N. VENKATESWARA RAO AND ORS. versus THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPALITY, VIJAYAWADA AND ORS.

N. VENKATESWARA RAO AND ORS. versus THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPALITY, VIJAYAWADA AND ORS.

Appellants 1 to 6, having been promoted regularly and being 'probationers awaiting reappointment,' were entitled to preferential treatment under Rule 21; their promotion was valid and they rank senior to respondents 3 to 5. Appellants 7 to 13, promoted against leave vacancies, were not entitled to preferential treatment and respondents 3 to 5 should have been considered for promotion along with them; if selected, deemed promotion from December 20, 1978 with seniority above appellants 7 to 13 but below appellants 1 to 6.

Parties
Appellants: N. Venkateswara Rao and Ors.; Respondents: The Commissioner and Special Officer, Vijayawada Municipality, Vijayawada and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 February 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; impugned Tribunal judgment set aside to the extent stated.
Legal Topics
Promotion, Probation, Seniority, Municipal Employees, Preference to Reverted Employees
Service Law Promotion Probation Seniority Municipal Employees Preference to Reverted Employees

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. Venkateswara Rao and Ors.

Appellants

The Commissioner and Special Officer, Vijayawada Municipality, Vijayawada and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants promoted as UDCs are entitled to preferential treatment under Rule 21 of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Employees Service Rules
  2. 2 Whether promotees against leave vacancies are entitled to preferential treatment
  3. 3 Whether Tribunal erred in quashing promotion order dated December 20, 1978

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants 1 to 6, having been promoted regularly and being 'probationers awaiting reappointment,' were entitled to preferential treatment under Rule 21; their promotion was valid and they rank senior to respondents 3 to 5. Appellants 7 to 13, promoted against leave vacancies, were not entitled to preferential treatment and respondents 3 to 5 should have been considered for promotion along with them; if selected, deemed promotion from December 20, 1978 with seniority above appellants 7 to 13 but below appellants 1 to 6.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; impugned Tribunal judgment set aside to the extent stated.

Orders

  • Appellants 1 to 6's promotion confirmed and rank senior to respondents 3 to 5.
  • Appellants 7 to 13 not disturbed; respondents 3 to 5 to be considered for promotion from December 20, 1978, and if selected, deemed promoted with seniority above appellants 7 to 13 but below appellants 1 to 6.