9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Special Rules governing the Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial Service regarding appointment and seniority of District and Sessions Judges. 2. Determination of seniority between direct recruits and promoted judges based on continuous length of service against temporary and permanent posts. 3. Application of Rule 10(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules in the context of temporary appointments. Analysis: The judgment involved a dispute between direct recruits and promoted judges regarding seniority in the Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. The petitioners, direct recruits appointed substantively in 1981, claimed seniority over respondents, who were promoted from the Subordinate judiciary. The recruitment to the Service was governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules. The key rules relevant to the case were Rule 1 (constitution of the Service), Rule 2 (appointment methods), Rule 4 (probation), and Rule 6 (seniority determination based on continuous duty). The petitioners argued that the Service only consisted of permanent posts and temporary appointments of respondents should be treated under Rule 10(a)(i) of the State Rules. They also contended that temporary service by respondents should not count towards seniority. The Court analyzed the Special Rules and concluded that the Service included both permanent and temporary posts designated as District and Sessions Judges Second grade. Therefore, the temporary posts were part of the Service, and seniority had to consider the length of service, whether against temporary or permanent posts. The Court rejected the argument that Rule 10(a)(i) of the State Rules applied, as the Special Rules provided a comprehensive scheme for appointment and seniority. The contention that seniority should not consider service against temporary posts was dismissed. Additionally, the Court addressed the contention regarding the provision of permanent vacancies to respondents in 1983 affecting their seniority. The Court held that Rule 6, independent of the quota rule, allowed for the counting of total service period from the date of duty against a post in the category. Despite the petitioners being appointed earlier, respondents were rightly given seniority based on continuous service against temporary and permanent posts. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of disposing of the case on its merits despite procedural delays.
|
