P. MOHAN REDDY ETC. versus E.A.A. CHARLES AND ORS.

P. MOHAN REDDY ETC. versus E.A.A. CHARLES AND ORS.

Seniority of Deputy Tehsildars appointed between 09.10.1980 and 23.09.1992 must be determined in accordance with Rule 4(e) of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules 1961 as it stood before the September 1992 amendment, since the amendment was not given retrospective effect.

Parties
Appellant: P. Mohan Reddy; Respondent: E.A.A. Charles and Ors.; Respondent: Respondent No. 27 in C.A. No. 3054/98; Respondent: Respondent Nos. 28 to 33 in C.A. No. 3054/98
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Seniority, Direct Recruitment, Promotion, Retrospective Application of Rules, Cadre Management
Service Law Seniority Direct Recruitment Promotion Retrospective Application of Rules Cadre Management

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. Mohan Reddy

Appellant

E.A.A. Charles and Ors.

Respondent

Respondent No. 27 in C.A. No. 3054/98

Respondent

Respondent Nos. 28 to 33 in C.A. No. 3054/98

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees to the post of Deputy Tehsildar be determined for appointments between 09.10.1980 and 23.09.1992 under Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules 1961, in light of amendments in 1980 and 1992?
  2. 2 Whether the amended rules of September 1992 apply prospectively or retrospectively for seniority determination?

Ratio Decidendi

Seniority of Deputy Tehsildars appointed between 09.10.1980 and 23.09.1992 must be determined in accordance with Rule 4(e) of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules 1961 as it stood before the September 1992 amendment, since the amendment was not given retrospective effect.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court judgment set aside.
  • Tribunal's dismissal of applications by promotees affirmed.