Supreme Court judgment regarding the seniority of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) in the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Department. The core of the dispute centers on whether the temporary service of AEEs appointed between 1990-1992, before the enactment of a specific service act, should count towards their seniority over AEEs regularly appointed through the Public Service Commission in 1997. The appellants argue their appointments were legitimate and uninterrupted, while the private respondents contend their own regular appointments should grant them seniority. The Court ultimately reversed a High Court decision, affirming that the State Government had the authority to modify its own orders regarding seniority and ruling that the appellants’ temporary service should be considered for seniority given the unique circumstances of their initial appointments.
(A) Andra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 10(a)(i) – Service Law – Regularisation – Counting of service for seniority – Undisputed that at the time of the appointment of the appellants and other similarly placed candidates as AEEs between the years 1990-1992, there was a vacuum in rules governing the appointment of AEEs in the Panchayat Raj Department – To address the project-based exigency, the appellants and one other were appointed as temporary AEEs under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the AP Subordinate Service Rules – Since there was a vacuum in the rules, it cannot be said that these appointments were de hors the rules – Held that notwithstanding the designation of the appointments of the appellants and similarly situated candidates as being temporary, such appointments were neither restricted by a fixed tenure nor conceived as a stop-gap or ad-hoc arrangement – While characterized as temporary, these appointments were not intended to address a transient or interim requirement, rather, they were structured to ensure continuity and stability within the workforce – Further, it is an admitted fact that the services of the appellants and other similarly situated candidates employed between 1990-1995 were regularised vide G.O.M. No. 234, dated 27th June, 2005, which was not challenged before any forum and has attained finality – Delay in the regularisation of their service was attributable to the need for amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Rules, which were necessary to create a channel for absorption into the cadre –Once the services of employee(s) are regularised, the ad-hoc or stop-gap nature of the appointment does not survive – The case of the appellants clearly falls under Proposition(B) of the Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association as there were no selection rules in force in the Panchayat Raj Department for appointment of AEEs at the time of appointment of the appellants as temporary AEEs which was in the year 1992 – These appointments though termed temporary, were not bound in a fixed tenure and were not stop- gap or ad-hoc in nature – The appellants worked uninterruptedly on the same post till the regularisation of their service vide G.O.M No. 234 dated 27th June, 2005 – Held that the period of officiating service (i.e. period between 1990 to 2005) of the appellants and the batch of the AEEs appointed between 1990-1992 has to be counted as regular service for determining the seniority, entitling him/them to be placed above the 1997 batch of regularly appointed candidates(private respondents herein) in the seniority list – The State Government was fully justified in issuing the revised G.O.M. No. 262 dated 17th June, 2006, which is unassailable in the eyes of law – Impugned judgment, is unsustainable in the eyes of the law and thus, the same is quashed and set aside.
(Para 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 48 and 49)
(B) Constitution of India, Article 245 – Principle of functus officio – Administrative decision-making/rule- making power of the State – Principles of natural justice – Held that the rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the concept of functus officio – The principle of functus officio normally applies to a judicial forum or a quasi-judicial authority and would have no application to the rule-making authority which is within the domain of the State Government by virtue of Article 245 of the Constitution of India – Unable to concur with the reasoning assigned by the High Court that the State Government became functus officio after issuance of G.O.M. No. 234 dated 27th June, 2005 and could not have issued the revised G.O.M. No. 262 dated 17th June, 2006 – While administrative actions and statutory rules that impact citizens’ rights are subject to judicial review, the notion that the State must provide a prior hearing to affected individuals during the exercise of its rule-making power is fundamentally flawed.
(Para 42 to 47)
P. Rammohan Rao V. K. Srinivas
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 212: (DoJ 13-02-2025)
