B. VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS ETC v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 545

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, A. VARADARAJAN, AMARENDRA NATH SEN

Case summary

Graduate Assistants, there is no question of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as Adhoc Rule 13 (I} says that seniority of Pos\ Accordingly the Tribunal dismissed Representa· tion Petition 595 of 1977 and in view of its judgment in that Petiti()n eit.

Judgment text

S4S B. VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS ETC. A· v. ( STATB OF ANDHRA ~RADESH AND OTHERS ' August 8, 1983 [V. v. CHANDRACHUD, c. J. , A. VARADARAJAN ANO ' AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ. J (Andhra Pradesh) Adhoc Rules, 1973framed in G. O. Ms. 939, Education, dated 19-9-1973-lnterpretation of-Rule 13(1)-lnartistica/ly worded-must be read with Rule 3(1) & (2) otherwi1t thisrule /eads to disharmony. (Andhra Pradesh) Adhoe Rules, 1974/ramed In G. O. Ms. 502, Education dated 19·6-1974, Rule 6-Va/idity of. Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Ru/18-Rule 35(c)- Scope of. rJ Pursuant to tho policy decision taken by the Andhra Pradesh Government in 1964 that the secondary school duration should b~ 10 years instead of 11 years and it should be followed by a two years' intermediate course, the Government decided in G. 0. Ms. 1920, Education, dated 25. 10. 1968 that in the existing colleges the two years' intermediate course should be intro· duced and laid down in G. O. Ms. 2063, Education, dated 25. 8.

69 the staff pattern and pay scales of staff 1n Junior Colleges started for the two years' intermediate course. In G. O. Ms. 2186, Education, dated 17. 9. 1969 the Government issued instructions regardina: the absorption of Post . Graduate teachers in Junior Colleges on the basis of the Post-Graduate degree and th1 number of years of service rendered by them. It was stated in that G. O. that all the existing Post Graduates who will be absorbed as Junior Lecturers in Junior Colleges will be appointed temporarily as Junior Lecturers pendina framing of adhoc rules in due course. The Government ordered in G. O. Ms_. 1147, Education, dated 4. 6. 1970 that in the common seniority list first rank should be given only to those who have secured first and second class Post· Graduatedegree. On 19. 9. 1973 the Government framed Adhoc Rules, 1973 with retrospective effect Crom 1. 8. 1969 for the temporary post of Junior . ,,_. Lecturers in Junior Colleges.

Rule 13 of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 says that seniority of Post Graduate Assistants appointed as Junior Lecturers shall. bi · determined with reference to the dates of their actual appointment as Post Graduate Assistants. Rule 3·states that post-graduates with first Or second class degree! are to be given preference over PoSt-Graduates· holding third class degrees. On 19. 6. 1974 the Government framed Adhoc Rules, 1974 for the temporary posts of principals of Junior Colleges with retrospective effect from 1. 8. 1969. Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 prescribes ·first or second class Post·Graduate degree for promotion of Junior Lecturers to the posts of Principals of Junior Colleges. Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rules 1974 says that a person who held the post of Prjncipal of a Juniof Colle~ immediateJr befo~ the issue of these Rules shall be continued as Principal and given option either i\ to continue in t~e post of Priricipal or to re"'. ert to his original post.

The appellants in Civil Appeals l652-J659 of 1978 who were working as Post-Graduate Assistants and were, first or second class Post-Graduate degree ) holders were ·appointed as Junior lecturers in 1969. Soon after the Adhoc Rules, 1973 were framed the second respondent, Joint Director of Higher Education, prepared a silbjectwiSe seniority list in 1974 and on the basis of their seniorjty in that seniority list all the appellants except one were proqioted as Principals of different Junior Colleges. The first respondent State, under the directions of the High Court ·in a separate proceeding to prepare the seniority list as per Rule 13(1) of ~the Adhoc Rules, 1973, prepared a revised seniority Jist in 1976 in which respondents 3 ·to 8, who were third c1ass Post· Graduate degree holaers and were appointed as Junior Lecturers in 1970 and 1975 were piaced as seniors to the appellants.

The appellants as petitioners filed petitions in the Administrative Tribunal for quashing the revised seniority list of 1976 and restoring the earlier seniority list of 1974 or in the alternative for declaring that Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 is Violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ·The petitioners contended· that under the Adhoc Rules Post-Graduate . Assistants with first clod second class Post- Graduate degrees should be treated as one group and as senior to Post- Graduate Assistants With third class Post-Graduate degrees~ The Tribunal· held that the seniority list of 1976 framed as per Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rides, 1973. having precedence over the earlier executive instruction is valid and as the petitioners and respondents 3 to 8 belonged to the san1e category of Post-Graduate Assistants, there is no question of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellants.

in Civil Appeal 415Of1979 who weie working as School As,istants in Higher Secondary Schools and were thi1 d class Post Graduates were appointed as Junior. Lecturers in Junior Colleges in terms of Rule 3 of the Adhoc Rules, 1973. Pending the fran1ing of Adhoc RuleS for the temporary posts of Principals of Junior Colleges, the second respondent Director of Public Tnstru~tions, issued proceedings dated 14. 3. 1974 promotin~ under Rule lO(a) (i) of the State and ·Subordinate Services Rules ·seven tlurd class Post Graduate Junior Lecturers as Principals of Junior Colleges. The appellants as petitioners challenged in the Administrative Tribunal these Adhoc promotions. They also challenged the validity of Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 on the ground that it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Tribunal held that. Rule 6 does not contravene Articles 14 and ·16 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal found nothing objectionable in Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 which protects the right of third class Post Gtaduate degree holders who had been promoted under Rule IO(a) (i) of tho State and Subordinate Services Rules pending framing of Adhoc Rules. Allowing Civil AppealS 1652-59 ar. d di~missing Civil Appeal415, HELD : There is no need to quash Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, t973 which bas to be ~nterpreted in the {Ilanner indicated i. n the . Judgment and B. V. REDDY V. ANiiHRA PRADESH 547 seniority has to be fi. ed accordingly. The soniority list of 1976 i1 quuhea and the. seniority list of 1974 is restored. Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rule•, 1974 I\. ·is valid. [571 H, 572 A] There is no reason to think that the Government intended by Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules. 1973 · to take away ffom first and second class Po! t~ '" .. ( . >.

Graduate Junior Lecturers the preference shown to them over third class Post~Graduate Junior Lecturers in the executive instructions especially G. O. Ms. 1147, Education, dated 4,6. 1970 and even in Rule 3(1) and (2) ·of the Adhoc Rules, 1973. Rules3(1) and (2) and 13(1) have to be read together. Only thf:n there· will be harmony between those rules. ·· If Rule 13(1) is read without reference to Rule 3(1) and (2) the consequence will be disharmony and the first and second class Post-Graduate Juni_or Lecturers who were given preference over third class Post·Graduate Junior Lecturers will be placed in a less advantageous and inferior position as compared with third class Postw Graduate Junior Lecturers as regards seniority alone, which will not even help them in the matter of promotion as . Principals of Junior Colleges in view of Rule 6 of Adho-c Rules, 1974 so long ·as they do not improve their academic attainment by obtaining a first-or second class Post-Graduate Degree.

Every rule i'n the Adhoc Rules must be given its full, natural and legal effect. There is no doubt that Rule 13(1) is inartisticaIIy worded though when read with Rule 3(1) and (2) it would be clear that the principle laid down in it has to h• applied separately to ~ach of the three categories of Junior Lecturers mentioned in Rule 3(1) and (2). Each of these three categories forms a distinct- and aeparate categOry. The first category consisls of- first· and. second class Post~ Graduates, and on their appointment as Junior Lectur~rs their inter se seniority . has to be fixed under Rule 13(1) with reference to the dates of their original appointment as Post Graduate School Assistants. When Post-Graduates with not less than five years of service, working as Post Graduate School Assistants are appointed as Junior LS! cturers t}icir inter se seniority has to be fixed likewise under Rule 13(1) on the basis of the dates of their original appointment as Post-Graduate School AssLtUnts.

Similarly, when Post-Graduates with less than five years of service, working as Post Graduate School Assistants are appointed as Junior Lecturer~their inter se seniority has to be fixed on the basis of the dates of their. original appointment as Post-Graduate School Assistants. If Rule 13(1) is inierpret_ed in this manner, no disharmony will result from applying all the adhoc rules. It is only by constructing Rule 13(1) in this manner the Government framed the seniority list of 1974. . [569 D-H, 570 A-FJ ,..... The object of achieving excellence in t:ducational institutions like Junior Colleges is a laudable one, and excellence in academic attainments of heads of such institutions is a relevant fact. Promotion of Junior Lecturers as Principals is based only on merit judged by their academic distinction which cannot be said to be discriminatory.

Prescribing a first or second class Post- Graduate Degree for the head of an educational institution has a direct nexus with the object of excellence sought to be achieved, and it cannot be said to be discriminatory. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that Rule 6 of the Adhoc Jlules, 1974 is l_iabJC to b"e st~uck down as being discriminatory and illegal. (572 G-H, 573 AJ 54g SUPRl! Mll COURT REPOllTS , S. M, Pandit v. Stat• ofG•farat. • 1972 S. L. R. 79 not applicable. ~o promotions of seven third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers as Principals were irregular having regard to the fact that even for appointment as JuniOr Lecturers preference has to be given to first and second class Post- Graduate School Assistants. The irregularity has been sought to be overlooked by providing a saving clause by way of Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rule1, 1974.

It is not possible to think that ¢here could have been any valid necessity to continue those adhoc promotions made ~ven after, the Adhoc Rules, 1974 . were framed within about three months of those promotions. There is no meaning in proViding for thC option in that rule as it is not likely that a person who has been promoted as Principal Would voluntarily opt for reverting to his original post of Junior Lecturer. However, having regard to the long lapse of time it is not desirable to declare those appointm1nts as illeaal.

[573 E-H, 574 A] Rule 33(c) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules applies to persons who were transferred from one class or category of service to another class or category of the same service and would not apply to the facts of the present case where Junior Lecturers have been appointed by selection amongst Post Graduate School Assistants in the manner indicated in Rule 3(1) and (2) of the Adhoc Rules and there is no question of transfer of Post· Graduate School Assistants as Junior Lecturers. [571 C-E] Reserve Bank of India v. N. C. Paliwal, A. LR. 1976 S. C. 2342 not applicable. - CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1652 to 1657 of 1978. Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 31st August, 1978 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribu'nal in Representation Petitions Nos. 595 and 985 of 1977 and · 340, 289, 466 and ,533 of 1978. •· WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 1658 and 1659 of 1978.

Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 8th September, 1978 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Representation Petitions Nos. 561 and 59 of 1978. · AND Civil Appeal No. 415of1979. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 31st August, 1978 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Transferred Writ Petition No. 941 of 1976. B. V. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarajan, J. ) 549 ' M. N. Phadke, M. R. K. Choudhary, B. Kanta Rao and Miss Nalini, for the Appellants in CA. Nos. 1652-59/78. S. N. Kacker ·and B. Parthasarthi, for the Appellants in CA 415. T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, ·B K. Ramkumar and Mrs. J. Ramachandran, for RR. 3, 5, 8 and 9 · in CAS. 1652·59/78. •, P. Ram Reddy, and G. Narayana Rao for. RR. 1 and 2 in CA. 1652-59 and 415 of 1979. . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by vAl\ADARAJAN, J.

' These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgments of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Representation Petitions 595 of 1977 and batch and , transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976. C. As. Nos. 1652 to 1659 of 1978 have been filed against the common judgment dated 31. 8. 1978 in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 and batch in which common issues arose for consideration while C. A. No. 415 of 1979 has been filed against the separate judgment, dated 31. 8. 1978 in Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976. All these appeals by the petitioners before the Tribun~I were heard together in this Court and will be disposed of by a common judgment. The main judgment of the Tribunal in Represeniation Petition 595 of 1977 and batch is in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 in accordance with which tlie other Representation Petitions in the batch have been disposed of as stated elsewhere in this judgment.

Repr('sentation Petition 595 of 1977 was filed by seven petitioners of whom petitioners Nos I to 6 were worki~g as Principals of Junior Colleges at various places while the seventh petitioner was working ,. ,... as aJunior Lecturer in Government College, Srikakulam in An\ihra Pradesh and claimed to be ripe for promotion as Principal of Junior College on the basis of his original seniority among junior Lecturers. We will refers to the parties in these appeals as arrayed before the · Tribunal for the sake of convenience. · The seven pettioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 who were working as Post-Graduate Assistants or Headmasters 'ii\ $50 . SUPRBMll COURT RBPORTS · (1983) 3 s. c. n. • t)l;e ~~la Parishad Higher Secondary Schools ·at different places were appointed as junior Lecturers in 1969 as they were all Post-Graduates . who had passed in the first or second class-with 50% marks and above and werefully eligible for appointment as Junior Lecturers. The ( \•.

j " \j ' petitioners' contention is that under the Adhoc Rules governin2 Junior Lecturers they being Post-Graduates who had passed in first or~second- class, should be placed in the seniority list above Post- Graduate Assistants who · hold only third class Post-Graduate degrees. The second respondent, joint Director of Higher Education, Andhrli Pradesh, prepared a subject-wise ;eniority list in 1974 as per the rules,, placing the seven petitioners in . Representation Petiiion 595 of 1977 at Nos. 17, 15, 20, 21, 23, 40 and 41 respectively. · On • ~ ! 1 ' ' ' ' • ' . the basis of that seniority Junior Lecturers upto the ran) ost-Gradnate Assistants. The Government denied that Rule 13 (0 is viol~tive of Articles, 14 and 16 of the Constitution and contended in the counter-affidavit that the Education Department followed the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W. P. No.

4358 of 1974 ,and Writ Appeal 920 of 1975 and cancelled the earlier seniority list of· 1974 and framed the revised seniority list of 1976 according to ·Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules. Thus the Government oppsed the Representation Petitions. . . ' The Tribunal has taken note in Pa,rl)grl\ph 9•of,its judgment of the fact that the petitioners are first and second class Post-Graduate degree holders whi. le respondents . 3 to. 8 are only third class Post· \ . Graduate degree hblders correctly, but it bas' wrongly observed that. • . - 't - ' both the categories of Post-Graduate Assistants have been, apPQinted, as Junior Lecturers under Rule 3 (I) (i) of the Adhoc Rules issued in G. 0. Ms 939, Education, dated 19. 9. 1973. It was not disputed n. v. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarqjan,'J.. ) SSS before us. that the petitioners being ·first and second class. P~st~' Graduates with 50 per cent and more· marks were appointed as.

Junior Lecturers in I969 and that respondents 3 to 8 wlio are· third· class Post-Graduates were appointed as~ Junior l:ecfofors only' in . ~ 1 ~· ' 1970 and 1975. Therefore, the petitioners and some of respondents 3 to 8 had been appointed in 1969a~d·1970 before the Adhoc' R'u/es ·· l · were framed on 19. 9. 1973 and only some ofihe respondents 3 to'' 8 were appointed in 1975 under Rule 3 (I) (i) of those Adhoc Rule's; The fact that the petitioners were appoinied ·as' Junior LeCttirers earlier than the respondents was wnceded by Mr. Shiv Shankar · , before . the Tribunal as seem from paragraph 8· of the Tribunal's judgment. The Tribunal ,noted the following further facts :- . (1) That Government bad decided ,in G. O. Ms. 2063, ,Education, dated 25. 8. 1969 that first ·and second class Post-Graduates would be given a 4igher starting pay of Rs. 260 in in the scale of Rs. 200-500 ·and that third class Post:Graduates would.

be allowed only the pay drawn by them before they were appointed · as Junior Lecturers in the above scale; (2) That the Government expressed the view in G. O. Ms. 1147, Education, dated 4. 6. 1970 that in the common seniority lisi first rank should be given only to those who have secured first or second class Post-Graduate degrees with 50 percent marks and above whiCh is the qualification prescribed for direct recuruitment of Juniot . Lecturers; and (3) That in Rule 3 (I) (i) of the Adhoc Rules framed 1 on 19. 9. 1973 it is stipulated that at the time of appointment to the category of'Junior Lecturers persons with. first or second class Post Graduate degrees would have preference over persons with third class Post ·Graduate degrees. · But the Tribunal relied heavily on the fact. that the Andlira Pradesh High Court had directed in Writ Appeals 920 and. 938 of. c· 1975 that the seniority list sp.

ould be prepared in' accordance with' Rule 13 (I) of the Adhoc Rules,'1973 which have been given retrosr ' pective effect from 1. 8. J. 969 and. held. that the iQJpugned seniority list framed as per Rule 13(1) of tp. e Adhoc Rules having :precedence over the earlier execu'tive instruction is valid and that as the petitioners and Hi _respondents 3 to 8 belonged to the 'same ·category. of Post . Graduate Assistants, there is no question of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as Adhoc Rule 13 (I} says that seniority of Pos\ • ' SUPREME COURT RBPoRTS [1983) 3 s. c,ii.. Graduate Assistants appointed as Juni6r Lecturers shall b~ deter· mined with reference to the dates of their actual appointment as Post Graduate Assistants or the probable dates on which they would have been, appointetd as Post Graduate Assistants but for their appointment or promotion to higher posts.

The Tribunal has obsei;ved that if the intention of the Government was otherwise they would have specifically provided acco~dingly. In this view the l. Tribunal rejected the petitioners' prayer for restoring the old seniority list prepared in 1974 which in its opinion is contrary to Rule 13 (1) of the Adhoc Rules. Accordingly the Tribunal dismissed Representa· tion Petition 595 of 1977 and in view of its judgment in that Petiti()n eit. her rejected or dismissed Representation Petitions 985 of 1977 and 289, 340, 446 and 553 of 1978. In Representation Petition 273 of 1978 the Tribtlnal observed, that the plea of the petitioners that first and second· class Post Graduate degree holders should be given preference over third class Post Graduate degree holders in the matter of seniority as Junior Lec'turers is covered by its judgment in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 and that since the petitioners in Representation Petition 273 of 1978 have already acquired B. Ed.

qualification, which is a pre-requisite for regular appointment as Post Graduate Assistants, 'the question of those petitioners' regularisation in the posts -of Post Graduate Assistants should be examined in accordance with the rules and their service should be be regularised in. that category and thereafter their seniority as Junior Lecturers should be determined in accordance with Rule I3 (I) of the Adhgc Rul wing prefe'rence and priority for P-ost-Gradiiate School Assistants 'holdiiig first and · second·· class· 'Post! Grad'uate . degrees over such· Assistants· holding _: . only thiid dass Post~Graduate d! grees in the-matter: of appofotment . ·as JuniOt Lectur~rs inJunior Colleges and . of· promotion of Junior· . tecturesrs as 'Principals:·of 'Junior Colleges and - submitted 'that - ,. ,. , '.. - . ' _- . . '-" . : - ' - --- . , ' _, . ' .

fixing seniority of Junior Lecturers holding· first and 'second Glass • Post-GradJate degree;, f()mii~g one group and of those holding third ·,'class'~ost-Graduate degi-~es; rorming anot~er group,•oi{ the basis· of - . 'the-dates of their 'original appointment ·as Post;Graduatc' School . - - ~-A~sistai:itsis arbitary anl therefore _the impugned seniority list· of· ~ _1976 should be quashed_and the seniority of the petitioners in' the ·· 'Reprsentation Petitions {appellants in Civil Appeals f65? to· 1659 'of . - "i978) fixed in tb. e list 'of. 1974 'should be restored. ' "But Mr. ' T. S. ! D - ,krishqa MoortY. Tyer Senior Adv~cate :. appearing_: for. the· contesting . , . - · _. _ private respondents ·3, 5; 8 and 9 in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 to · Jns argued that before their appointment' as 'Jllnior Lecturers ·Post_ ' . • • '. " ~ . '' - , . t • • " - . - , - Graduate Ass15tants holdmg first, second. and third class Post- . _' ':..

Graduat~ Degrees were:doing the sa~e'work and drawi~g -the same 0 . '---. :__ . : scale of pay. 'Jie submitted that though in G. O. Ms. 20~,' Education, . " dated 25. 8. 1969 ! twas stated thit first or second Class Post·Gcaduates --- will be given ahigher start of Rs: 260 in the pay scale ofRs. 200-15- - . 320·20-500 and third class Post-Graduates will be allowed. only ·the . pay dtawn by them -before their appointment as Junior· Lecturers in. the pay scaleof Rs: 200-500 if their. pay-was more than ihe. minimnm , · - •- 'of the new. seaie on th~ir'appoiniment as Junior Le st. Graduate Junior il. v. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Varadarqjan, J. ) S69 --f Lecturers when they were all-Post-Graduate School Assistants would indicate that the Government who framed the Adhoc Rules themselves interpreted Rule 13(1) in the manner in which.

the appellants in (:ivil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978 invite us to do, giving full effect to the priority laid down in Rule 3(1) and (2) of the Adhoc Rules which follows· the policy laid down in that regard in G. O. Ms.. 1147, Education, dated 4. 6. 1970. It is true that we cannot base our decision on this question on that fact alone especially having regard to the stand now taken before us and the Tribunal by the Government as regards the interpretation of Rule 13(1) which perhaps they are obliged to take in view of the direction given by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeals . 920 to 938 of 1975 whichis binding on them to prepare a fesh seniority list as has been done by them subsequently in 1976 whichis impugned in Civil Appeal~ 1652 to 1659 of 1978. As stated earlier there is no material on record to show that the Government had any reason, policy or otherwise, when they fr;imed the Adhoc Rules, 1973 to depart from what they had decided in G. 0. Ms.

1147, Education, dated 4. 6. 1970 about how · seniority should be accorded. There is no reason to think that the _Government intended by Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules to take away -~ from the first and second class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers the preference shown to them over third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers in the executive instructions especially G. 0. Ms. 1147, Education, dated 4. 6. 1970 and even in Rule 3(1) and (2) of the Adhoc E· Rules, 1973. As contended by the appellants in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 of 1978 Rules 3(1) and (2) and 13(1) have to be read together. Only then there will be harmony between those rules.

If Rule 13(1) is read without reference to Rule 3(1) arid (2) the consequence will be disharmony and the first and the second class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers who were given preference over third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers by the other provisions mentioned above, will be placed in a Jess advantageous and inferior position as compared with third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers as regards seniorit~ alone, whi_ch will not even help them in the matter of promotion as Principals of Junior Colleges in view of Rule 6 of Adhoc Rules, 1974 so long as they do not improve their academic attainment by obtain- -~ ing a first or second class Post Graduate Degree. Every · rule in the Adhoc Rules must be given its full, natural and legal effect.

There 1s no doubt that Rule 13(1) is inartistically worded though when read Rule 3(1) and (2) it would be clear that the principal laid down in it has to be applied separately to each of the three categories of Junior Lecturers mentioned in Rule 3(1) and (2) viz. 1) first and s7o SUPREME COURT "· ~ [19S3j 3 s. c. ~. second class-Post Graduates, (2) third class Post-Graduates with not · less than five years of service, working as Post Graduate School Assistants, and (3) third class Post Graduates with less than five years ·ofservice, working as Post-Graduate School Assistants . according to the order in' which they have to be selected for appointment as Junior ·Lecturers. Each of these three categories forms a distinct and sepa~ rate category. The first category consists of first ·and second class .

Post·Graduate, and on their appointment as Junior Lecturers their 'inter se· seniority has to he fixed urider Rule 13(1Jwith reference to 'the dates of their original- appohitment as Post Graduate School Assistants. · When PostcGraduates with not ·less than five years 'Of . 1'ervice working as Post' Graduate ·school ·Assistants are appointed as "Junior Lecturers their inter se ·seniority has ·fo be fixed likewise under ·Rule 13{i) ·oh the basis ost · Graduate Junior Lecturers has to be rejected and it is a. ccordingly rejected. · . . Coming now to the only point argued by Mr. S. N.

Kackar, ·Senior Advocate for the petitioners in Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976 (Civil Appeal 415 of 1979) that Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, ·1974 prescribing a first or second class Post Graduate Degree for a Junior Lecturer's promotion as Principal of a Junior College, thereby excluding third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers from eligibility for promotion as Principals, we would like to state at the outset that the contention put forward before the ,. ribunal tbat the posts of Principals are administrative posts and no teaching experience is required is incorrect. The Director of Public Instructions has stated in his Proceedings Re. No. 1068/IC-4/7. 0 dated 16. l. 197l that Principals of Junior Colleges must take at least six periods of work· per week if not more. Therefore, Principals of Junior Colleges have to take up teaching work in addition to their administrative duties.

They are administrative heads of Junior Colleges where first, second and third class Post Graduates work as Junior Lecturers. They have to exercise administrative control over first, second and third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers. It is therefore very desirable that the Principals should be first or second class Post Graduates. Post of Principals of Junior Colleges are gazetted while those of Junior Lecturers of those colleges are not gazetted. According to G. O. Ms. 206', Education, dated 25. 8. 1969 Principals of Junior Colleges will have the status of Senior Lecturers in Degree Colleges and their pay scale is Rs. 400-800 while the pay scale of Junior Lecturers is·Rs. 200-. 15-320-20-500. The object of achieving excellence in educational institutions like Junior Colleges is a laudable one, and excellence in academic attainments of heads of· such institutions is a relevant fact.

Promotion of Junior Lecturers as Principals is based only on merit judge~ by their academic distinction which cannot be said to be discriminatory. The ratio of this Court's decision in S. •M. Pandit v. ·State of Gujarat(') referred to above cannot be applied to the facts of th@ present case. Prescribing a first or second class Post-Graduate Degree for the head of an educational \I) (1972] S. L. R. 79. B. V. REDDY v. ANDERA PRADESH (Varatfarojrn, J. ) 573 institution·has a direct ne~us with the object of excellence sought to be achieved, and it cannot be said to be discriminatory. Therefore, we do not think that Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 is liable to be struck down as being discriminatory and illegal. Pending the framing of Adhoc Rules . for the temporary posts of Principals of Junior Colfoges, the . Director of Public Instructions issued proceedings in Re 775-Cl/2/74 dated 14. 3. 1974 promo.

ting under Rule IO(a) (i) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules seven third class Post Graduate Junior Lecturers as Principals of Junior Colleges. The third prayer in Transferred Writ· Petition 7146 of 1976 is that those appointments should be declared as inegal. Under Rule 6(ii) of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 framed subsequently in G. O. Ms. 502, Education, dated 19. 6. 1974 three years' service in the Andhra Pradesh Edui;ational Subordinate Service is prescribed as a qualification for promotion of Junior L~turers "as Principals of Junior Colleges in addition to a first or second clasr Post Graduate Degree. It is not known whether when those promotions of seven I) third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers as Principals were made first or second class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers were not avail· able for promotion or why after the Adhoc Rules, 1974 were framed within about thre~ months thereafter those third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers were not reverted as Junior Lecturers.

Their promotions were irregular having. regard to the fact that even for appointment as Junior Lecturers preference has to be given to first and second class Post-Graduate School Assistants. The irregularity has been sought to be overlooked by providing a saving clause by way of Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 where it is stated that notwithstanding anything contained in those rules a person who held the post of Prmcipal of a Junior College immediately before the issue of those rules and who was not appointed in accordance with those rules, shall be continued as Principal and he is given an option either to continue in the post of Principal or to revert to his original post. We do not think that there could have been any valid necessity to continue those adhoc promotions made even after the Adhoc Rules, 1974 were framed within about three months of those promotions.

We think that there is no meaning in providing for the option in that rule as it is not likely that a person who has been promoted as Principal in the grade of Rs.. 400-800 would voluntarily opt for reverting to his original post of Junior Lecturer in the grade of Rs. 2QQ·l5·320-20-50Q. However, having regard to s74 supui. ii! couirr isroRrs [1983] 3 s. c. R. th~ long fapse ohime we do not thirik it desfrable to deciare those . appoiiitirlerits as illegal. In the result tivii Appeals i652 to 165§ of j97g ar~ allowed as indicated. above and Civil Appeal 415 of 1979 is dismissed. The contesting respondents in Civil Appeals 1652 to 1659 . of 1978 shall pay the costs of the appe'lants . in those appeals. Advocate's fees B . one set. The parties shall bear their respective costs in Civil Appeal 4i5;of' 1g79, H. S,J([,. CA Nos. 1652·59 of 1978 allowed aiid CA No. 415 of1979 dismis$e'/J. ,. iJ