Supreme Court of India
P. SATYANARAYANA RAO & ANR. ETC. versus S.V.P. SARVANI & ORS.
- Decided
- 2 December 2008
- Judges listed
- MARKANDEY KATJU, AFTAB ALAM
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1075 · 2008 INSC 1380
- Also cited as
- (2009) 1 SCC 419
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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
In Civil A1u~eal Nos.7360~7361/2002:
p. 1076, margin B
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
p. 1076, margin C
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 Junior Assistant in the office of the Head of the Department is a Category-10 post and the minimum qualification there is Graduation.
p. 1076, margin C
Rule 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~ ..
p. 1076, margin E
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.
pp. 1076–1077, margin F
Civil Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs. In Civil Appeals Nos.7359/2002 & 2548-2549/2004:
p. 1077, margin C
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
p. 1077, margin D
For 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. R.P. Appeals allowed.
p. 1077, margin E