The Commission conducted the written examination in October 1985 and interviews
were conducted in October 1986. The results were declared in 1987. By
Government Order dated 17.12.1987, four persons were given appointment, but
only three joined. Subsequently, two persons were appointed on 4.5.1988 and
19.6.1989. A Government Order No. 595 dated 1.10.1990 was issued by the
Government where the date from which service as Deputy Superintendent of Jails
was to be regularised was indicated.
While
the dates of regularisation for direct recruits were indicated to be the date they
joined, so far as the appellant is concerned, it was indicated to be the date
when he had joined on ad hoc basis in 1984. This was questioned by the direct
recruits before the Tribunal. They raised two contentions in the applications
filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short 'the
Act'). They were
(i) their
seniority should be counted from the date of notification i.e. 16.6.1983;
(ii) and
in any event, the dates fixed by the non-direct recruits were not legal as
their appointments were on purely ad hoc basis and merely as stop gap
arrangement since they were appointed in respect of the posts for which
requisitions had been sent to the Commission by the State Government.
The
Tribunal accepted the second contention. It came to hold that there was no
scope for retrospective regularisation and deemed probation. Reference was made
to Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Deputy Superintendents of Jails Service Rules,
1974 (in short 'the Rules'). These rules are framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution'). As afore-noted, the
judgment of the Tribunal disposing of the 5 original applications is the
subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
Mr.
S.K. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. The method of appointment is
indicated in Rule 2 of the Rules. There are three sources of appointment, i.e.
(i) recruitment
by transfer of jailors in jails other than sub-jails in Andhra Pradesh Jail
Subordinate Services;
(ii) recruitment
by transfer of Welfare Officers of Branch II of the aforesaid Services and
(iii) by
direct recruitment if no qualified or suitable person is available by any of
the other two methods. Where the recruitment is by transfer, the concerned
officer is required to have served as a Jailor in jail other than sub-jails or
as Welfare Officer for not less than five years. There is a requirement that
every person appointed to the post by transfer has to be on probation for a
specified period. Appellant was recruited in terms of the Rules and merely
because his appointment was styled as an ad hoc appointment the same will not
make a difference. The appointment was on the basis of the Rules and not on the
basis of the Government Order. Since there was vacancy the appointments could
have been made and have been made in terms of the Rules. Strong reliance was
placed on Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. (1990 (2) SCC 715), more
particularly, para 47, conclusions (A) and (B) which read as follows:
"(A)Once
an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be
counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his
confirmation.
The
corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad
hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation
in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.
(B) If
the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the
rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the
regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of
officiating service will be counted." In response, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the Tribunal has rightly analysed the legal
position.
The
appointments were stop-gap, emergency or fortuitous arrangements and it cannot
be treated to be appointment under the Rules. The probation period started only
when there was a regular appointment in terms of the Rules and not on any point
of time before that date.
One
basic feature which needs to be considered is that the posts were advertised by
the Commission in 1983 for direct recruits. Requisitions were sent to the
Commission by the government before that. Since the posts were to be filled up
by direct recruits on the basis of acceptance of recommendations of Commission,
any arrangement to fill up those posts on officiating basis does not confer any
right of probation on the person appointed as there was no post to which there
could be appointment of a promotee after requisitions were sent to the
Commission to such posts earmarked for direct recruitment. Any officiating
arrangement is really of no consequence. Rule 4 of the Rules relating to
"Probation" reads is as follows:
"Every
person appointed to the post by transfer shall from the date on which he joins
duty, be on probation for a total period of one year on duty within a
continuous period of two years and every person appointed by direct recruitment
shall, from the date on which he joins duty, be on probation for a total period
of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years." Obviously,
the date to be reckoned when the regular appointment is made on the basis of
the Rules. Once the post is earmarked for direct recruit, it goes out of reach
of the department for effecting promotions on regular basis and comes to the
hands of the Commission. Their recommendation which is subject to acceptance by
the Government alone governs such posts for appointment. The decision in the
Direct recruits' case (supra) was considered later by this Court, more
particularly, relating to conclusions (A) and (B) in State of West Bengal and Ors. etc. v. Aghore Nath Dey
and Ors. (1993 (3) SCC 371). At paras 21 to 25 it was held as follows:
"21.
We shall now deal with conclusions (A) and (B) of the constitution bench in the
Maharashtra Engineers case quoted above.
22.
There can be no doubt that these two conclusions have to be read harmoniously,
and conclusion (B) cannot cover cases which are expressly excluded by
conclusion (A). We may, therefore, first refer to conclusion (A). It is clear
from conclusion (A) that to enable seniority to be counted from the date of
initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation, the
incumbent of the post has to be initially appointed 'according to rules'. The
corollary set out in conclusion (A), then is, that 'where the initial
appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap
arrangement, the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for
considering the seniority'. Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A) expressly
excludes the category of cases where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and
not according to rules, being made only as a stopgap arrangement. The case of
the writ petitioners squarely falls within this corollary in conclusion (A),
which says that the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for
counting the seniority.
23.
This being the obvious inference from conclusion (A), the question is whether
the present case can also fall within conclusion (B) which deals with cases in
which period of officiating service will be counted from seniority. We have no
doubt that conclusion (B) cannot include, within its ambit, those cases which
are expressly covered by the corollary in conclusion (A), since the two
conclusions cannot be read in conflict with each other.
24. The
question, therefore, is of the category which would be covered by conclusion
(B) excluding therefrom the cases covered by corollary in conclusion (A).
25. In
our opinion, the conclusion (B) was added to cover a different kind of
situation, wherein the appointments are otherwise regular, except for the
deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down by the rules. This is
clear from the opening words of the conclusion (B), namely, 'if the initial
appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the 'rules' and
the latter expression 'till the regularization of his service in accordance
with the rules'. We read conclusion (B), and it must be so read to reconcile
with conclusion (A), to cover the cases where the initial appointment is made
against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period of time or purpose
by the appointment order itself, and is made subject to the deficiency in the
procedural requirements prescribed by the rules for adjudging suitability of
the appointee for the post being cured at the time of regularization, the
appointee being eligible and qualified in every manner for a regular
appointment on the date of initial appointment in such cases. Decision about
the nature of the appointment, for determining whether it falls in this
category, has to be made on the basis of the terms of the initial appointment
itself and the provisions in the rules. In such cases, the deficiency in the
procedural requirements laid down by the rules has to be cured at the first
available opportunity, without any default of the employee, and the appointee
must continue in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his
service, in accordance with the rules. In such cases, the appointee is not to
blame for the deficiency in the procedural requirements under the rules at the
time of his initial appointment, and the appointment not being limited to a
fixed period of time is intended to be a regular appointment, subject to the
remaining procedural requirements of the rules being fulfilled at the earliest.
In such cases also, if there be any delay in curing the defects on account of
any fault of the appointee, the appointee would not get the full benefit of the
earlier period on account of his default, the benefit being confined only to the
period for which he is not to blame. This category of cases is different from
those covered by the corollary in conclusion (A) which relates to appointment
only on ad hoc basis as a stopgap arrangement and not according to rules. It
is, therefore, not correct to say that the present cases can fall within the
ambit of conclusion (B), even though they are squarely covered by the corollary
in conclusion (A)." Reference can also be made to A.P.M. Mayankutty v. The
Secretary and Anr. (1977 (2) SCC 360). In paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said
decision the position as to when a person can be treated as probationer and
what happens relating to appointments on emergency or fortuitous arrangement
were analysed.
Additionally,
it is to be noted that the orders of appointments on ad hoc basis dated
1.12.1983 and 16.10.1984 which were issued to the appellant and others
contained the following stipulations respectively.
"The
temporary promotions of the following officers may be ordered till such time as
these posts are regularly fill in by direct recruitment for which notification
has already been issued by the APPSC." Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx "The
appointments ordered in para-I above are purely temporary and provisional and
do not confer any right whatsoever on the persons for continuance in the posts
and do not entitle them to any preferential claim to future appointments
thereto, and are liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any
reason and without any notice." If any vacancy remained after joining of the
selected direct recruits, same was available to be filled up from other sources
of appointment.
One
thing further is to be noted. Rule 2(3) of the Rules is applicable when
departmental candidates are not available. Since no qualified departmental
candidates were available, the vacancies were notified to the Commission. It is
further to be noted that the crucial words in Rule 4 are "shall from the
date on which he joins duty be on probation...". There is no question of
any deemed probation or notional date of probation as probation starts from the
actual date of joining duty. The question of joining duty on probation shall
arises only when there is a substantive appointment against a post available
and not any ad hoc or officiating arrangement.
That
being the position, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the original
applications filed before it. We find no merit in these appeals. The appeals
fail and are dismissed. Costs made easy.
Back