- (1.) These appeals are directed against the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos.5922 & 6360 of 1999 by which the Full Bench has set aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. Hence, the present appeals.
(2.) Shorn of detailed facts, principal question arises for our consideration is the validity of the rule by which retrospective seniority benefit was given to the Junior Engineers by G.O.Ms. No.54 Irrigation (Service IV-2) dated 15.2.1983. Relevant amendment which is the subject matter of present controversy reads as under : " In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution Of India, 1950, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following amendments to the Special Rules for the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service, issued in G.O.Ms. No.285 PWD, dated 22.2.1967 and as subsequently amended from time to time. 2. The amendments hereby made shall be deemed to have come into force from the 28th February, 1972. AMENDMENT In the said Special Rules : (1) In Rule 2, the entry in column 2 of the Table against category-6 Junior Engineers, shall be lettered as Clause (a) and after it is so lettered the following entry shall be added namely: "(b) Recruitment by transfer of Supervisors of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Subordinate Service who have acquired the B.E. or A.M.I.E. (India) qualification and who are approved probationers in that category. NOTE : The Provisions of General Rule 6 shall not appointment either by the direct recruitment or by transfer to the category of Junior Engineers". 2. In column (2) and of the Table under rule 4 against the category of Junior Engineers, the following entries shall be added at the end namely: Recruitment by transfer Must possess B.E. or A.M.I.E, (India) qualification in Civil or Mechanical Engineering. 3. After Note (2) below the Table under Rule 4 the following shall be inserted namely : Note (3) A Supervisor who is appointed by transfer as Junior Engineer on or after 28.2.1972 shall be entitled to count 1/3rd of the Service rendered as Supervisor before appointment as Junior Engineer, subject to a maximum of 4 years weightage for the purpose of computing the service as Junior Engineer, which will render eligible for consideration for promotion as Asst. Engineer, and subject to the following conditions: (i) The seniority of a Supervisor, who is appointed as Junior Engineer shall be fixed in the category of Junior Engineers with reference to the notional date arrived at after giving weightage of service aforesaid; (ii) A Supervisor who is appointed as Junior Engineer shall put in a minimum service of one year on duty as Junior Engineer, after such appointment, and a total service of five years as Junior Engineer, inclusive of the period given as weightage to become eligible for promotion as Asst. Engineer; (iii) No Supervisor shall ordinarily be eligible for appointment as Junior Engineer, unless he has put in a minimum service of three years as supervisor; (iv) A Supervisor with less than three years of service, who is appointed as Junior Engineer for any special reasons shall not be entitled to any weightage of his past service as Supervisor".
(3.) This litigation has a very long history and we will refer to relevant part of the history in our judgment wherever it is necessary but the core issue before us is the validity of this Rule. This rule was challenged by the direct recruit Junior Engineers coming from various parts of the State before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by filing various original applications. A preliminary objection was raised that the original applications were not maintainable as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to examine this controversy as the rule had already been up-held by this Court in Devi Prasad & Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. etc. [ 1980 (S) SCC 206 and State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. K.S.Muralidhar & Ors. etc. 1992 (2) SCC 241. As against this, it was contended that in both these cases amendment to the rule was not in issue and what was in issue was only the executive instructions issued prior to the amendment. It was submitted that the matters were not decided on merits.;