S NARAYANA Vs. MD AHMEDULLA KHAN
LAWS(SC)-2006-5-53
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on May 08,2006

S.NARAYANA Appellant
VERSUS
MD.AHMEDULLA KHAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

R.N.NANJUNDAPPA V. T.THIMMIAH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. S V NARAYANAPPA [REFERRED TO]
B N NAGARAJAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

T S SAIFUDDIN VS. STATE OF KERALA REP [LAWS(KER)-2006-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
R SHOBANA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-58] [FOLLOWED ON]
SARASWATI SAHU VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(CHH)-2006-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
Sitikantha Mishra VS. Union of India [LAWS(ORI)-2012-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHEEL KUMAR SHUKLA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-319] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, DAV POST GRADUATE COLLEGE AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-258] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA NATH TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
PREMAKUMARI A VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-7-84] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. SANDHYA TOMAR [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
SITIKANATHA MISHRA VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. VS. CHHIDDI AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
INDER SINGH AND ORS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2008-5-223] [REFERRED]
MANOJ KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
ARINDAM ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-1-9] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Srikrishna, J. - (1.)The appellant was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk through District Selection Committee on 6-11-1968 in the office of the District Panchayat. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (re-designated as Senior Assistant) with effect from 12-10-1970. The services of the appellant in the said category were regularised with effect from the same day. By an order issued on 12-5-1986, under Rule 10(a)(i) of the State and Subordinate Services Rules, the appellant and certain other employees came to be appointed as "Extension Officers (Pts.)" in the Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Executive Subordinate) Service. The appellant was allotted to Nizamabad District. The said order made it clear that the appointment was "purely temporary" and that it was ".. liable to be terminated at any time without assigning reasons and without prior notice..." and that such an appointment "..would not confer on ... (him) ...any rights of probation or preferential claims for further appointment."
(2.)By an order dated 24-9-1988, the services of the appellant were regularized in the category of Senior Assistant with effect from 12-10-1970. On 12-11-1991, the appellant made a representation to the Commissioner of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development (hereinafter "PRRD") indicating that he was not willing to work as an Extension Officer (Pts), that he had found that the names of his colleagues on "other duty" had been included in the seniority list of Senior Assistants in the District Panchayat Office. He requested that his name also be included in the seniority list of Senior Assistants in the office of District Panchayat Office and Divisional Panchayat Officer. The request of the appellant was recommended by the District Commissioner, Nizamabad on 3-1-1992. On 7-4-1992, the Commissioner, PRRD published a provisional seniority list of the Extension Officers in which the appellants name was shown at Serial No. 35 and the date of his regularization was shown as 4-6-1986. Some employees raised objections to the provisional seniority list. After examining the objections, the Commissioner, PRRD by notice dated 9-11-1992, published a revised provisional list and sought objections from the affected employees, if any. In this list, the name of the appellant was shown at Serial No. 5(a) below one R. Prakasam and above one M. Laxma Reddy at Serial No. 6. His date of regularisation was shown as 12-10-1970. The respondent, Md. Ahmedulla Khan was shown at Serial No.10, below the appellant.
(3.)On 15-5-1993, the Commissioner, PRRD published a final seniority list as no objections had been received. The confirmed seniority list of Senior Assistants working in the office of District Panchayat Officers of Unit 1 Zone VI as published, indicated the name of the appellant at Serial No. 6 and the date of his appointment as Senior Assistant and date of regularization, were shown as 12-10-1970. The name of the first respondent was shown at Serial No. 12. The date of his appointment was shown as 15-3-1972 and the date of his regularisation was shown as 7-10-1972. On 22-8-1984, the Commissioner, PRRD issued office circular No. 621/6/CPR directing Collectors to terminate the lien of all individuals who have absented themselves continuously for more than three years after serving a notice of seven days on them for termination of the lien. Accordingly on 6-9-1994, the District Collector issued a notice to the appellant for termination of his lien as Senior Assistant. The appellant submitted a representation thereagainst and also claimed that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Superintendent on par with his juniors. On 23-10-1994, the District Collectors order terminating the lien of the appellant was served on the appellant. On 26-10-1994, the appellant once again made a representation for retention of his lien and for considering his case for promotion as Superintendent on par with his juniors in the District Panchayat Office. By another representation dated 7-11-1994, the appellant pointed out that, by not acceding to his request to take him back into his parent department, he had been subjected to injustice, inasmuch as, several juniors to him had been promoted in the parent department.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.