In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan, has upheld an order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directing the State to grant notional seniority and service benefits to a group of DSC-1989 selectees who were appointed in 2002. The Court held that these more meritorious candidates, who were denied timely appointments due to administrative lapses, must be treated on par with those appointed in 1996 from the same selection process.
Background
The respondents, 11 in number, were selected for the post of Special Grade Teachers (SGTs) under DSC-1989. Despite securing higher marks, they were not appointed in 1996 when less meritorious candidates were given posts. Their appointments came only after the High Court’s ruling in W.P.No.10586 of 1999 and related matters, resulting in their induction on 11.01.2002.
Following their appointments, they were placed on regular pay scale from the date of joining. They later sought parity with the 1996 appointees in terms of seniority and benefits such as Automatic Advancement Scheme and pensionary rights under G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 18.05.2010. However, their representation was rejected by the District Educational Officer through an order dated 30.07.2012, prompting them to approach the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 8668 of 2012.
Tribunal’s Decision
The Tribunal found that the applicants were part of the same selection process and had been wrongly denied appointment despite better merit. It held that:
“…appointments of the applicants had to be treated as ones made under DSC-1989 and they shall be deemed to be in service on par with their colleagues, who were appointed in 1996.”
The Tribunal allowed the original application and directed the State to extend all corresponding benefits notionally, including those under G.O.Ms.No.21.
State’s Arguments
The Government of Andhra Pradesh challenged the Tribunal’s order in the present writ petition. The State argued that:
- The applicants were appointed only in 2002 and could not claim parity with 1996 appointees.
- Those appointed in 1996 were engaged on a consolidated pay of ₹398 per month and later regularised, whereas the applicants were directly appointed on a regular scale of ₹3750–7650.
- G.O.Ms.No.21 applied only to teachers initially appointed on consolidated pay, not to those appointed later on regular scale.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court rejected the State’s arguments, observing that the denial of appointment in 1996 was not due to any fault of the applicants. It held that:
“…these persons could not be given [appointments] due to no fault on their part and due to the litigation… they will have to be placed, along with the appointees of 1996 i.e., the selectees of the same selection of DSC 1989…”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Balwant Singh Narwal v. State of Haryana [(2008) 7 SCC 728] and Surendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [(1998) 5 SCC 246], which establish that meritorious candidates denied timely appointment due to administrative reasons must not suffer loss of seniority or benefits.
Further, referring to Rule 33(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules, 1996, the Court held that seniority must be determined based on merit as per the selection list, and not be disturbed due to delays in appointment.
Decision
Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court concluded:
“…the applicants would also be entitled for the benefits at par with the appointees of 1996, which has been rightly awarded by the Tribunal.”
The Court directed the State to comply with the Tribunal’s order and extend notional seniority and benefits accordingly.
