Regional Dy. Director & Anr. Vs. P. Venkata Ramana
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5984/1997
Petitioner: Regional Dy. Director & Anr.
Respondent: P. Venkata Ramana
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5984/1997
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jun 09, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962
Rule 10(a)(i) – Temporary appointment – Attender appointed as typist – Appointment purely temporary and made under emergency provisions – Said appointment cancelled as appointee was not possessing five years experience – Tribunal setting aside the order. Held that since the rule itself sets out this position to appoint temporarily without requisite qualification, the orders of tribunal cannot be interfered with. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The respondent was appointed as typist on 29-01-1992 while he was working as an attender in the office of the first appellant in terms of rule 10 (a) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules indicating that the said appointment is purely temporary and is made under emergency provisions of the said rules liable to be terminated any time without prior notice and without assigning any reason.
2. Thereafter, another order was made by the commissioner on 14-05-1996 stating that the respondent does not possess necessary experience of 5 years, before he could have been appointed by transfer from the post of an attender to the post of a typist. This order was challenged before the tribunal. The tribunal on consideration of the effect of rule 10 (a)(i) of the said rules, held that the non-possession of the requisite qualification and experience was not taken note of inasmuch as the promotion was only temporary otherwise than in accordance with the relevant rules. Rule 10 (a) (i) authorises in certain circumstances to appoint a person who does not possess the qualification prescribed for the service. When the rule clearly sets out this position on the basis of which the first appellant exercised such powers, we do not think there is any need for the commissioner to have interfered with the same. Hence, the tribunal is right in having set aside the order made by the commissioner. We find no merit in this appeal. Therefore, it is dismissed.
1. The respondent was appointed as typist on 29-01-1992 while he was working as an attender in the office of the first appellant in terms of rule 10 (a) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules indicating that the said appointment is purely temporary and is made under emergency provisions of the said rules liable to be terminated any time without prior notice and without assigning any reason.
2. Thereafter, another order was made by the commissioner on 14-05-1996 stating that the respondent does not possess necessary experience of 5 years, before he could have been appointed by transfer from the post of an attender to the post of a typist. This order was challenged before the tribunal. The tribunal on consideration of the effect of rule 10 (a)(i) of the said rules, held that the non-possession of the requisite qualification and experience was not taken note of inasmuch as the promotion was only temporary otherwise than in accordance with the relevant rules. Rule 10 (a) (i) authorises in certain circumstances to appoint a person who does not possess the qualification prescribed for the service. When the rule clearly sets out this position on the basis of which the first appellant exercised such powers, we do not think there is any need for the commissioner to have interfered with the same. Hence, the tribunal is right in having set aside the order made by the commissioner. We find no merit in this appeal. Therefore, it is dismissed.
