- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The judgment of the Division Bench of High Court, Andhra Pradesh is challenged before us. The appellants and respondents 3 to 10 are now working in different cadres such as Assistant Secretaries, Superintendents and Senior Assistants in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter being called "APPSC"). The appellants were initially recruited as Typists and Respondents 3 to 10 were initially recruited and appointed as Junior Assistants. For Junior Assistants, the next promotion post was Senior Assistants. Those who were appointed as Typists had also been urging for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants and from 1978 onwards they were given promotion to the post of Senior Assistants. Promotions to the post of Senior Assistant from the cadres of Junior Assistant and Typist were in the ratio of 4:1. However, promotions so made were not supported by any rules but were based on a policy adopted by APPSC. In 1992, APPSC decided that inter se seniority between Typists and Junior Assistants shall henceforth be fixed from the date of their first appointment and the ratio for the purpose of their promotion to the category of Senior Assistants was sought to be revised. Both groups of employees were given opportunity to submit their objections and thereafter the seniority was revised vide Office Memorandum No. 2051/ABD.2/93 dated 30-6-1996. The group representing employees who were initially recruited as Junior Assistants filed O. A. No. 4013/96 before Andhra Pradesh Admn. Tribunal for a direction to the APPSC for implementation of the revised proceedings issued on 30-6-1996 and the rival group, namely, the appellants filed OA No. 4172/96 challenging the proceedings dated 30-6-1996 relating to seniority.
(3.) The APPSC filed reply statement contending that the Commission had earlier adopted a ratio of 1:4 in the matter of promotions to the posts of Senior Assistants from the categories of Typists and Junior Assistants respectively and that procedure was found to be incorrect as there were no rules supporting such promotions, and that the Commission accordingly revised the seniority list. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal found that promotions to the post of Senior Assistants were not being done in accordance with the relevant rules and the Tribunal disposed of the two OAs with the following directions:- a. For making promotions to the category of Senior Assistants, the length of service in feeder categories i.e., Junior Assistants and Typist should be the criterion for the purpose of promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and not the ratio of 4:1. b. Junior Assistant with 3 years of service are eligible for promotions to the category of Senior Assistants with effect from 12-2-1979. c. Typists should have 5 years of service for promotion to the category of Senior Assistants in respect of the promotions to be made prior to 21-3-1984. In respect of promotions to the category of Senior Assistants made subsequent to 22-3-1984, three years of service would be sufficient. d. In these OAs, the Tribunal has only laid down guidelines for the purpose of promotions to the category of Senior Assistants from the feeder categories of Junior Assistants and Typists during the period from 1980 to 1992. The inter se seniority between the individual employees recruited to different categories through different methods of recruitment should be fixed following the rules and orders of the Courts, if any. e. Following the above guidelines, the promotions made during the period from 1980 to 1992 to the category of Senior Assistant should be reviewed and after such review the revised seniority lists should be drawn and communicated to the employees for making representations, if any. After considering the representation, the final seniority lists should be issued. f. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order.;