The State Government also issued a Clarificatory Order on 14.8.1995 stating therein that direct recruited Deputy Tehsildars appointed prior to 24.9.1992 are entitled to have their seniority fixed in accordance with Rule 4 e , as it stood then.
Pursuant to the aforesaid direction seniority list were prepared but alleging that list have number been prepared strictly in accordance with the judgement of this Court, Original Applications were filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
2001 1 SCR 1068 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATTANAIK, J. Inter se seniority in the cadre of Deputy Tehsildars between direct recruits and promotees is the subject matter of dispute in these appeals.
Under the Special Rules appointment to the cadre of Deputy Tehsildars companyld be made either by direct recruitment or by transfer from member of Andhra Pradesh Ministerial service employed in the Revenue Department including the office of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Revenue Settlement and office of the Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records.
The appellants are directly recruited Deputy Tehsildars and their service companyditions are governed by Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, 1961 hereinafter referred to as The Special Rules .
The promotee Tehsildars, however, approached the Tribunal and prayed for a direction that the seniority list be re drawn up as per the criteria under the amended Rules dated 24.9.1992, of all those who companytinue in the cadre and who have number been promoted to any higher post and necessarily therefore, persons appointed as Deputy Tehsildars between the period 9.10.1980 and 23.9.1992, their seniority has to be determined on the basis of remanded Rules.
The State Government was further directed to draw up a seniority list on the basis of Rule 4 e on or before 31st December, 1988.
The validity of the aforesaid amended Rule was the subject matter of challenge in this Court in the case of K. V. Subba Rao and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, supra .
When the matter had been listed before a two Judge Bench, it was felt that there is some companyflict between the two decisions of the Court, one in the case of Wing Commander J. Kumar v Union of India, 1982 2 Supreme Court Cases 116, and the decision in K. V. Subbarao and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1988 2 Supreme Court Cases 201, for which the cases were referred to a three Judge Bench.
On 24.9.1992 Special Rules of 1961 were further amended by limiting the direct recruits to 30 per cent of approved substantive vacancies and further providing that numberwithstanding Rule 4 e , the seniority of a person appointed as Deputy Tehsildar shall be governed by General Rule 33 in Part II of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, according to which companytinuous service and number companyfirmation by following the ratio of vacancies 11 between the direct recruits and promotees would be the criteria.
The aforesaid Special Rule was amended on 9.10.1980 inserting Rule 4 e and giving it retrospective effect with effect from the promulgation of Rules on 12.10.1961.
Against the order of dismissal by the Administrative Tribunal the promotees approached the High Court and the High Court having set aside the judgement of the Tribunal and having held that the seniority has to be re drawn up in accordance with the amended Rules on the basis of total length of service without reference to the date of companyfirmation and without reference to Rule 4 e , which had been inserted by the amendment of 9th October, 1980, the present Appeals by grant of Special Leave have been filed by the direct recruits.
It also further provides that substantive vacancies in the cadre would be filled up by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer in the proportion of 11.
