P. Satyanarayana Rao & Anr. Etc. v. S.V.P. Sarvani & Ors.

.

ORDER r In Civil A1u~eal Nos.7360~7361/2002:

¶1Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The dispute in this case is about the inter-se ~eniority between the parties. It may be noted that the post of Junior Assistant in the subordinate office in the Commercial Taxes Department is a Category-11 post under the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules and the minimum qual.ification for appointment on the said post is Intermediate~ 6n the other hand, the post of -i Junior Assistant in the office of the Head of the Department is a Category-10 post and the minimum qualification there is Graduation.

¶3Rule 27(1 )(iii) of the aforesaid Rules states:

"The seniority of a member of the service who is transferred at his own request from one Department or office to another shall be fixed in the latter department or office with reference to the date of his first appointment in the latter department or office~ .. II 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted thal the appellant was transferred from the subordinate office to the office of Head of the Department not at his request but on his making an application. We regret we cannot see any ,(_ difference. When a person makes an application for transfer, it is obviously a transfer at his own request. Hence, in our opinion, Rule 27(1 )(iii) squarely applies. In this case, the appellant got transferred from the subordinate office to the office of the Head of Departrnent at his own request. If he did not wish to forego his service in the subordinate service, he need not have made any such request and would have remained in the subordinate office. Once he makes a request for transfer to the office of the Head of Department, then, he must undergo the consequences of such transfer and he cannot claim that his service in the subordinate office must be added to his service in the office of the Head of Department for the purpose of seniority. He will be deemed to have been given a fresh appointment on his joining in the office of the Head of Department for the purposes of seniority, in view of Rule 27(1 )(iii) of the Rules. Thus, in our opinion, there is no error in the impugned judgment of 'he High Court.

¶5Civil Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.

In Civil Appeals Nos.7359/2002 & 2548-2549/2004:

¶6Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7For the reasons given in our judgment in C.A.Nos.7360-7361/2002, these Civil Appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside.

No order as to costs.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil ·Appeal Nos. 7360-7361 of 2002.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.1.2000 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Prade,sh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 17595 and 17749 of 1999.

I

WITH

'G Civil Appeal Nos. 7359/2002 & 2548-2549/2004 .

....

I. Venkatanarayana, J.R. Manohar Rao, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapandeni, Siddharth Patnaik, Amar Pal, R. Santhanakrishnan, Radha Rani, Vijay Kumar, D. Mahesh ,.__ Babu, Manoj Saxena, Rajneesh Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla, T.V. George, M. Srinivas R. Rao, Abid Ali Beeran P. (for Mis. P.S.N. & Co.), Anil Kumar Tandale and D. Bharathi Reddy (N.P) for ·the appearing parties.