Supreme Court settles seniority rights of temporarily appointed engineers: P. Rammohan Rao vs. K. Srinivas (2025) INSC 212 (13 February 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2025

Citation: (2025) INSC 212

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.

When does the service of a temporarily appointed engineer count towards seniority? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving engineers in Andhra Pradesh. The court clarified the rules for determining seniority when temporary employees are later regularized, focusing on whether the initial appointment was according to existing rules and the nature of their service.

In P. Rammohan Rao vs. K. Srinivas, a two-judge bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta, examined the appeals against a judgment by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the High Court correctly addressed the matter of seniority rights of engineers initially appointed on a temporary basis and later regularized.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute regarding the seniority of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) in Andhra Pradesh. The appellants were initially appointed as Work Inspectors in the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Development Corporation on January 1, 1990. Later, they were appointed as temporary AEEs in the Panchayat Raj Department against vacancies created under the Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project (CERP).

The private respondents were appointed as AEEs in 1997 after a regular selection process conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC). The dispute arose when the state government initially regularized the services of the temporary AEEs, placing them below the regularly selected candidates of 1997. Subsequently, the government modified its stance, leading to the present litigation.

Timeline:

The following table outlines the key events and dates relevant to the case:

Course of Proceedings

In July 1994, Technical Grade -I Inspectors approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) seeking consideration for appointment as AEEs against project-based vacancies. The APAT directed the State Government to consider Work Inspectors for AEE posts before notifying vacancies to the employment exchange.

Temporary AEEs, including the appellants, filed applications before the APAT in 1995, seeking regularization. The APAT directed the government to decide on their regularization claims and not to terminate their services until a decision was made.

In 1996, the State Government rejected the regularization plea, leading to further applications before the APAT. During the pendency of these applications, the government issued G.O.M. No. 234 in 2005, regularizing the services of temporary AEEs appointed between 1990-1995 but placing them below regularly selected AEEs.

Aggrieved by the denial of seniority, the AEEs appointed between 1990-1992 made representations, leading to the issuance of G.O.M. No. 262 in 2006, which modified the earlier order and allowed them to retain their seniority from the date of initial induction.

The regularly appointed AEEs of 1997 challenged G.O.M. No. 262 before the APAT, which dismissed their applications. The High Court, however, allowed their writ petitions, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes:

• ✓ Rule 10(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules: This rule pertains to temporary appointments made when it is necessary to fill a vacancy urgently in the public interest, especially when adherence to regular recruitment rules would cause undue delay. It allows the appointing authority to appoint a person temporarily, even if not according to the standard rules.
  
  “10. TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT INCLUDING APPOINTMENTS BY DIRECT RECRUITMENT, RECRUITMENT/APPOINTMENT BY TRANSFER OR BY PROMOTION: (a) Where it is necessary in the public interest to fill emergently a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category and if the filling of such vacancy in accordance with the rules is likely to result in undue delay the appointing authority may appointing a person temporarily, otherwise than in accordance with the said rules, either by direct recruitment or by promotion or by appointment by transfer, as may be specified as the method of appointment in respect of the post, in the specia l rules.”
• ✓ The Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994: Enacted to streamline the recruitment process in Andhra Pradesh, this act governs appointments to public services.
• ✓ Article 320 of the Constitution of India: This article relates to the functions of Public Service Commissions. G.O.M. No. 234 excluded temporary appointments made between 1990-1995 from the purview of APPSC under the proviso to clause 3 of this article.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the appellants:

• ✓ The appellants were qualified engineers appointed as Work Inspectors and later as AEEs due to an urgent need for qualified engineers for the Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project (CERP).
• ✓ Their appointments as temporary AEEs under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules were not irregular or backdoor appointments.
• ✓ The State Government’s G.O.M. No. 234, which regularized their services, was not challenged by the private respondents and thus attained finality.
• ✓ The delay in regularizing their services was due to the need for amendment of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Act/Rules, which should not disadvantage them.
• ✓ They have been discharging their functions uninterruptedly for the last 31 years and would lose seniority if placed below the regularly recruited batch of 1997.
• ✓ G.O.M. No. 540, under which they were appointed, did not contain the condition of seeking selection by APPSC, unlike G.O.M. No. 1289.
• ✓ Their appointment was not limited by time or meant to be a stop-gap arrangement, as evidenced by G.O.M. No. 391, which provided for their absorption into the cadre of the Panchayat Raj Department.
• ✓ The State Government had filed a counter affidavit stating that their appointments were not de hors the service rules and were exempted from the purview of the APPSC.
• ✓ The Division Bench erred in assuming that the State Government became ‘functus officio’ after issuing G.O.M. No. 234 and could not modify it.
• ✓ There was no requirement in law for issuing notice to the affected employees before taking a policy decision on regularization and seniority.
• ✓ The G.O.M. No. 262 was passed in consonance with the extant rules and procedural requirements.
• ✓ Their case falls under Proposition (B) enumerated by the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association v. State Of Maharashtra [(1990) 2 SCC 715], which states that if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.

Arguments on behalf of the private respondents:

• ✓ The respondents were appointed as AEEs in 1997 after undergoing a regular selection process by APPSC, while the appellants were appointed on a temporary basis during 1990-1995 without due adherence to any selection procedure or service rules.
• ✓ The appellants were not borne in the cadre as of the date on which the respondents were regularly selected, and thus, the respondents are entitled to be placed above the appellants in the order of seniority.
• ✓ Sufficient opportunities were given to the appellants to get appointed via the direct recruitment process conducted by the APPSC, but they did not avail of the same.
• ✓ G.O.M. No. 234 was a final policy decision taken by the State Government after duly considering the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee and the General Administration Department.
• ✓ Once a final decision had been taken and orders were passed with respect to seniority vide G.O.M. No. 234, the State Government became functus officio and could not have re-examined and re-opened the issue of seniority.
• ✓ The revised G.O.M. No. 262 was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents, violating the principles of natural justice.
• ✓ The factors forming the basis for the issuance of the revised G.O.M. No. 262 were evidently within the knowledge of the State Government at the time of issuing the earlier G.O.M. No. 234.
• ✓ The instant case falls under the corollary drawn to Proposition (A) enumerated by the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association [(1990) 2 SCC 715], which lays down that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the period of officiating service of the temporarily appointed AEEs between 1990-1992 (including the appellants herein) should be taken into account for considering their seniority over and above the 1997 batch of regularly appointed candidates through APPSC (private respondents herein)?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the period of officiating service of the appellants and the batch of AEEs appointed between 1990-1992 has to be counted as regular service for determining seniority, entitling them to be placed above the 1997 batch of regularly appointed candidates in the seniority list.

The court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment, stating that the State Government was fully justified in issuing the revised G.O.M. No. 262 dated 17th June 2006.

The court observed that the High Court’s reasoning that the State Government became ‘functus officio’ after issuing G.O.M. No. 234 was untenable and ultra vires the Constitution of India.

The court emphasized that the rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by the application of the concept of functus officio.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court’s decision in P. Rammohan Rao vs. K. Srinivas was influenced by several key factors, which can be analyzed to understand the sentiments and priorities that shaped the judgment.

The court placed significant emphasis on the nature of the initial appointments of the appellants, noting that they were made due to an urgent need for qualified engineers and were not de hors the rules. The continuity of service of the appellants, who had been working uninterruptedly for many years, also weighed heavily in the court’s decision. The court considered the regularization process, emphasizing that the State Government’s decision to regularize the services of the appellants had attained finality. The court also took into account the State Government’s intent to retain the services of the appellants, as evidenced by various government orders. Finally, the court considered the relevant legal principles, including the doctrine of ‘functus officio’ and the principles of natural justice.

The court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, such as the nature of the initial appointments, the continuity of service, and the regularization process. The court also considered the relevant legal principles, but the factual aspects played a more significant role in the decision-making process.

The Supreme Court’s logical reasoning in P. Rammohan Rao vs. K. Srinivas can be summarized as follows:

Issue: Whether the period of officiating service of the temporarily appointed AEEs between 1990-1992 should be counted for seniority.

↓

Step 1: Examine the nature of initial appointments.

↓

Box: Were the appointments made due to urgent need and not de hors the rules?

↓

If Yes: Proceed to Step 2. If No: Seniority cannot be counted.

↓

Step 2: Assess the continuity of service.

↓

Box: Did the appointees work uninterruptedly until regularization?

↓

If Yes: Proceed to Step 3. If No: Seniority cannot be counted.

↓

Step 3: Consider the regularization process.

↓

Box: Was the decision to regularize the services final and unchallenged?

↓

If Yes: Proceed to Step 4. If No: Re-evaluate the regularization process.

↓

Step 4: Apply relevant legal principles.

↓

Box: Does the case fall under Proposition (B) of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association [(1990) 2 SCC 715]?

↓

If Yes: Count the period of officiating service for seniority. If No: Seniority cannot be counted.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The period of officiating service of temporarily appointed employees can be counted for seniority if the initial appointments were made due to urgent need and not de hors the rules, and the employees worked uninterruptedly until regularization.
• ✓ The rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by the application of the concept of functus officio.
• ✓ The State is not required to provide a prior hearing to affected individuals during the exercise of its rule-making power.

This judgment clarifies the rules for determining seniority when temporary employees are later regularized, providing guidance for future cases involving similar issues.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the period of officiating service of temporarily appointed employees can be counted for seniority if the initial appointments were made due to urgent need and not de hors the rules, and the employees worked uninterruptedly until regularization. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association [(1990) 2 SCC 715] and provides further clarity on the application of these principles.

Conclusion

In P. Rammohan Rao vs. K. Srinivas, the Supreme Court held that the period of officiating service of temporarily appointed engineers should be counted for seniority, entitling them to be placed above the regularly appointed candidates in the seniority list. The court quashed the High Court’s judgment and upheld the validity of the State Government’s order. This decision clarifies the rules for determining seniority when temporary employees are later regularized,providing guidance for future cases involving similar issues.