Supreme Court Upholds Seniority of Temporarily Appointed AEEs Over APPSC Recruits: “Period of Officiating Service Counts for Determining Seniority,” Validates Government’s Power to Revise Administrative Decisions for Equity

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, upholding the seniority claims of AEEs appointed temporarily between 1990-1992 over those appointed through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) in 1997. The Court validated the Government Order Memorandum (G.O.M.) No. 262 (dated 17th June 2006), which recognized the period of uninterrupted officiating service of the temporarily appointed AEEs as part of their seniority. The Court ruled that the High Court’s application of the “functus officio” principle (which suggests that a matter is closed after a decision is made) was erroneous, and emphasized that administrative decisions can be revisited for equitable outcomes.

Facts:

1. Initial Appointments (1990-1992):
   • The appellants were B.E./B.Tech. graduates appointed as Work Inspectors in 1990 by the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Development Corporation.
   • They were temporarily appointed as AEEs under G.O.M. No. 540 (30th August 1990) to meet project-specific needs, such as the Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project (CERP).
2. Regular Recruitment (1995-1997):
   • The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) began regular recruitment of AEEs under Notification No. 8 of 1995.
   • The private respondents were appointed as AEEs in 1997 after passing the APPSC examination.
3. Government Regularization (2005):
   • G.O.M. No. 234 (27th June 2005) regularized the services of temporary AEEs, including the appellants, but placed them below the 1997 recruits in seniority.
4. Revised Government Order (2006):
   • In response to representations from temporary AEEs, the government issued G.O.M. No. 262 (17th June 2006), which restored seniority to AEEs appointed between 1990-1992, recognizing their officiating service.
5. High Court Decision (2023):
   • The High Court struck down G.O.M. No. 262, declaring the government “functus officio” after issuing G.O.M. No. 234, and ruled that the private respondents were not consulted.

Issues:

1. Should the officiating service of temporarily appointed AEEs from 1990-1992 be considered for determining seniority?
2. Did the issuance of G.O.M. No. 262 violate the principle of “functus officio” or natural justice?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Legitimacy of Appointments:
   • The appellants’ appointments under G.O.M. No. 540 were lawful and not ad-hoc. The delay in regularization was due to the government’s failure to amend service rules.
2. Injustice in G.O.M. No. 234:
   • By placing the appellants below the 1997 recruits in seniority, G.O.M. No. 234 caused severe prejudice, depriving them of promotions despite 15 years of service.
3. Revised Order Was Necessary:
   • G.O.M. No. 262 corrected this injustice by granting seniority based on uninterrupted service and did not violate the principle of “functus officio.”
4. Applicability of Precedents:
   • The appellants relied on Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, which allows counting officiating service for seniority if appointments were uninterrupted and later regularized.
5. Equity and Administrative Efficiency:
   • The appellants argued that temporary appointments, though initially termed “temporary,” were intended for long-term service, as evidenced by continuous work and subsequent regularization.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Ad-Hoc Nature of Appointments:
   • The private respondents claimed the appellants’ appointments were ad-hoc, bypassing regular recruitment procedures, and thus should not count toward seniority.
2. Finality of G.O.M. No. 234:
   • The government had finalized seniority through G.O.M. No. 234 in 2005, making it functus officio and precluding further changes.
3. Violation of Natural Justice:
   • G.O.M. No. 262 was issued without consulting the private respondents, adversely affecting their seniority without affording them an opportunity to be heard.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Nature of Temporary Appointments:
   • The Court noted that the appellants were appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, which allows temporary appointments to meet urgent needs.
   • Appointments under G.O.M. No. 540 lacked the conditional clause present in later orders (e.g., G.O.M. No. 1289, which required APPSC selection), demonstrating that they were not purely ad-hoc.
2. Applicability of Precedents:
   • The Court relied on Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra (1990), which held that officiating service counts for seniority if regularization follows uninterrupted service.
   • The Court also cited Santosh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, which supported retrospective seniority for uninterrupted ad-hoc service.
3. Administrative Powers and Natural Justice:
   • The Court dismissed the High Court’s application of “functus officio,” explaining that administrative decisions can be revisited for equitable outcomes.
   • It clarified that prior consultation with affected parties is not mandatory for administrative decisions aimed at rectifying inequities.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Equitable Seniority:
   • The Court emphasized that the appellants’ uninterrupted service from 1990-2005, coupled with the absence of recruitment rules during their appointment, entitled them to seniority under Proposition B of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association.
2. Correction of Policy Errors:
   • The revised G.O.M. No. 262 addressed the unfair consequences of G.O.M. No. 234 and restored equity without violating established legal principles.
3. Rejection of Procedural Challenges:
   • The principle of “functus officio” does not apply to policy decisions. The government retains the power to modify administrative decisions for equitable purposes.
   • The Court dismissed natural justice concerns, asserting that prior hearing is not a requirement for administrative decisions with widespread implications.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that their uninterrupted officiating service from 1990-2005 must be counted for determining seniority. It upheld G.O.M. No. 262 as a lawful and equitable correction of earlier policy errors and quashed the High Court’s decision, restoring the appellants’ rightful place in the seniority list.

Implications:

1. Equity in Service Jurisprudence:
   • The judgment ensures that employees with legitimate appointments and prolonged service are not disadvantaged due to administrative delays in regularization.
2. Policy Flexibility:
   • The ruling underscores the government’s ability to revisit administrative decisions for equitable outcomes, reinforcing the dynamic nature of governance.
3. Clarification on Seniority Rules:
   • The decision provides clarity on how officiating service and temporary appointments are treated in seniority disputes, aligning with established precedents.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Refers Interpretation of Section 50 Cr.P.C. to Larger Bench: “Does Failure to Provide Written Arrest Grounds Mandate Automatic Release?” Amid Conflicting Judicial Views on Compliance and Its Impact on Arrested Accused