P. Satyanarayana Rao
& ANR. Vs. S.V.P. Sarvani & Ors.  INSC 2062 (2 December 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7360-7361 OF 2002 P. Satyanarayana Rao & Anr.
...Appellant(s) Versus S.V.P. Sarvani & Ors. ...Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL
APPEALS NOS.7359/2002 & 2548-2549/2004
ORDER In Civil Appeal
Heard counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
The dispute in this
case is about the inter-se seniority between the parties.
It may be noted that
the post of Junior Assistant in the subordinate office in the Commercial Taxes
Department is a Category-11 post under the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules and
the minimum qualification for appointment on the said post is Intermediate. On
the other hand, the post of Junior Assistant in the office of the Head of the
Department is a Category-10 post and the minimum qualification there is
Rule 27(1)(iii) of
the aforesaid Rules states:
of a member of the service who is transferred at his own request from one
Department or office to another shall be fixed in the latter department or
office with reference to the date of his first appointment in the latter
department or office..."
...2/- -2- Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was transferred from the
subordinate office to the office of Head of the Department not at his request
but on his making an application. We regret we cannot see any difference. When
a person makes an application for transfer, it is obviously a transfer at his
own request. Hence, in our opinion, Rule 27(1)(iii) squarely applies.
In this case, the
appellant got transferred from the subordinate office to the office of the Head
of Department at his own request. If he did not wish to forego his service in
the subordinate service, he need not have made any such request and would have
remained in the subordinate office. Once he makes a request for transfer to the
office of the Head of Department, then, he must undergo the consequences of
such transfer and he cannot claim that his service in the subordinate office
must be added to his service in the office of the Head of Department for the
purpose of seniority. He will be deemed to have been given a fresh appointment
on his joining in the office of the Head of Department for the purposes of
seniority, in view of Rule 27(1)(iii) of the Rules. Thus, in our opinion, there
is no error in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Civil Appeals are,
accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.
...3/- -3- In Civil
Appeals Nos.7359/2002 & 2548-2549/2004:
Heard learned counsel
for the parties.
For the reasons given
in our judgment in C.A.Nos.7360-7361/2002, these Civil Appeals are allowed and
the impugned judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside.
No order as to