Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela dismissed a writ petition filed by promotee Prohibition & Excise officials against the State and department authorities, declining to interfere with the revision of a 2007 final seniority list. The Court upheld the administrative and tribunal view that officers who temporarily occupied positions earmarked for direct recruits cannot claim precedence over direct recruits who later entered service, and that seniority must be aligned by inserting direct recruits into their designated “cyclic point” slots. It further held that the three-year bar on reopening seniority does not apply where the revision is undertaken to restore direct recruits to their allotted positions.

The petitioners, serving officers in the Prohibition and Excise Department of Andhra Pradesh, approached the High Court by way of a writ petition challenging orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. They assailed government memoranda issued in February 2017 that resulted in reopening and revision of a final seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspectors of Zone-I, originally issued in August 2007. The petitioners were promotees who had initially entered service as Junior Assistants and were later appointed by transfer as Sub-Inspectors in 2006. Their seniority positions were reflected in the 2007 list, which remained unchallenged for several years, during which they also earned promotions.

Also Read: Supreme Court Urges Govts To Digitize Land Records Using Tamper-Proof Technology Like Blockchain

The dispute arose when representations made by direct recruits led the authorities to revisit the seniority list in compliance with earlier judicial directions. The petitioners contended that the seniority list had attained finality and could not be disturbed after a long lapse of time, relying on government circulars and judicial precedents discouraging belated revision of seniority. The respondents maintained that promotees had only temporarily occupied posts earmarked for direct recruits and that seniority had to be re-fixed in accordance with applicable service rules and government instructions governing quota, rota, and probation.

The Division Bench noted at the outset that “the facts are not disputed by either side that the petitioners are the promotees, and the unofficial respondents… are the direct recruits.” The Court recorded that the petitioners had entered service initially as Junior Assistants and were later appointed by transfer, and that “the final seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors of Zone-1, Visakhapatnam, was communicated on 22.08.2007.”

With respect to the core dispute, the Bench observed that “there is no dispute that the vacant posts meant for the direct recruits were occupied by the promotees.” However, it specifically recorded that such occupation was conditional, noting that “the petitioners have occupied the posts meant for the direct recruits with a condition that the probation of the promotee occupying the post of the direct recruit shall be commenced not from his appointment into the slot earmarked for the direct recruits.”

Referring to the governing circular dated 21.04.1999, the Court recorded that “the quota or rota rule is meant only for purposes of recruitment to a particular category, but not to determine the inter-se seniority of the incumbents.” It further noted that under the said instructions, “their inter-se seniority shall be determined in accordance with Rule 33(a) and (b) of the State and Subordinate Services Rules.”

On the plea of finality of the 2007 seniority list, the Court observed that “this Court finds no doubt regarding the settled principle about the inter se seniority list cannot be disturbed.” At the same time, it clarified that the present case stood on a different footing, recording that “the revision of seniority lists are undertaken by placing direct recruits in their allotted slots as per cyclic points in the service rules.”

The Bench categorically held that “simply because promotees/appointees by transfer temporarily occupied direct recruit slots, they cannot claim seniority over and above the direct recruits.” It further observed that “there is no res integra or any cavil of doubt regarding the said legal principle.”

Finally, the Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on delay, stating that “it is not the case of the petitioners that the promotees are likely to be disturbed at the instance of the other promotees,” and concluded that “the petitioners cannot obstruct the Government or the Department from revising the seniority lists, including the seniority list dated 22.08.2007, if necessary.”

Also Read: Absence Of Further Documents Alone Cannot Defeat Caste Claim; Burden Of Proof Lies On Authorities Denying ST Status: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court directed: “this Court is absolutely satisfied with the reasons and the analogy drafted in the order. The petitioners, who are the promotees/appointees by transfer, who occupied slots meant for direct recruits in the seniority list of 2007, cannot claim seniority over and above subsequent direct recruits. The Writ Petition is dismissed, upholding the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.2540 of 2017, dated 01.09.2017. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners:  Sri K. Ram Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, Advocate; Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, Advocate; Sri Eathakota Venkata Rao, Advocate; Government Pleader for Services-I (Andhra Pradesh)

Case Title: A. Srirangam Dora & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010043192017
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 31902 of 2017
Bench: Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela