Sri M. Ramesh Kumar O/o. Deputy Executive Officer, Right to Information Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Administrative Building, K.T. Road, Tirupathi, Sri K. Ramakrishna O/o. Assistant Executive Officer (Panchayat), Tirumala Hills, Tirupathi and M. Ramachandra O/o. Executive Officer (Chamber) Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Administrative Building, K.T. Road, Tirupathi Vs G. Jagan Mohan Acharya and Others <BR> K.P. Venkata Rathnam Achary and Others Vs Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Tirupathi and Others

S.K., J

1. Appointment to the post of Superintendent in the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), Tirupati, is by promotion from the cadre of Senior Assistants. Senior Assistants, in turn, are appointed from the categories of Junior Assistants (by promotion) and U.D. Stenos (by conversion). The dispute presently is as to the eligibility and reckoning of inter se seniority of these two categories in the cadre of Senior Assistants for promotion as Superintendents.

2. Writ Petition No. 26242 of 2006 was filed by 10 Senior Assistants, promoted from the category of Junior Assistants, assailing the action of the TTD in not finalizing the seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistants; to declare that they were entitled to be promoted as Superintendents as per their seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants; and to declare the action of the TTD in'' seeking to promote respondents 3 to 5, Senior Assistants drawn from the category of U.D. Stenos by conversion, as Superintendents by placing them above the petitioners in the seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants as illegal and contrary to the rules.

3. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the TTD finalized the seniority list of Senior Assistants under its proceedings dated 08.04.2007 and issued consequential Memos dated 08.04.2007 promoting 3 Senior Assistants, drawn from the category of U.D. Stenos by conversion, as Superintendents. Writ Petition No. 9908 of 2007 was filed by 5 other promotee Senior Assistants challenging the seniority list dated 08.04.2007 and the consequential Memos dated 08.04.2007 granting promotion to the converted Senior Assistants arrayed as respondents 2 to 4 therein. Pertinent to note, respondents 3 to 5 in W.P.No. 26242 of 2006 and respondents 2 to 4 in W.P.No. 9908 of 2007 are one and the same.

4. By common order dated 07.09.2007, a learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the private respondents in the two writ petitions filed Writ Appeal Nos.831 and 851 of 2007. W.A.No. 831 of 2007 arises out of W.P.No. 9908 of 2007 while W.A.No. 851 of 2007 pertains to W.P.No. 26242 of 2006.

5. Pending the appeals, this Court directed the TTD not to revert the appellants from the posts of Superintendents.

6. W.P.No. 28202 of 2007 was filed by 7 promotee Senior Assistants assailing the seniority list dated 08.04.2007 in so far as the placement of respondents 2 to 7 therein was concerned and seeking a consequential direction to the TTD to prepare the final seniority list in the category of Senior Assistants by taking into account the date of appointment as Senior Assistants only and to effect promotions to the posts of Superintendents accordingly.

7. W.P.No. 8530 of 2008 was filed by a converted Senior Assistant who was thereafter granted promotion to the post of Superintendent apprehending that the TTD would revert her from the said post contrary to the interim orders granted in W.A.No. 831 of 2007. By order dated 18.04.2008, the TTD was directed not to revert her from the post of Superintendent pending disposal of the writ petition.

8. The issue that falls for consideration in these cases, as pithily put by the learned Judge in his common order, is whether U.D. Stenos, on their conversion to the posts of Senior Assistants in the TTD, are entitled to reckon their seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants from the date of their promotion/appointment as U.D. Stenos or from the date of their conversion as Senior Assistants.

9. Seniors Assistants promoted from the category of Junior Assistants would contend that U.D. Stenos converted as Senior Assistants would be entitled to count their seniority in that post only from the date of conversion and not earlier. Senior Assistants converted from the category of U.D. Stenos would however assert that such conversion would not divest them of the service rendered as U.D. Stenos and that they are entitled to count the said service towards seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants.

10. Another issue that needs to be addressed is whether a U.D. Steno, upon conversion as a Senior Assistant, needs to be placed on probation in that post. Admittedly, the appellants and others belonging to their ilk were not put on probation upon conversion as Senior Assistants by the TTD. This aspect relates to their eligibility to be considered for promotion as Superintendents.

11. Disgruntlement of these two categories of employees on these issues was compounded by the changing stands of the TTD to suit the moment and its convenience.

12. The matter however has to be resolved on the touchstone of the applicable rules and the inconsistent and varying stances of the TTD, not being determinative of the lis, have no significant role to play. This Court is however constrained to observe that the actions of the TTD, adopting diametrically opposite views at different points of time while interpreting and implementing the rules, trifled with the rights and interests of its employees and fell far short of the conduct expected of a model employer. Such vagaries on its part therefore require to be condemned in no uncertain terms.

13. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989 (for brevity, ''the Rules of 1989'') were promulgated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. These Rules were issued under G.O.Ms.No. 1060, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 24.10.1989. Prior thereto, the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams'' Office Holders and Servants (other than Hereditary Office Holders) Recruitment Rules, 1978, contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1350, Revenue (Endowments-III) Department, dated 02.08.1978, promulgated under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, governed the employees of the TTD. Under these Rules, the posts of Superintendents were to be filled by promotion from the posts of U.D. Clerks and U.D. Stenos. Pertinent to note, the branch ''U.D. Clerks'' comprised the categories/posts of both U.D. Clerks and U.D. Stenos, amongst others, as detailed under:

14. Annexure-II of these Rules, pertaining to appointment and method of recruitment, however provided separate modes of appointment for U.D. Clerks and U.D. Stenos:

15. Upon the advent of the Rules of 1989, changes were effected in appointment and method of recruitment to the above posts. The category of Senior Assistant (hitherto, U.D. Clerk) under the Rules of 1989 comprised the following posts:

16. Significantly, the post of U.D. Steno no longer found mention in this category and was separately shown as under;

17. Annexure-II of the Rules of 1989, pertaining to appointment and method of recruitment under Rules 9, 11 and 15 thereof, detailed the method of appointment to the relevant posts:

18. It would be relevant to summarize the changes brought about by the Rules of 1989. The category of U.D. Clerk, having undergone a change of name as Senior Assistant, no longer included the post of U.D. Steno which was separately shown as an independent category and post. Promotion to the post of Superintendent, which was hitherto from the posts of U.D. Clerks and U.D. Stenos, was restricted to promotion from the cadre of Senior Assistants. The Rules of 1989 prescribed two modes of appointment to the post of Senior Assistant. One, by promotion from the cadre of Junior Assistants upon completion of three years as a Junior Assistant and secondly, by conversion of U.D. Stenos upon completion of three years of service as such. The Rules further demonstrate that L.D. Typists/L.D. Stenos could opt either for conversion as Junior Assistants or for promotion to the posts of U.D. Stenos, upon completion of three years of service. Junior Assistants, after completion of three years of service as such, were eligible for promotion as Senior Assistants while U.D. Stenos, upon putting in three years of service as such, could seek conversion as Senior Assistants. The number of years to be put in by either category to enter the common cadre of Senior Assistants was therefore the same.

19. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1989 provided for employees being put on probation and, to the extent relevant, reads as under:

6. Probation:

1. Every person appointed to a category by direct recruitment shall be on probation for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years and every person appointed to any category or grade by promotion or conversion shall be on probation for a total period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years.

2..........

20. The Rules of 1989 did not specifically provide for the mode and method of reckoning the seniority of employees. Rule 4 thereof however provided for extension of various other Rules to the TTD employees and reads as under:

4. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Employees shall be governed by the following rules and such of the orders and clarifications issued on these rules by Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the employees of State Government from time to time in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules made there under:

(i) The Fundamental Rules and the Subsidiary Rules issued there under;

(ii) The Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules, 1933;

(iii) The Andhra Pradesh Manual of Special Pay and Allowances including Traveling Allowances Rules and the Subsidiary Rules issued there under;

(iv) The Andhra Pradesh Pension Code and the Andhra Pradesh Liberalized Pension Rules, 1961, A.P. Family Rules, 1964 and A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.

(v) Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964;

(vi) Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 [G.O. Ms. No. 138, Revenue (Endts.III) Department, dated 11-3-1998];

(vii) Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules;

(viii) Andhra Pradesh Financial Code;

(ix) Any other executive instructions and Government orders that are issued from time to time by the Government in respect of their employees which are not inconsistent with the Act and Rules made there under.

21. Seniority of TTD employees in their respective cadres would therefore be governed by the general rules contained in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules (for brevity, ''the APSSS Rules'') which find mention under Rule 4(vii) aforestated. Relevant provisions of the APSSS Rules are extracted:

Rule 2 deals with definitions.

2. Definitions:- In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:

(2) Appointed to a service:- A person is said to be appointed to a service when, in accordance with these rules, except under Rule 10 and in accordance with the Special Rules or adhoc rules applicable to such service he discharges for the first time, the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences the probation, instruction or training prescribed for members thereof.

(10) Confirmed member:- "Confirmed member" means a member of a service who has been confirmed in a service under the State Government in accordance with Rule 21.

(11) Date of regular appointment:- "Date of regular appointment" means the date of commencement of probation, i.e., the date from which the service rendered by a person after appointment to a service, class or category counts for probation.

(24) Probation:- "Probation" means the period during which a fresh entrant to a service or a person appointed to a higher post for the first time either by promotion within the service or by transfer from any other service, is put on test for determining his fitness to hold the post in a service, class or category.

22. Rule 8 pertains to eligibility for promotion and reads as under:

8. Eligibility for promotion or appointment by transfer:-For appointment to a higher post either by promotion from one category to another within a service or by appointment by transfer from one service to any other service, a member of a service or class of a service, shall have satisfactorily completed his probation in the category from which he is proposed to be promoted or appointed by transfer to such higher post.

23. Rule 21 of the APSSS Rules deals with confirmation and, to the extent relevant, reads as under:

21. Confirmation:- (a) Confirmation of a member of a service:- As soon as a person appointed initially in a service or class of a service is declared to have satisfactorily completed his probation or deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation, he shall be confirmed as a member of that service, by the appointing authority.

The seniority of the person shall however be regulated in terms of Rule 33 of these rules.

........

24. Rule 33 of the APSSS Rules deals with seniority and, to the extent relevant, reads as under:

33. Seniority:- (a) The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade, shall unless he had been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade:

Provided that.........

(b).........

(c).........

(d) The transfer of a person from one class or category of a service to another class or category of the same service carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter class or category for purpose of seniority and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the date of his regular appointment in the class or category from which he was transferred. Where any difficulty arises in applying this sub-rule, seniority shall be determined by the Government, if they are the appointing authority and in other cases, the authority next higher to the appointing authority shall determine the seniority.

25. Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned senior counsel, fairly conceded that the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules would have no application to the TTD employees as Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 did not speak of such applicability. The said Rules and the instructions/orders issued by the Government in the context thereof would therefore have no bearing on the present issues.

26. It would be relevant to note that under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989, the APSSS Rules would be applicable to TTD employees only to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and the Rules made there under, including the Rules of 1989. Therefore, once Rule 6 of the Rules of 1989 categorically provided that every person appointed to any category or grade, be it by promotion or conversion, should be placed on probation, the clear import and intent of the said Rule cannot be diluted by bringing in the definition of ''probation'' in the APSSS Rules. The contention of Sri D.V.Sitarama Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in the writ appeals, that the conversion of U.D. Stenos as Senior Assistants would neither amount to fresh entry to the service nor appointment to a higher post warranting their being placed on probation as defined under Rule 2(24) of the APSSS Rules, therefore cannot be countenanced.

27. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that conversion of a U.D. Steno to the post of Senior Assistant would not amount to appointment to a higher post and the same should be treated as a ''transfer'' between equivalent posts. However, there is neither clarity nor consistency in the Rules of 1989 in the use of the terms ''conversion'' and ''transfer'' in the context of recruitment to various posts. For instance, the method of recruitment to the post of Dressing Boy is by way of conversion from other Last Grade Services but to attain eligibility for such conversion, the incumbent is required to put in ten years of services in the same cadre in the Last Grade Service. This implies that though it is a case of ''conversion'', the posts are not considered equivalent as eligibility is attained only upon completing ten years of service in the same cadre of the Last Grade Service. Similarly, for the post of Blue Print Operator, one of the modes of appointment is by way of conversion of Attenders possessing the required qualification. This clearly is a case of appointment to a higher post though it is termed as a ''conversion''. Similar is the case of ''conversion'' of in-service Assistant Engineers to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers in the TTD''s Electrical Engineering Branch. In so far as ''recruitment by transfer'' is concerned, the said mode is prescribed for appointment to the post of Driver from any other lower category with required qualifications. Though termed as ''transfer'' this also is clearly an appointment to a higher post. Similar is the case with recruitment by transfer to the post of L.P.G. Operator from amongst Servers/ Cleaners/ Helpers/ Paditharam Carriers. However, appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Vigilance and Security Officer Grade-II from the cadre of the Circle Inspector/Reserve Inspector of Police from the Andhra Pradesh Police Service is seen to be a movement between equivalent posts. Contrary thereto, appointment by transfer to the posts of Inspectors of Police (Technical/Communications); Sub-Inspectors of Police (Technical/Communications); Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police (Technical/ Communications); and Head Constables (Technical/ Communications) from any service under the Government is clearly an appointment to a higher post and requires the stipulated length of service in the lower cadre. But, appointment to the post of Police Constables (Fitter/Electrician) by appointment by transfer from any similar post in the service of the Government is clearly a movement between equivalent posts. For the post of Nadaswaram Player, conversion from the categories of Sruthi or Talam man is one of the methods of recruitment but for such conversion the incumbent must have five years experience. However, for the post of Dolu Player, conversion of Sruthi or Talam man does not require any stipulated length of service - the inference being that the former is not a case of conversion between equivalent posts but the latter is.

28. It is thus clear that mere nomenclature of ''conversion''/ ''transfer'' in the Rules of 1989 is not determinative of whether the said mode of recruitment is to be treated as a movement between equivalent posts or appointment to a higher post. We are therefore not persuaded that ''conversion'' in Rule 6 of the Rules of 1989 should be interpreted to mean appointment by conversion to higher posts only and that the Rule should be read down to exclude appointment by conversion between equivalent posts. Once Rule 6 is clear and unambiguous as to the requirement of an appointee by conversion to any category being placed on probation, the golden rule of literal interpretation would invariably have to be followed and there is no necessity to undertake any hermeneutic exercise for the purpose of reading deeper meanings into the Rule. Therefore, the action of the TTD in not placing the appellants on probation upon their conversion as Senior Assistants, ostensibly on the ground that such conversion amounted to a lateral movement between equivalent posts, falls foul of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1989.

29. Sri D.V.Sitarama Murthy, learned senior counsel, contended that in so far as the aspect of the appellants'' seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant is concerned, Rule 33(d) of the APSSS Rules would come to their rescue and thereby they would be entitled to protection of the service rendered by them as U.D. Stenos for reckoning their seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants. This argument proceeds on the assumption, once again, that the appellants'' conversion as Senior Assistants was a movement between equivalent posts. It is to be noticed that Rule 33(d) speaks of ''transfer'' from one class or category of a service to another class or category of the same service carrying the same pay or scale of pay for the purpose of taking into account the service rendered by such transferee in the earlier post also for the purpose of reckoning his seniority in the latter post.

30. In the present case, the Rules of 1989 speak of ''conversion'' and not ''transfer'' from the category of U.D. SteNo. It is not for this Court to treat the two terms as interchangeable, when both have been used separately in the Rules of 1989. Further, no equivalence between the posts is demonstrable. The Rules of 1989 brought about a change by separating the category of U.D. Steno from that of Senior Assistant/U.D. Clerk and invested it with an independent identity. The process of ''conversion'' prescribed under the Rules of 1989 is only for the purpose of bringing this independent category of U.D. Stenos into the mainstream through the category of Senior Assistants and for that purpose, a minimum experience of three years as U.D. Stenos is prescribed. This stipulation as to minimum service clearly demonstrates that the posts as such were not treated as equivalent and it was only upon completion of the required minimum service that an incumbent acquired eligibility to aspire for conversion. That being so, we are not impressed with the argument of the learned senior counsel that the term ''conversion'' used in the Rules of 1989 in the context of U.D. Stenos and Senior Assistants should be treated as interchangeable with the term ''transfer'' used in Rule 33(d) of the APSSS Rules. The Rule being clear, this Court would not embark upon the tortuous exercise of invoking various doctrines of interpretation for reading something more into the Rule than is actually there.

31. Viewed thus, U.D. Stenos in the TTD upon conversion as Senior Assistants necessarily had to count their seniority in the latter category only from the date of their conversion and could not claim seniority from the date of their initial appointment/ promotion as U.D. Stenos. Losing sight of this, it appears that the TTD in the first instance came up with a seniority list on 07.01.2003 wherein it took into account the service of U.D. Stenos from the date of their initial appointment as such for the purpose of computing their seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants. In a volte-face, the TTD came up with another seniority list on 19.08.2004 whereby it considered the seniority of U.D. Stenos converted as Senior Assistants only from the date of their conversion as Senior Assistants. The third seniority list dated 08.04.2007 demonstrated another reversal of approach, whereby the TTD again fell back on its earlier seniority list dated 07.01.2003 and confirmed the same. Similar lack of consistency was reflected by the TTD in its stands before this Court. In W.P.Nos.15609 and 15610 of 2004 and 4903 of 2005 filed against the seniority list dated 19.08.2004, the TTD adopted the stand that the U.D. Stenos converted as Senior Assistants could not count their earlier service, prior to such conversion, for the purpose of computation of their seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants. The stand taken in the two writ petitions, from which the appeals on hand arise, was quite to the contrary as the TTD sought to support the seniority lists dated 08.04.2007 and 07.01.2003. Surprisingly, though no further pleadings were filed in these appeals by the TTD indicating another change of stand, the learned standing counsel for the TTD advanced arguments against the seniority list dated 08.04.2007, purportedly on the ground that the legal position under the Rules of 1989 was clear and that the stand of the TTD during the hearing of the writ petitions was contrary thereto. Such lack of clarity on the part of the TTD in its dealings with its employees is disquieting to say the least and reflects the sorry state of affairs prevailing in its administration.

32. The Rules being unchanged after 1989 the understanding thereof by the TTD, whimsical as the winds, obviously played havoc with the careers of its employees. Demonstrably so, as the TTD did not even choose to place the U.D. Stenos converted as Senior Assistants on probation in the latter post and without doing so, merrily granted them promotion to the posts of Superintendents. Rule 8 of the APSSS Rules however makes it clear that eligibility for promotion to a higher post would arise only upon satisfactory completion of probation in the category from which the incumbent is proposed to be promoted. As probation was mandatory under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1989 and the Senior Assistants drawn from the cadre of U.D. Stenos by conversion did not go through this process, they were not eligible for promotion as Superintendents.

33. It is no doubt true that confirmation, by declaration of probation, as specified in Rule 21 of the APSSS Rules has nothing to do with seniority, which is to be determined from the date of first appointment to the service, class, category or grade [as per Rule 33(a) thereof]. As pointed out in S.B. Patwardhan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, seniority cannot be made dependent upon the fortuitous circumstance of confirmation. To that extent, the learned Judge was not correct in pegging seniority on the date of declaration of probation. However, Rule 8 of the APSSS Rules makes it clear that promotion to a higher post can only be granted to a confirmed member of the service. Therefore, irrespective of their seniority the U.D. Stenos who were converted as Senior Assistants, but were not placed on probation, did not have the eligibility to be considered for promotion as Superintendents.

34. In B. Premanand and Others Vs. Mohan Koikal and Others, the Supreme Court was dealing with an inter se seniority dispute. Equity favoured one party while law supported the other. The Supreme Court opined that once the rules were plain and clear the literal rule of interpretation would apply and in such a case, if there is a conflict between equity and law, the latter must prevail. The Court pointed out that several rules of interpretation such as mischief rule, purposive interpretation, etc. can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read literally, would nullify the very object of the statute and where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule. The Court further pointed out that it is not for it to legislate and therefore, even if literal interpretation would result in hardship or inconvenience it has to be followed.

35. This being the legal position, the mere happenstance of the converted Senior Assistants being promoted as Superintendents in violation of the Rules cannot weigh in their favour.

36. We accordingly hold that the Rules of 1989 read with the APSSS Rules mandate that the seniority of Senior Assistants must be reckoned from the date of their appointment as such, be it by promotion from the category of Junior Assistants or by way of conversion from the posts of U.D. Stenos. The service rendered by U.D. Stenos prior to such conversion cannot be taken into account for computing their seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants. The action of the TTD in determining seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants contrary to the aforestated principles is consequently held invalid.

37. The common order in Writ Petition Nos.26242 of 2006 and 9908 of 2007 to the extent it held to this effect therefore does not brook interference and is accordingly confirmed. In consequence, Writ Appeals arising therefrom are dismissed. Interim orders granted pending the appeals shall stand vacated.

38. Writ Petition No. 28202 of 2007 assailing the seniority list dated 08.04.2007 drawn up by the TTD is accordingly allowed.

39. Writ Petition No. 8530 of 2008 filed by a converted Senior Assistant who was thereafter granted promotion to the post of Superintendent, without being placed on probation and without becoming a confirmed member in the cadre of Senior Assistants, is dismissed. The interim order granted therein is vacated.

40. WAMP No. 1252 of 2010 in Writ Appeal No. 831 of 2007 seeking suspension of the common order under appeal in Writ Appeal Nos.831 and 851 of 2007 is dismissed in the light of this final order.

41. There shall be no order as to costs