TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Filling Regional Transport Officer posts via inter-zonal transfers of section officers despite 1975 Order; transfer approvals upheld</h1> The dominant issue was whether Regional Transport Officer posts could be filled by transfer of Secretariat Section Officers and State Transport Authority ... Recruitment to the posts of Regional Transport Officers - Whether the post of Regional Transport Officer in the Department of Transport can be filled in by transfer of Section Officers of the Secretariat and Superintendents of the Office of the State Transport Authority - HELD THAT:- The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal found that the appoint-ments of Superintendent in the office of State Transport Authority and Section Officers working in the Secretariat to the posts of Regional Transport Officers are contrary to the Presidential Order of 1975. Consequentially, their appoint-ments were set aside. It is against the said order and judgment the appointees whose appointments were set aside and State of Andhra Pradesh are in appeal before us. Appellant urged that this matter stands concluded by a decision of this Court in the case of State of A.P. v. V. Sadanandam [1989 (5) TMI 325 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held that overriding power has been given to the State Government under paragraph 5(2) of the Presidential Order in express terms in recognition of the principle that public interest and administrative exigencies has precedence over the promotional interest of the members of the local cadres and zones and therefore, the State Government by order of transfer can fill the vacancies on the posts in different zones, as contemplated under the Rules. Rule of per incurium cannot be invoked in the present case. Moreover, a case cannot be referred to a larger Bench on mere asking of a party. A decision by two Judges has a binding effect on another coordinate Bench of two Judges, unless it is demonstrated that the said decision by any subsequent change in law or decision ceases to laying down a correct law. We, therefore, reject the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents. Following the decision in the case of State of A. P. v. Sadanandam (supra), we reject the arguments of counsel for the respondents. We accordingly set aside the judgments and orders under appeal. The appeals are allowed. Issues involved: Interpretation of recruitment rules for the post of Regional Transport Officer in the Department of Transport.Summary:The appeals questioned whether the post of Regional Transport Officer can be filled by transferring Section Officers and Superintendents. The recruitment rules, known as Andhra Pradesh Transport Services Rules, specify the methods of recruitment, including transfer from Superintendents and Section Officers. The appointments made under this rule were challenged, leading to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal setting them aside. The appellants argued that the State Government has the power to transfer employees to fill vacancies as per the Presidential Order of 1975. The respondents contended that recruitment by transfer is not permitted under the Order. The Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the respondents, citing a previous decision that upheld the State Government's power to transfer employees to fill vacancies. The Court emphasized that the State Government's powers under the Order prioritize public interest and administrative exigencies over promotional interests. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, judgments and orders were set aside, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
