The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that meritorious candidates should not be made to suffer due to delays in appointment caused by administrative errors. Dismissing a writ petition filed by the State Government, the Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan upheld the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which granted notional seniority to five School Assistant appointees of DSC-2001.
Background
The respondents were applicants in O.A. No. 2069 of 2011 before the Tribunal. They were selected for appointment as School Assistants under DSC-2001. While some candidates were appointed in January 2002, the respondents were appointed only in October 2002 after a correction in the selection process pursuant to Tribunal orders in earlier litigation (O.A. No. 562 of 2002) and G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 23.09.2002.
Despite being meritorious, their seniority was fixed from the date of joining in October 2002, rather than their rank in the selection list. Their representations seeking correction were rejected by the authorities via proceedings dated 14.03.2012. They approached the Tribunal seeking notional seniority from January 2002, in line with Rule 33(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.
Tribunal’s Findings
The Tribunal allowed the O.A. and quashed the seniority list dated 14.03.2012. It directed the government to prepare a fresh seniority list, grant notional seniority to the applicants based on their merit in the DSC-2001 selection, and accord them all consequential benefits, including increments and service continuity, except for monetary benefits prior to October 2002.
State’s Submissions Before High Court
The petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s order primarily on the following grounds:
- The issue of unification of service rules under G.O.Ms.Nos.505 and 538 of 1998 was under consideration before the Supreme Court in pending civil appeals.
- The applicants were not borne in the cadre prior to October 2002 and hence were ineligible for retrospective seniority.
- The claim was barred by delay and laches.
- Implementation of the Tribunal’s order would prejudice other unrepresented individuals.
High Court’s Observations
Rejecting all contentions, the High Court ruled that:
- The pending litigation before the Supreme Court related to DSC-1998 and had no bearing on the present case involving DSC-2001.
- Rule 33(b) of the 1996 Rules mandates that seniority be fixed in accordance with merit as per the selection list and not based on date of joining.
- “They should not suffer for the fault of the State and its authorities in not appointing them though were selected but not appointed and the persons with less merit were given appointment,” the Court observed, citing its earlier decision in Dendukuri Venkata Narasimha Raju.
- The delay argument was not raised properly before the Tribunal, and the petitioners’ own rejection order dated 14.03.2012 was part of the cause of action.
- Concerns about unrepresented parties were addressed by the Tribunal’s direction to publish a draft seniority list and invite objections before finalisation.
Final Decision
Concluding that the Tribunal’s decision was legally sound and supported by precedent, including Balwant Singh Narwal v. State of Haryana [(2008) 7 SCC 728] and Surendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [(1998) 5 SCC 246], the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It directed the State to implement the Tribunal’s order without further delay.
Case Details:
- Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan
- Case Title: Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others vs K. Satyanarayana & Others
- Case No.: W.P. No. 4962 of 2014
