K.Balarama Raju vs Ch.V.Subramanya Sharma & Ors

2. These three appeals arise from the judgment and Order dated 19.12.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing Writ Petition No. 11920/2008 filed by Ch. V. Subramanya Sarma who is joined as respondent No. 1 in all these three matters. The appellant in the first Appeal arising out of SLP No. 598/2009 and the two appellants in Appeals arising out of SLP No. 5318/2009 were respondents to the aforesaid Writ Petition. All the three appellants and the first respondent are employees of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 11920/2008 was concerning their seniority and promotion. The said Writ Petition challenged the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on its administrative side granting seniority to these three appellants over the first respondent. The Writ Petition having been allowed, these three appellants have filed SLP Nos. 598/2009 and 5318/2009. The third SLP is filed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

3. All the aforesaid three appellants and the first respondent at the relevant time were working on the administrative side of the High Court at Hyderabad in categories (4) and (5) alongwith other employees of Division-II i.e. Assistants/Examiner & Typist/Copyists. They were interested in their promotion to the immediately higher post of Computer Operators which is in Category 3 (b) of Division-II.

4. The service conditions of all these three appellants as well as the first respondent are governed under the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975 framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 3 exercise of his powers conferred under Article 229 (1) and (2), of the Constitution of India. The High Court administration issued a circular dated 24.10.2000 calling for particulars from the members of the High Court establishment for filling up these posts of Computer operators in accordance with the above referred rules. As far as this promotion is concerned, it was to be effected on the basis of a written and an oral test which were to be conducted by the officials of the National Informatics Centre (NIC).

However, they did not posses the aforesaid requisite qualification of post graduate diploma in computer programming or post graduate diploma in computer application. The High Court Administration however issued an order dated 7.11.2000 permitting them alongwith two others to acquire the requisite prescribed qualification within one year failing which they were to be reverted.

In this order dated 7.11.2000 the three appellants in SLP Nos. 598 and 5318/2009 were shown at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3, whereas the first respondent 4 was shown at Serial No. 4. The order issued by the Registrar (Administration) dated 7.11.2000 reads as follows:-

ORDER ROC NO. 6939/200/Estt. 2 dated 7.11.2000 The Hon'ble the Chief Justice is pleased to pass the following order:-

10. L. Ramachandra Rao Assistant The members shown at S.Nos. 1, 2 ,3, 9 and 10 shall acquire the requisite prescribed qualifications within one year failing which they shall be reverted.

10. The Division Bench has taken the view that since the first respondent had those qualifications right at the outset, the first respondent ought to have been shown senior over the three appellants in SLP Nos. 538/2009 and 5318/2009. The High Court therefore allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent, and set-aside the gradation list published under notification dated 23.9.2005. It directed the Registrar (Administration) to refix the seniority of the computer operators, taking the date of their acquiring requisite qualifications as per rules 7 (7) and 8 (4) of the relevant rules, and accord consequential benefits arising therefrom.

11. The three appellants are aggrieved by this judgment and order, and have therefore, filed SLP Nos. 598/2009 and 5318/2009. The High Court administration has also filed SLP No. 13379/2009. SLP No. 598/2009 came up for consideration on 23.1.2009 when a notice was directed to be issued therein, and the impugned order was stayed until further orders. The other two petitions have been directed to be tagged along with SLP No. 598/2009. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits and the appellants have filed their rejoinder affidavits.

Provided that "the claims of any member of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes shall be considered for such promotion on the basis of seniority, subject to fitness".

Rule-16. Temporary Appointments and Promotions:-

If such a person is subsequently appointed to the division, category or post in accordance with these rules, he shall commence his probation in such division, category or post from the date of such subsequent appointment or from such earlier date as the appointing authority may determine."

27. As far the three appellants are concerned, their appointments were purely temporary and on adhoc basis, and they were liable to be reverted if they were not to acquire the necessary qualification within one year. The order 20 dated 7.11.2000 further stated that their appointments are without any preferential claim to future re-promotion or seniority. These three appellants did not obtain the necessary qualification within the period of one year. On their request they were given a further extension of time of one year by subsequent order dated 22.11.2001 issued by the Chief Justice. This order reads as follows:-

30. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the judgment and order of the High Court which accepted the legitimate seniority of the first respondent above the three appellants. The High Court has allowed the Writ Petition No. 11920/2008 filed by the first respondent, set aside the gradation list of computer operators as on 1.7.2005 and further directed the High Court administration to refix their seniority and to grant the consequential benefits. We approve this judgment and order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, although also for the reasons given in this judgment. These three appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The interim stay granted by this court will stand vacated. The High Court administration will now proceed to take steps as directed in the said judgment and order in accordance with the law laid down herein. In the facts of the case, there will be no order as to costs.