9th September, 1969 as stated in the order of the Inspector General of Prisons dated 18th September, 1969.
S Shri K. Vasantha Rao and M.Rama Rao.
1299 of 1986 which was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 against the rejection of their representation by the Government on 30th January, 1986.
There was a need of persons who companyld maintain discipline in jails and such persons companyld be available only from the military services.
27th June, 1969 when the order posting him as a Jailor was passed.
By his order of 16th March, 1983, the I.G. Prisons on the recommendation of the State Public Service Commission, regularized the services of the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of Jails w.e.f.
The Government further stated that they were number expected to keep in view the interests of future entrants in service while providing such relaxation of rules in favour of any in service person.
While doing so, the Government observed that the appellant was selected to the post of the D,P.O. Grade II during 1969 and he was temporarily appointed as Jailor in the same year although the jails wing and the probation wing are two separate entities and inter transfers are number permissible.
By its letter of 29th April, 1975 the Government informed the I.G. Prisons that he should companysider the question of companytinuing the appellant as a Jailor companysidering his past experience and his suitability and efficiency in the said post, without, however, affecting the order dated 10th May, 1974 passed in favour of Shri Doraiswamy.
By the order of 24th June, 1969, he was appointed as Jailor in the scale of Rs.
The appointment of the appellant was made about 20 years ago and a review of the appointment at that distance of time was number desirable as it would be companytrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 470 reiterated in 5.5.
It appears that barely 8 months thereafter, by the order dated 16.6.1970, the appellant was transferred and posted temporarily as Jailor at Maulaali Agricultural Colony Jail.
20th August, 1977.
The admitted facts are that the appellant is an Ex Air Force officer and possesses a Commerce and Law Degree.
Although the posts of Jailor and that of D.P.O. were number interchangeable, the appellants appointment order as D.P.O., made it clear that he was liable to be transferred as a Jailor whenever the exigencies of the service so required.
However, this order was reconsidered by the Government in appeal and by its later order of 10th May, 1974 the Government set aside the order of reversion and restored Shri Doraiswamy to the post of the Jailor.
No representation was also made against the said order at that time.
It was, therefore, asserted in the letter that in the circumstances, his appointment to the post of the Jailor was number irregular.
That order further neither affected the companyditions of service of any member of the service number caused any undue hardship to anyone.
September 1969.
3rd October, 1969 when he was appointed to the post of D.P.O. and till he was brought back and appointed temporarily as Jailor in one of the three temporary vacancies by the order of 30th September, 1975, he was number in the cadre of JailOrs.
He would, however, undergo in service training after the emergency, while working in the jail.
He also pointed out that his period of training on appointment as D.P.O Grade II in between, was treated as service on other duties and he was being companytinued as Jailor.
relaxation should be given and that they had to make good that omission after it was pointed out by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 10th February, 1987 in R.P. No.
Although the Government did number have any doubt with regard to the date from which his services as a Jailor were regularised by the order of 1st September, 1976, the subsequent order of 23rd December, 1987 became necessary in view of the decision of the State Tribunal on 10th February, 1987 whereby the Tribunal had remanded the proceedings before them, to the Government for reconsideration of the whole issue afresh.
While rejecting the representations, the Government asserted that since there was a vacancy in the post of Jailor on 27th June, 1969, there was numberhing wrong in appointing the appellant temporarily to the said post from that date.
The said appointment was thereafter regularised by the order dated 1st September, 1976.
Secondly, his service as a Jailor were never terminated and without terminating the said services, he was appointed as D.P.O. Grade II by an order of 3rd October, 1969.
The last companytention of the learned Counsel was that Rule 23 a under which the relaxation was made was number available in the present case for regularisation of the appellants service from the 26/27th June, 1969.
Instead of, therefore, recruiting fresh hands and placing them under training, in view of the urgency, he had directly appointed, through the Employment Exchange, the appellant who had the requisite educational qualifications, was within the prescribed age limit and who had also worked as a number Commissioned officer in the Indian Air Force for 10 years and 10 months.
That is why another order was passed on 23rd December, 1987 making it clear that the appellants regularisation in the post of the Jailor was from 27th June, 1969, i.e. the date on which he was initially posted as a Jailor.
The Government also suited that since the appellant was an experienced Ex Air Force officer besides being educationally qualified, the Government companysidered that his services would be more useful as Jailor right from his temporary appointment to that post on 27th June, 1969.
He was so appointed as a Jailor in the vacancy caused due to the retirement of Shri Doraiswamy.
On 7th September, 1974, the appellant made a representation to the Government.
What was made regular by the order of the 1st September, 1976 was the irregular appointment of the appellant as a Jailor made on 30th September, 1975.
On the date he assumed office, the temporary jail at Yrragadda was in existence and it was closed only w.e.f.
He companytended that the post of the Jailor and that the D.P.O. belonged to two different cadres.
In the seniority list, the appellant was shown senior to respondents 1 to 3 both in the post of the Deputy Superintendent as well as in the post of the Superintendent of Jails.
6th October, 1969 to 29th June, 1970.
The companytentions raised by Shri Madhava Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents against the seniority given to the appellant over respondents 1 to 3 in the post of the Deputy Superintendent may be summarised as follows.
On 2nd November, 1971, the I.G. Prisons wrote a letter to the Home Secretary of the State Government pointing out that the appellant was directly recruited as Jailor temporarily during the Telangana agitation and later, on account of the abolition of the temporary post of the Deputy Superintendent of Jails and companysequent reversions, he was absorbed as D.P.O. Grade II w.e.f.
200 400/ .
On the other hand, if the relaxation was number made in favour of the appellant, he would have been definitely subjected to great hardship as all the service rendered by him from 27lh June, 1969 would have gone unaccounted for.
In this letter, the I.G. Prisons pointed out that the post of the Jailor was sanctioned temporarily to man the Camp Jail in question where the appellant was posted.
Although there is numberformal order terminating the services of the appellant as a Jailor, the very fact that by the order of 3rd October, 1969, the appellant was appointed as D.P.O. Grade II and had to undergo probation period of that post, shows that his earlier service as a Jailor had companye to an end and he was freshly employed as a D.P.O. He companytinued as D.P.O. from 6th October, 1969 to 29th June, 1970 when he was absorbed as such D.P.O. as is stated in the order dated 2nd November, 1971 passed by the I.G. Prisons, Although, from 16th June, 1970 till 4th October, 1975 he was posted to work as Jailor, his substantial appointment was as a D.P.O. His appointment as a Jailor was for the first time made under the memo of 30th September, 1975 issued by the Government.
The Government further stated that the appellant had from time to time made representations to regularise his services as a Jailor and hence the Government had relaxed the rules in his favour by its order of 1st September, 1976.
The Government also pointed out that by virtue of the relaxation given to the appellant, only he companyld be promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Jails though temporarily on 20th August 1977, the date on which respondents 1 to 3 were number in service at all.
The appellants initial appointment as Jailor did number survive after the post of the jailor came to be abolished companysequent upon the closure of the Camp Jail w.e.f.
This clarification had become necessary since in the meanwhile the following events had taken place.
The Government companytended that the only omission on the part of the Government was that they had number mentioned the date from which the.
The I.G. Prisons forwarded the said representation to the Home Secretary of the State Government with his own companyments and giving a detailed profile of the appellants service, pointing out in particular that the appellant was initially appointed as a Jailor though against a temporary post, and number as a D.P.O. and that he was also paid the salary of Jailor straightaway and number the pay admissible during the training period for the said post that even when he was appointed as D.P.O., his services as Jailor were number terminated by any formal order, and that even the order of appointment to the post of D.P.O. mentioned that his services companyld be transferred as Jailor at any time according to the exigencies of the administration, and that the appellant was given the unmistakable impression that the Department desired to treat him as a Jailor on Deputation.
The first is that he was originally appointed as a Jailor on 26/27th June, 1969 though the post was temporary.
As a result, the appellant was again sent back as the D.P.O. Grade II.
The regularisation companyld number be made from 26/27th June, 1969 since the appellant was appointed as a D.P.O. thereafter by the order of 3rd October, 1969.
The post of D.P.O. carried a higher salary than that of the Jailor as is clear from the letters of appointment to the respective posts.
In view of the said letter of the Government, the I.G. Prisons by his order dated 4th October, 1975, treated the appellant as a leave reserve D.P.O. Grade II on other duty at District Jail, and appointed him to the post of the Jailor temporarily subject to the companydition that his services were liable to be terminated at any time without numberice and without assigning any reasons.
The Government by the same order again made it clear that the orders issued on 1st September, 1976 in the matter of relaxation of rules and regularisation of the appointment of the appellant as a Jailor, would be operative from 27th June, 1969.
He was directly appointed to the post without inparting training as it was companysidered unnecessary.
The Government further made clear that although the appellant was reverted to the post of D.P.O. Grade II subscquently, and the posts of Jailor and D.P.O. were number interchangeable, the fact remained that the services of the appellant as a Jailor were never terminated.
It appears that in the meanwhile, one Shri Doraiswamy had made an appeal to the State Government against the order of the I.G. Prisons dated 24th October, 1970 reverting him from the post of the Jailor to that of the Deputy Jailor and for restoration of his seniority in the cadre of Jailors over two other jailors viz.,
The I.G. Prisons, therefore, in the said letter, pleaded that the appellants services as a Jailor should be regularised.
According to the learned Counsel, it is too late in the day to companytend that his initial appointment was as a Jailor, since the appellant had ceased to be so, after he was appointed as a D.P.O. The facts narrated earlier clearly bring out some prominent features of the appellants service.
They also pointed out that the appellant companyld have been regularly promoted to the said post from 20th August, 1977 or his services companyld have been regularised from that date but for the fact that the post was under the purview of the State Public Service Commission and pending approval by the Commission, numberperson companyld be promoted regularly.
By his order of 1st September, 1976, the Governor in exercise of his powers under Rule 47 of the State Subordinate Services Rules relaxed Rule 6 b of the said Rules and Rule 9 of the A.P. Jail Subordinate Services Rules in favour of the appellant for his regular appointment as a Jailor.
Since the Commission companyld give companycurrence only on 29th February, 1982, the appellants services in the cadre of the Deputy Superintendents of Jails companyld number be regularised till 25th February, 1983.
The learned Counsel also relied upon the order dated 11th July, 1975 which stated that in accordance with the order of July 11, 1975, the appellant reported as Leave Reserve Probation Officer Grade II on 11th July, 1975 in his office and he was directed to report immediately before the Superintendent, District Jail, Secundrabad to assist him in companynection with the emergency.
Ultimately, the Government by its letter of 30th September, 1975 advised the I.G. Prisons to appoint the appellant temporarily as Jailor, for the time being in one of the 3 temporary vacancies.
B. Sawant, J. Leave granted.
The said service has also a bearing on his seniority as a Deputy Superintendent of Jails over respondents 1 to 3 who were directly appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Jails on 25th September, 1979 and companypleted their probation in 1981.
Although the facts are many, the only question involved in the present case is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of his service as jailor from 26/27th June, 1969 to 30th September, 1969 as a qualifying period of service for being appointed to the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Jails on 30th July, 1977.
As against this respondents 1 to 3 came in the service as a direct recruits for the first time as Deputy Superintendents of Jails in 1979 when by that time the appellant had companypleted his service as the Deputy Superintendent of Jails for numberless than two years.
It was, however, made clear in the said appointment letter that whenever occasion demanded, the appellant was likely to be posted as Welfare Officer Jailor Brother and Deputy Superintendent of certified schools.
However, since his initial appointment was to the post of Jailor, he was taken back as Jailor when a clear vacancy arose treating him as a direct recruit to the post of the Jailor w.e.f.
The Government further pointed out that had the date been mentioned in the original order of 1st September, 1976, respondents 1 to 3 would number have had any locus standi to challenge it since they had entered the service only in the year 1979.
Within about 8 months, by the order of 16th June, 1970, he was transferred and appointed to discharge the duties of a Jailor numberwithstanding the fact that he was technically holding the post of the D.P.O. He companytinued to discharge the duties of the Jailor thereafter and he was appointed formally in one of the three temporary vacancies of Jailor by the order of 30th September, 1975.
It appears that from 2nd September, 1974 the appellant went on leave.
The Government pointed out that respondents 1 to 3 were number in service on 1st September, 1976 and, therefore, companyld number argue that they were adversely affected by the relaxation given to the appellant.
This order, however, did number state, in terms, as to from which date the regularisation of the appellants services as a Jailor was made.
The second companytention of the learned Counsel was that according to the rules governing the appointment to the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Jails, the said appointment companyld be made either by transfer promotion or direct recruitment and the promotee candidate had to serve as a Jailor for a minimum period of 5 years.
180 375/ temporarily under Rule 10 a 1 i of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules and he assumed office on 26th June, 1969 as Jailor at Camp M. Jail, Yrragadda, as a evidenced by the order of June 27, 1969.
Against the seniority given to the appellant over them, respondents 1 to 3 made representations to the Government, and by their order of 15th February, 1990, the Government rejected the representations.
Since the appellant had started his first service as a Jailor for the first time on 30th September, 1975, he had number even companypleted 2 years of service as a Jailor on 30th July, 1977, i.e., the date he was appointed as a temporary Deputy Superintendent of Jails.
the I.G. Prisons and the Government all along wanted to treat him as a Jailor.
27th June, 1969.
By his order of 22nd March, 1983, the I.G. Prisonsdeclared that the appellant had companypleted his period of probation as Deputy Superintendent of Jails on 19th August, 1978.
It was only by a mistake that the date from which the relaxation was given was number mentioned in the said order.
On 6th August, 1969 the I.G. Prisons wrote a letter to the Home Secretary requesting for relaxation of Rule 9 of the A.P. Jail Subordinate Services Rules which required training for a period of 9 months for a direct recruit to the post of the Jailor.
By their order of 8th June, 1983, the Government temporarily promoted the appellant to the post of the Superintendent of Jails alongwith other 5 Deputy Superintendents of Jails who included respondents 1 to 3.
By its order of 23rd November, 1972, the Government had rejected the said representation.
By their order of 30th July, 1977 the State Government temporarily promoted the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of Jails alongwith another jailor, Shri M. Rama Rao.
Megha v. Union of India .
This order, however, did number make it clear as to from what date his services as a Jailor were regularised.
Hence by their detailed order of 23rd December, 1987 in which the history of the appellants service was traced right from the day he was appointed as the Jailor under order dated 24th June, 1969, the Government made it clear that the regularisation of the appellant as a Jailor was w.e.f.
It was also added that though the appellant was at that time working against a temporary post, he would later on be absorbed against a clear vacancy.
