THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.813 OF 2009 DATED JANUARY, 2010 BETWEEN R.V.N.S.Murthy … Appellant/Petitioner and Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Administrative Office, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar. And Others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.813 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) This case brings into focus the Ministerial Service Regulations of the Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University and their implementation. The appellant/party-in-person, R.V.N.S.Murthy, assails the order dated 24.06.2005 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing his writ petition, W.P.No.25096 of 2003. Therein, the appellant originally challenged the proceedings dated 20.10.2003 of the Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University (formerly ‘Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University’ and hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’) promoting respondents 2 to 16 in the writ petition as Superintendents, on the ground that the same was violative of his seniority. He also challenged the executive order of the University in proceedings No.889/SC/83 dated 21.05.1983 substituted thereafter by the amendment of the Service Regulations vide proceedings No.31/SC/88 dated 06.01.1988 and sought a consequential direction to declare him as senior to respondents 2 to 16 in the writ petition and to promote him as a Superintendent forthwith. However, by way of an amendment of the prayer in the writ petition, permitted during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant sought a declaration that the action of the University in not converting him as a Senior Assistant (U.D. Clerk) from 14.05.2000 and in issuing the proceedings dated 20.10.2003 promoting respondents 2 to 15 herein as Superintendents defeating his seniority, was arbitrary, illegal and violative of his fundamental rights. He continued to maintain the challenge against the executive order dated 21.05.1983 which thereafter translated into the amendment of the Ministerial Service Regulations of the University, vide the proceedings dated 06.01.1988. He sought a further direction to convert him as a Senior Assistant from 14.05.2000, to consider him as senior to respondents 2 to 15 herein and consequently, to promote him as a Superintendent from 20.10.2003. The appellant was appointed as a L.D. Stenographer in the service of the University under proceedings dated 06.07.1983 and joined service on 16.07.1983. He was promoted as a U.D. Stenographer under proceedings dated 06.01.1995 and assumed charge on 09.01.1995. He opted for conversion as a Senior Assistant (U.D. Clerk) from the post of U.D. Steno by his representation dated 24.02.1995. Thereupon, by proceedings dated 21.06.1996, the University asked him to submit his unconditional willingness for being posted at any place on conversion as a Senior Assistant. The appellant complied with the said direction by his letter dated 25.06.1996. However, his conversion from the post of U.D. Steno to that of Senior Assistant was effected by the University seven years later under proceedings dated 13.06.2003. It is the grievance of the appellant that in the interregnum several posts of Senior Assistant were filled up and thereby his juniors stole a march over him and were promoted as Superintendents. Under the impugned proceedings dated 20.10.2003, the unofficial respondents were promoted as Superintendents and it is the claim of the appellant that these persons are junior to him in the service of the University as is evident from the seniority list dated 25.07.2003. It is his case that he was deprived of promotion to the post of Superintendent notwithstanding his admitted seniority over the unofficial respondents owing to the introduction of the rule under the executive order dated 21.05.1983, which thereafter took shape as an amendment of the Ministerial Service Regulations under the proceedings dated 06.01.1988. Thereby, a condition was imposed that a U.D. Steno, upon conversion as a Senior Assistant, had to put in two years of service as such before aspiring for promotion to the post of Superintendent. The appellant claimed that though he was appointed as a Steno, his services were utilized on the clerical side and therefore the amended rule, which required two years of service as a Senior Assistant for the purpose of enabling the incumbent to gain experience on the clerical side, was not applicable to him. In its counter affidavit, the University stated that the unofficial respondents in the writ petition were already working as Senior Assistants before the conversion of the appellant as a Senior Assistant in the year 2003. The University therefore asserted that the appellant was not senior to the unofficial respondents. The University placed reliance upon its Ministerial Service Regulations to contend that the appellant was not entitled thereunder to be promoted as a Superintendent over and above the unofficial respondents. In his reply to the University’s counter affidavit, the appellant stated that he had gained sufficient clerical experience though he worked as a U.D. Steno, furnishing details thereof. He reiterated that the amendment brought about in the Service Regulations under the executive order dated 21.05.1983 and the amendment proceedings dated 06.01.1988 was inapplicable to him. He relied upon the Ministerial Service Regulations of the University to demonstrate that injustice was done to him and that his case was unlawfully overlooked by the University in the process of conversion to the post of Senior Assistant and thereafter, in promotion to the post of Superintendent. By the common Order dated 24.06.2005 passed in W.P.No.25096 of 2003 filed by the appellant herein and in W.P.No.12495 of 2004 filed by other U.D. Stenos of the University regarding another issue, the learned single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions. It is stated that some of the unofficial respondents have already retired from service. In any event, in spite of service of notice, none of the unofficial respondents chose to put in their appearance before this Court either in person or through counsel. The appellant, a Post Graduate in Public Administration, also obtained LL.B. Degree in the year 1997. He passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I held on 14.05.2000 and had earlier passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-II held on 23.05.1999. He entered into the service of the University as a L.D. Steno on 16.07.1983 and was promoted as a U.D. Steno from 09.01.1995. Upon his exercising an option seeking conversion as a Senior Assistant, the University issued proceeding dated 13.06.2003 effecting such conversion. He was thereafter promoted as a Superintendent under proceedings dated 04.08.2007. His grievance in the present litigation is with regard to the treatment meted out to him by the University. It is his case that injustice was done to him owing to the delay in his conversion and promotion, whereby his juniors have overtaken him. The matter therefore turns upon the Service Regulations governing the appellant and the manner in which they have been interpreted and implemented by the University. The University in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 40(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963 formulated the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Ministerial Service Regulations, 1981. The Ministerial Services under the University are divided into five categories under Regulation-3. Category-I consists of the posts of Superintendents and Special Category Stenographers. Category-II consists of U.D. Clerks (Senior Assistants) and U.D. Stenographers. Categories-III, IV and V of the posts are of no relevance to this litigation. Under Regulation-4, the method of appointment to the various categories is detailed. In Category-I, for the post of Superintendent, the method of appointment is by promotion of U.D. Clerks (Senior Assistants) in the Administrative Office and in Colleges/Research Stations. For the post of Special Category Stenographer, two sources are provided – (i) by promotion of U.D. Stenographers working in the Administrative Office and in Colleges/Research Stations and (ii) by direct recruitment. So far as Category-II is concerned, appointment to the post of U.D. Clerk (Senior Assistant) is by promotion of L.D.Clerks/Typists including L.D.Stenographers/Clerk-cum-Typists in the Administrative Office and in Colleges/Research Stations and also by transfer (conversion) of U.D. Stenographers. Regulation-6(4)(iii) provides that a U.D. Steno shall have an option to get himself converted as a U.D. Clerk (Senior Assistant) after completion of three years service as a U.D. Steno and that the seniority of the U.D. Steno so converted shall be fixed amongst the Senior Assistants with reference to his date of appointment as a U.D. Steno. Regulation-11(2) posits that no U.D. Steno would be eligible for transfer as U.D. Clerk unless he passes the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I. Regulation-11(3) stipulates that no Senior Assistant would be eligible for further promotion unless he passes Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Parts-I and II. By proceedings No.889/SC/83 dated 21.05.1983, the Registrar of the University, referring to the practice followed in the Andhra Pradesh Government Ministerial Service, stated that it was felt both desirable and expedient to have a provision in the University’s Ministerial Service Regulations that a U.D. Steno who gets converted as a Senior Assistant should put in a minimum service of two years as a Senior Assistant before he is considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent. This was felt desirable so as to enable such a converted U.D. Steno to get experience in clerical work before he was promoted to the supervisory post of Superintendent. This culminated in the amendment of the A.P. Agricultural University Ministerial Service Regulations, 1981 under proceedings No.31/SC/88 dated 06.01.1988, whereby Regulation-6(4)(iv) was inserted stating to the effect that a U.D. Steno after conversion as a Senior Assistant shall be eligible for promotion as a Superintendent if he has put in a minimum service of two years in the post of Senior Assistant. This amendment was given effect from 21.05.1983. One further amendment to the Ministerial Service Regulations of the University requires to be noticed. By proceedings No.547/SC/A1/2008 dated 02.07.2008, the University added Regulation-4(iv), which came into effect from 14.07.1998, and reads as follows: “Provided that the conversion of UD Stenographer shall be made against the 5th vacancy in a unit of 10 vacancies of Senior Assistants and the rest shall be filled by promotion of Junior Assistant-cum-Typists.” This, then, is the legal environment governing the situation. The appellant was promoted as a U.D. Steno under proceedings dated 06.01.1995. He would ordinarily be entitled to seek promotion to the post of a Special Category Steno provided he possessed the requisite qualifications. However, the Ministerial Service Regulations of the University permitted him to seek conversion to the post of U.D. Clerk and thereafter aspire for promotion to the post of Superintendent. Regulation-6(4)(iii) stipulated that for seeking such conversion, a U.D. Steno would have to complete three years of service as such. The appellant, having been appointed as a U.D. Steno under proceedings dated 06.01.1995 and having taken charge as such on 09.01.1995, would therefore have been eligible to seek such conversion on or after 09.01.1998. It appears that the University, acting upon his representation made in 1995, sought and obtained his unconditional willingness for such conversion in the year 1996 itself. It is however, to be noticed that as per Regulation-11(2) a U.D. Steno would only be eligible for conversion as a Senior Assistant upon passing the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I. Admittedly, the appellant passed the said Test only on 14.05.2000. Therefore, notwithstanding his completion of the requisite period of three years of service by 09.01.1998, the appellant could not have sought conversion as a Senior Assistant till 14.05.2000. But, surprisingly, the University did not choose to give effect to the requested conversion till 13.06.2003, i.e., three years after the appellant acquired eligibility. The only explanation forthcoming from the University’s counter is that his turn came up only during June, 2003. The University further stated that in the absence of any mandatory provision with regard to conversion of a U.D. Steno as a Senior Assistant immediately after completion of three years of service as a U.D. Steno, the University could not be compelled to affect such conversion and that the same would have to be effected keeping in view the vacancies in the cadre of Senior Assistants and other administrative reasons. It is however not denied by the University that it continued to promote Junior Assistant-cum-Typists as Senior Assistants during the years 2000-2003. The appellant asserted on oath that during this period as many as 75 vacancies in Senior Assistant posts were filled up by regular promotion and this averment has not been denied. There is also no explanation as to how the University claims compliance with Regulation-4(iv) which was given effect from 14.07.1998. Under the said regulation, one post, being the fifth vacancy in a unit of ten vacancies of Senior Assistants, had to be filled by conversion from the category of U.D. Stenos. The contention of the appellant that even under this rule, he would have stood first amongst the category of U.D. Stenos in the year 2000 and ought not to have been overlooked till 2003, while the University continued to fill up as many as 75 vacancies in the category of Senior Assistants, remains unrebutted. It is therefore manifest that injustice was done to the appellant by ignoring his rightful claim for conversion as a Senior Assistant upon his passing the required Accounts Test on 14.05.2000. Once such conversion is effected, Regulation-6(4)(iii) requires that the appellant’s seniority should be fixed amongst the Senior Assistants with reference to his date of appointment as a U.D. Steno. It is relevant to note that this Regulation, in so far as it granted seniority to converted U.D. Stenos in the category of Senior Assistants on the basis of their date of initial appointment as U.D. Stenos, was subjected to challenge in W.P.No.12495 of 2004 which was heard along with the appellant’s writ petition and by the common order dated 24.06.2005, that writ petition was dismissed, upholding the validity of the Regulation. It is brought to our notice that the said Order has become final. In accordance with this Regulation, the University in its circular memo dated 25.07.2003 indicating the final seniority list of Senior Assistants, placed the appellant at Sl.No.263, ostensibly taking into account the date of his initial appointment as a U.D.Steno. In the said seniority list, the unofficial respondents were admittedly shown below the appellant. However, it appears that their cases were considered for promotion to the posts of Superintendent overlooking the case of the appellant owing to Regulation 6(4)(iv) which requires rendition of two years of service as a Senior Assistant before a converted U.D. Steno could aspire for promotion as a Superintendent. The University, taking into account the fact that the appellant was only converted as a Senior Assistant under proceedings dated 13.06.2003, pressed into service Regulation-6(4)(iv) and consequently overlooked his case while making promotions to the posts of Superintendent in the year 2003. Thereby, those who were admittedly junior to the appellant in the seniority list dated 25.07.2003 took precedence over him as he did not have the requisite two years of service as a Senior Assistant by the time they were promoted. The appellant challenged the validity of Regulation 6(4)(iv) on the ground that he had already acquired sufficient clerical experience, notwithstanding the fact that he was appointed as a U.D. Steno. The details with regard to the various functions that he discharged were set out by him to indicate the extent of his experience in this regard. However, we are of the opinion that the individualized details of the appellant’s career cannot dictate as to the validity and correctness of the impugned Regulation. In NEW BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. UNION OF INDIA[1], the Supreme Court recognized that no scheme of amalgamation of services could be foolproof and that the Court would interfere only when it comes to the conclusion that the scheme is arbitrary or irrational or has been framed on some extraneous considerations. In the present case, the University’s Regulations provided for integration of U.D. Stenos in the cadre of Senior Assistants subject to certain norms of general applicability. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in KAMAL KANTI DUTTA v. UNION OF INDIA[2], the constitutionality of a service rule cannot be tested on the touchstone of the fortune of individuals. Therefore, the mere fact that the appellant acquired clerical experience owing to his exposure to such duties in spite of his being appointed as a U.D. Steno, cannot be decisive of the validity of the impugned Regulation. The constitutional validity of the Regulation can be tested only on grounds of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights or on the count of being in excess of the rule making power. No such grounds have been asserted or established by the appellant. Further, the stand of the University that the requirement introduced by way of the amendment was necessary so as to enable a U.D. Steno to acquire sufficient clerical experience upon conversion as a Senior Assistant, so that he may go on to man the post of Superintendent, a supervisory post, is not without rationale or logic. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that Regulation-6(4)(iv) is not unconstitutional or arbitrary. However, as stated supra injustice was done to the appellant in the matter of his conversion from the post of U.D. Steno to that of Senior Assistant. He had completed three years of service as a U.D. Steno by January, 1998 and had also acquired the requisite qualification by May, 2000. However, the University ignored his case till June, 2003 for reasons best known to itself, while it merrily continued to affect regular promotions to the posts of Senior Assistant from the feeder category of Junior Assistant-cum-Typists. Had the case of the appellant been considered for conversion in May, 2000, he would have put in the requisite two years of service as a Senior Assistant by May, 2002 and would have been eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent as per Regulations. It was only because of the University’s own inaction in this regard that he was not eligible for promotion as a Superintendent in 2003, whereby his juniors were allowed to steal a march over him. This unjustified action on the part of the University clearly did untold damage to the career interests of the appellant. Once the Regulations of the University provided for integration of U.D. Stenos into the cadre of Senior Assistants by conversion, it was for the University to implement the Regulations properly and in true letter and spirit, so that no injustice was done to the members of either service upon such integration. The Regulations provided that one out of ten posts of Senior Assistant had to be filled by conversion from the category of U.D. Steno and the remaining nine were to be filled by promotion from the regular feeder category of Junior Assistant- cum-Typists. Further, the Regulations also provided that upon such conversion, the U.D. Steno would take his place in the seniority list of Senior Assistants on the basis of his initial appointment as a U.D. Steno. This was obviously to see that upon such integration as per Regulations, a U.D. Steno is not deprived of the service rendered by him in that category or his seniority, merely because he chose to be converted as a Senior Assistant. No doubt, under the Regulations the U.D. Steno had to complete three years of service as such and also pass the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I before seeking conversion. However, upon such conversion, he was automatically entitled to claim seniority from the date of his appointment as a U.D. Steno as per Regulation-6(4)(iii). The University also understood this in the correct perspective as is demonstrated by its seniority list dated 25.07.2003. By the said date, the appellant had been given the benefit of conversion and was accordingly placed in the seniority list of Senior Assistants, taking into account his date of initial appointment as a U.D. Steno. Thereby he was shown as senior to the unofficial respondents in the category of Senior Assistants. Had the appellant been converted as a Senior Assistant on 14.05.2000 upon his fulfilling the necessary requirements as per Regulations, he would have also complied with Regulation-6(4)(iv) and would have put in two years of service as a Senior Assistant by the time the unofficial respondents were promoted as Superintendents. Needless to state, he would have been senior to them and being fully qualified he would have had a right of priority to be considered for promotion. The delay on the part of the University in giving effect to his conversion was therefore hugely detrimental to the appellant. All the more so, as there are no justifiable reasons forthcoming for the same. Reference may be made to S.P.BADRINATH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[3], wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a Junior Assistant was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant subject to the condition that he pass the Accounts Test within a period of two years. However, he failed to pass the test before the expiry of the stipulated time but was granted further promotion. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that passing of the Accounts Test was an essential qualification for holding the post of Senior Assistant and as the incumbent had not passed the said test within the time stipulated he could not assert seniority from the date of his initial promotion. The above case arose under the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1966. In the present case, however, Regulation-6(4)(iii) and Regulation-11(2) of the University’s Regulations operate independently and in separate spheres. A harmonious construction of these two Regulations would mean that a U.D. Steno is entitled to seek conversion as a Senior Assistant (U.D. Clerk) upon completion of three years of service as a U.D. Steno and after passing the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I [Regulation 11(2)]. Upon such conversion the U.D. Steno would automatically be entitled under Regulation-6(4)(iii) to seek his place in the Seniority List of Senior Assistants on the basis of his initial appointment as a U.D. Steno. In S.P.BADRINATH, the incumbent had failed to pass the Test within the time stipulated and therefore could not stake a claim for seniority overlooking his failure. Such are not the circumstances in the present case. As pointed out supra, the two Regulations operate in separate spheres and a U.D. Steno upon attaining eligibility for conversion would automatically be entitled to seek his seniority in the category of Senior Assistants based on his initial appointment as a U.D. Steno. It is also to be noticed that though the appellant completed two years of service as a Senior Assistant by June, 2005 he was promoted as a Superintendent only in August, 2007. No explanation is forthcoming as to what prevented the University from promoting the appellant to the post of Superintendent upon his completing the requisite two years. The appellant, on the other hand, placed details of the various promotions made by the University to the post of Superintendent overlooking his case. He complained that he was victimized for having approached this Court and that the same is also evident from the fact that he was transferred to a remote place in Mahaboobnagar District while those who were junior to him were retained in Hyderabad and its surroundings. The record reveals that several encomiums were paid to the appellant in the past for the yeoman service rendered by him to the University. It is but inevitable that the injustice done to him would have caused the appellant heart burn and consequently there would be souring of relations between the parties. However, the University, being a ‘State’ and therefore, a model employer ought to rise above such pettifogging and treat all its employees with an even hand. The facts aforestated clearly demonstrate that the appellant was denied his rightful opportunity by the overlooking of his case for conversion in May, 2000. At the cost of repetition, had his case been considered at that time, he would have been eligible as per Regulations for promotion to the post of Superintendent in May, 2002 itself. It is not the case of the University that it did not make appointments to the posts of Senior Assistant or to the posts of