Service Rendered Cannot Be Ignored—Seniority Must Be Counted from Initial Appointment: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Seniority of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) Appointed Between 1990-92 Over 1997 Batch Recruits. In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, on February 13, 2025, delivered a judgment in P. Ramamohan Rao v. K. Srinivas & Others, holding that Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) appointed temporarily under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules between 1990-1992 were entitled to seniority over the regularly recruited 1997 batch AEEs.

The Court quashed the judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana, which had struck down G.O.M. No. 262, a government order that granted seniority benefits to the 1990-92 batch AEEs. The High Court had ruled that the State Government had become functus officio after issuing a prior order (G.O.M. No. 234) and could not have modified it. Rejecting this, the Supreme Court held:

"The doctrine of functus officio does not apply to administrative decisions based on policy considerations. The State has the power to amend and rectify its orders if required."

The Court further affirmed the principle that uninterrupted service, even if initially temporary, must be counted for seniority once regularized.

"If the initial appointment is not made by following the rules but the appointee continues uninterruptedly till regularization, the period of officiating service must be counted for seniority," the Court declared, citing Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715.

Allowing the appeals, the Court restored the validity of G.O.M. No. 262, holding that the appellants were entitled to seniority over the 1997 batch recruits.

"Temporary Appointment Under Rule 10(a)(i) Was Not a Stop-Gap Measure—Seniority Cannot Be Denied"

The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the AEEs appointed between 1990-92 under Rule 10(a)(i), and later regularized, could claim seniority over the 1997 batch AEEs recruited through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC).

The 1997 batch AEEs had argued that the appellants' initial appointments were ad-hoc and could not be counted for seniority. However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention and observed: "These appointments were made under Rule 10(a)(i) against sanctioned posts and were not mere stop-gap arrangements. The delay in regularization was due to the Government’s failure to amend the service rules, not due to any fault of the appellants."

Referring to G.O.M. No. 540, dated 30th August 1990, which sanctioned 386 posts under the Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project (CERP), the Court noted:

"Nowhere in G.O.M. No. 540 was it stated that the AEEs would have to go through APPSC selection later. The appointments were made against sanctioned vacancies and were intended to be absorbed into the permanent cadre."

The Court also distinguished these appointments from those made under G.O.M. No. 1289, dated 10th August 1994, which specifically required candidates to go through APPSC selection or face reversion.

"The appointments under G.O.M. No. 540 and G.O.M. No. 1289 cannot be equated. The former did not require APPSC selection, while the latter made it a condition," the Court ruled.

"Government Not Functus Officio—Can Modify Orders to Rectify Injustice"

The High Court had held that after issuing G.O.M. No. 234 in 2005, which placed the 1990-92 AEEs below the 1997 batch recruits in seniority, the State Government became functus officio and could not modify it by issuing G.O.M. No. 262 in 2006.

Rejecting this view, the Supreme Court held: "The rule-making power of the State Government is not curtailed by the doctrine of functus officio. Administrative decisions based on policy considerations can always be modified or rectified to address injustices."

Citing Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 309, the Court observed: "If the doctrine of functus officio were applied to administrative decisions, governance would be paralyzed. Policies evolve over time, and the State must have the flexibility to modify its decisions."

The Court emphasized that G.O.M. No. 262 was issued only after considering representations from the affected AEEs and acknowledging the injustice caused by G.O.M. No. 234.

"No Requirement of Hearing Before Revising a General Policy Decision"

The 1997 batch AEEs had challenged G.O.M. No. 262 on the ground that they were not given a hearing before its issuance. The High Court accepted this argument and quashed the order.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the principles of natural justice did not apply to general administrative policy decisions unless specifically required by law.

"There is no inviolable rule that every administrative decision must be preceded by a hearing," the Court observed, citing Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398.

Further, in Patel Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 257, the Court had held: "Not every policy change requires a personal hearing to affected parties. If such a requirement were imposed, governance would grind to a halt."

Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in striking down G.O.M. No. 262 on this ground.

"Uninterrupted Service from 1990-92 Must Be Counted for Seniority"

Summarizing its findings, the Supreme Court ruled:

• The AEEs appointed between 1990-92 under Rule 10(a)(i) were not ad-hoc or stop-gap appointments. They were made against sanctioned posts and continued uninterruptedly until regularization.

• The delay in regularization was due to the Government’s failure to amend service rules and cannot be used to deny seniority.

• The doctrine of functus officio does not apply to administrative decisions based on policy considerations. The Government had the right to modify G.O.M. No. 234.

• No personal hearing was required before issuing G.O.M. No. 262. The principle of natural justice does not apply to general administrative policy changes.

• The period of officiating service from 1990-2005 must be counted for seniority.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and upheld G.O.M. No. 262, holding that the 1990-92 batch AEEs must be placed above the 1997 batch recruits in the seniority list.

This ruling by the Supreme Court reaffirms the longstanding principle that uninterrupted service must be counted for seniority upon regularization. The Court has made it clear that:

Appointments made under Rule 10(a)(i) against sanctioned posts are not to be treated as ad-hoc or stop-gap arrangements.

The State Government retains the power to modify policy decisions to rectify injustices.

Natural justice principles do not require hearings in general policy decisions.

By restoring G.O.M. No. 262, the Supreme Court has ensured that government employees who served continuously for over a decade before regularization do not lose their rightful seniority due to administrative delays.

"A government servant should not suffer for the inefficiency of the administration. The law must recognize the reality of service rendered," the Court concluded.

Date of decision: 13/02/2025