THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.13789 OF 2003 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2000 in O.A.No.232 of 1996 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal). In the said O.A., the petitioner prayed for a declaration that he is entitled for regularisation of his services in the cadre of Inspector of Legal Metrology (ILM) from the date of his joining in the same post i.e., 09.07.1991 with all consequential benefits such as seniority, promotion as Inspector of Legal Metrology and other attendent benefits on that basis by declaring the action of the respondents in regularising his service only from 18.10.1995 as illegal and arbitrary. The short factor of the matter, which is not seriously disputed, is as follows. The petitioner is a graduate. He joined the department of Legal Metrology as Manual Assistant. As per the Andhra Pradesh Inspectors of Weights and Measures Service Rules, 1980 (the Special Rules for brevity), the post of Manual Assistant/Maistry is feeder post to the post of Inspector. As per Rule 5, a Manual Assistant to be eligible for promotion must have a degree and also must have completed ten years of service as a Manual Assistant. Though the petitioner was not having ten years experience, he was temporarily promoted on 08.07.1991 as Inspector, Legal Metrology, as stop gap arrangement. In the proceedings issued by the first respondent herein, it was made clear that the petitioner is liable to be reverted at any time and that the temporary promotion does not confer any right upon the individual to claim regular promotion. On a representation made by the petitioner on 13.04.1992, the first respondent responded and sent a proposal vide letter No.3953/E1/92 dated 25.06.1992 requesting the Government to relax the stipulation of ten years of service in the cadre of Manual Assistant under Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate service Rules, 1962 (hereafter, the General Rules). The proposal was, however, not accepted. The Government vide their memo No.33671/CS.III/W&M/92-3 dated 15.02.1993, while rejecting the request for relaxation, directed that the petitioner may be placed under probation in the cadre of Inspector with effect from the date of completion of ten years i.e., six years as Manual Assistant and four years as Inspector, Legal Metrology, so as to be in conformity with the statutory rules. Three years thereafter, O.A.No.232 of 1996 was filed seeking the relief as noticed herein. The learned Tribunal having regard to Rule 37 A (1) and 47 of the General Rules as well as the Special Rules and also noticing the fact that the petitioner did not choose to challenge the Government order dated 15.02.1993 rejecting the proposal for relaxation, dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved by it, the present Writ Petition is filed. The Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology in the office of the first respondent filed counter affidavit. Therein a reference is made under Rule 23 (a) of the General Rules to sustain the Government order directing to place the petitioner on probation from the date of completion of ten years of service – six years as Manual Assistant and four years as Inspector of Legal Metrology. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Services I. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner acquires any right to count his service as Inspector, Legal Metrology, from the date of temporary promotion on 08.07.1991. Rule 37 of the General Rules enables the appointing authority to promote a person temporarily otherwise than in accordance with the Special Rules if there is any emergency to fill up the posts. The person to be promoted temporarily shall ordinarily satisfy the requirements with regard to qualifications like passing of tests etc. In case such qualified person is not available even for the purpose of temporary promotion, the rule permits to promote that person temporarily subject to condition that he/she shall be replaced as soon as possible by the member of service, who is entitled to be promoted under the rules. When the Government rejected the proposal of the Controller of Legal Metrology for granting relaxation, they were very much aware of the rule position. So as to meet the ends of justice they permitted the Controller to place the petitioner under probation in the cadre of ILM with effect from the date of completion of ten years, which includes six years as Manual Assistant. This order has become final and was not assailed by the petitioner. General Rules, 1962, have since been amended by 1966 Rules. Rule 10 regulates temporary appointments including appointments by direct recruitment, recruitment/appointment by transfer or by promotion. Rule 10 (i) is relevant and we quote the same herein. 10 (i) Temporary posts requiring special qualifications :- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or special rules, if and when, a temporary post is created as an addition to the cadre of any service, class or category and the holder thereof is required by the State Government to possess any special qualifications, knowledge or experience, any person who possesses such qualifications, knowledge or experience and who is considered to be the most suitable person to discharge the duties, of such post may, irrespective of other considerations, be appointed temporarily to that post by the appointing authority; but the person so appointed shall not, by reason only of such appointment, be regarded as a probationer in such service, class or category nor shall be acquire thereby any preferential right to future appointment to such service, class or category. A plain reading would show that even when a person without any temporary post is created as an addition to the cadre of any service of the holder thereof is required to possess any qualifications, any person possesses such qualifications, knowledge or experience may be appointed temporarily to that post. But such person shall not be regarded as a probationer nor he gets any preferential right to such service or category. Thus, a person who is not having requisite experience can be promoted and if he is continued for a long time and promoted, it would certainly cause prejudice. Therefore, so as to confer benefit upon such person, the Government thought it fit to direct the controlling authority to commence the probation of such a temporary promotee after completion of ten years of service duly counting service in higher post as eligible service in the lower post. This is certainly a reasonable exercise of power and does not warrant any interference. The Government Pleader for Services I rightly pointed out that the procedure adopted is in accordance with Rule 16 (b) of the General Rules, which is to the effect that a probationer, who is temporarily promoted to a category of carrying higher scale of pay, shall be entitled to count towards his probation in the former category and the period of duty performed by him in the later category during which he would have held a post in the former category but for such temporary promotion. For the above reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 13th October 2011 RRB