Supreme Court of India
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. versus A.V. VENUGOPALA RAO
- Decided
- 14 November 1994
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA
Citations
- Official
- [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 473 · 1994 INSC 516
- Also cited as
- (1995) 1 SCC 179
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 474, margin B
In th(l impugned order dated April 28, 1994, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6190/93 directed that the direction issued by the Tribunal "will not preclude the authorities from putting an existing Executive Engineer in additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer or an existing Superintending Engineer similarly wherever required. The Committee also will examine the aspect that where there are no controversies, the consideration ·of promotion of Executive Engineers should be placed before: the Tribunal for any further directions. Any incharge arrangements to the posts of Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers or Chief Engineers made after interim order, are revoked and they stand divested of that charge, within one week." This part of the order is now mainly assailed iri this appeal. Before issuing of notice to the respondent by our proceedings dated July 13, 1994, Shri K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel had stated that pending finalisation of the seniority list, the lncharges arrangement was made to keep senior most in the provisional list of the respective divisions who are eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as incharge so as to avoid heart burning among the officers and that arrangement is being worked out satisfactorily. The impugned directions would create administrative ·problems. Therefore, when such statement was made we directed the learned counsel to place on record of provisional seniority list and orders of Incharge given to the stated senior most persons in the respective divisions. Accordingly, they have placed on record the provisional seniority list and also order of incharge arrangement from the respective divisions. This position has not been controverted. However, the learned counsel for the respondent in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of ti\e respondent has controverted the correctness and legality of the provisional seniority list as such. Since that matter is now pending adjudication in the Tribunal, we direct the Tribunal to look into the matter.
p. 474, margin B
As to what is done, is an interim arrangement of the Government for smooth functioning of the department, we think that the Tribunal was not justified in upsetting the interim arrangement which has got a rational and reasonable basis to avoid administrative hardship or heart burning to the persons who claimed to the posts of respective Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers and the Chief Engineers, as the case may be. Under these circumstances, the above quoted order of the Tribunal is set aside and the interim incharge arrangement made by the State Government would continue till the disposal of O.As pending before the Tribunal. The · Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. A.G. Appeal allowed.
pp. 474–475, margin G