SC Rules on Seniority of Regularized Temporary Employees Making Them Senior To Direct Recruits

The Supreme Court in case of P. RAMMOHAN RAO VERSUS K. SRINIVAS AND ORS. ETC. set aside the order of the High Court of Telangana and affirmed the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Government's G.O.M. No. 262, dated June 17, 2006. This case revolved around a conflict regarding the seniority among Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) who were first appointed on a temporary basis and subsequently regularized, and those who were recruited directly through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC).

Case Background: The origin of the case is in the temporary appointment of the appellants as AEEs between 1990 and 1992, mainly to meet the immediate requirement of engineers in projects such as the Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project (CERP). The appointments were done under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules.

Later, in 1997, the private respondents were appointed as AEEs by following a regular recruitment process held by the APPSC. In the year 2005, the State Government promulgated G.O.M. No. 234, making the services of the temporary AEEs permanent, but junior to the regular recruits. In response to representations, particularly from the 1990-1992 appointees, the government published G.O.M. No. 262 in 2006, awarding this particular group seniority from their original temporary appointment date, placing them below the last regular AEE prior to the implementation of the 1994 recruitment rules. The High Court had set aside this amended G.O.M.

The Supreme Court made crucial observations in its judgment and found that part of the appellants' delay to regularize came from requiring modification of the rules of service. The Court stated categorically that the position of the appellants fell within Proposition (B) of the Direct Recruit case, focusing that their continuity of service since they were appointed temporally till when they regularized should count as seniority.

The Court differentiated the character of their own original temporary appointments under G.O.M. No. 540, not involving APPSC selection, from subsequent temporary appointments involving such conditions. Significant is the fact that the Court dismissed the High Court's application of the 'functus officio' doctrine against the State Government's policy-making power and held that the said principle extends mainly to judicial and quasi-judicial authorities rather than to governmental rule-making under Article 245 of the Constitution. In addition, the Court held that there was no statutory mandate for giving a pre-hearing to the directly recruited employees prior to the government making a policy decision regarding regularization and seniority of another category of employees.

Finally, the Supreme Court granted the appeals, deciding that the officiating service provided by the appellants from 1990 to when they were regularized in 2005 should be taken into account for seniority, thereby making them senior to the 1997 batch of directly recruited AEEs. The Court held G.O.M. No. 262 to be valid and unchallengeable.

Coram: Justice P. Sri Narsimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Between: P. RAMMOHAN RAO VS K. SRINIVAS AND ORS 2025 INSC 212
Date of Judgment: 13-02-2025