WP/5323/2022 of Y.Jayasri, Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 August 2026

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following few lines: …to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus, to declare the action of respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioner and not including the petitioner name in promotion seniority list in terms of government orders/memos/rules is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative Article 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to prepare any promotion seniority list without including the petitioner name in promotion seniority list for the Senior accountant or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and justice.

2. It is narrated in the affidavit that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds and the services of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f., 31.12.2013, and the probation of the petitioner was also declared w.e.f., 08.01.2016 vide proceedings dated 09.05.2016 and the 3rd respondent i.e. Deputy Director, District Treasury, Vizianagaram, vide proceedings dated 18.01.2017, temporarily appointed the petitioner as Junior Accountant on transfer, later the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Junior Accountant from the category of Office Subordinate and the petitioner was joined on 23.01.2017 as Junior Accountant, Sub Treasury, Bobbili,and the petitioner is receiving time scale pay of Junior

Accountant from 23.01.2017 and the petitioner has completed 5 years of service from the date of promotion to the post of Junior Accountant i.e. 23.01.2017.

3. And the petitioner’s services to be regularized pursuant to the Memo No.A2/6217/2014 dated 27.02.2016 of the 2ndrespondent, but the 3rd respondent is not included the name of the petitioner in promotion seniority list for the next panel year and should be placed as per the seniority list in the next panel year and the 3rd respondent has addressed a letter dated 07.07.2018 to the 2nd respondent seeking clarification for promotion to the individuals who appointed after 12.05.2014 for giving promotion to 12 individuals on adhoc basis for the aforesaid letter dated 07.07.2018, the 2nd respondent vide circular memo No.11033/33/2018-A Sec-DTA, dated 10.09.2018 informed that the promotion should be in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.22, Finance (Admn.III) Department, dated 26.02.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.135 GA (Ser.B) Department, dated 13.05.2014 to be strictly followed. Pursuant to the clarification issued by the 2nd respondent on 10.09.2018, annual grade increments which were not released earlier were released subsequently.

4. It is further stated that as per Memo No.FIN02-11023/2/2018A SEC-DTA, dated 01.06.2019, the respondent No.2 communicated to all Deputy Directors of District Treasuries in the State, to furnish names of junior accountants and junior accountants were not undergo induction training in the prescribed proforma and also requested to forward a separate list of candidates who have promoted on adhoc basis as per the memo dated 01.06.2019, the petitioner has qualified and eligible for inclusion in the panel for the promotion to the category of senior accountants and for undergoing 3 months Induction Training at APHRD Institute, Vijayawada and the petitioner’s services are deemed to be regularized as well as the probation period has been completed satisfactorily.

5. And it is further stated that the respondent No.3 was not following G.O.Ms.No.22 Fin.(Admn.III) dated 26.02.2011 guidelines prescribed for appointments and promotions to the category of the posts of Senior Accountants in Treasury Department in supersession of the orders issued in Andhra Pradesh Treasuries and Accounts Subordinate Services Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.201 Finance Department, dated 08.06.1983. Due to induction of new rules, out of 10 vacancies of Senior Accountants, 3 posts have to be filled up by direct recruitment. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition, and consequently prayed to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner for promotion in Senior Accountant in Treasury Department.

6. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit denying all the contentions that raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition inter alia it is stated that according to the service register, the petitioner has passed the examination of Accounts test for Subordinate Officers Part-I and II during the year 2015 and acquired academic qualification B.Sc., in the year 2017. It is further stated that as per the Rule 3(b) of G.O.MsNo.22, Finance (Admn.III) Department, dated 26.02.2011, appointment to the category of Junior Accountants in Branches I, II, III and IV shall be made out of rotation of six vacancies in the cycle rotation, these vacancies namely in the following: 1st vacancy: By transfer from lower category (s) 2nd vacancy: By conversion from Typists/L.D. Stenos 3rd vacancy: BY direct recruitment 4th vacancy: By direct recruitment 5th vacancy: By direct recruitment 6th vacancy: By direct recruitment.

7. As per G.O.Ms.No.22, out of six junior accountant vacancies, one vacancy is only to be filled up by promotion/appointment/transfer and five junior accountant vacancies have to be filled up by direct recruitment as there is no conversion available for promotion and the 2nd respondent, vide memo dated 10.09.2015 permitted all the Deputy Directors of District Treasurers in the State to fill up the Junior Accountant posts by giving promotions to eligible employees of lower categories on adhoc basis subject to condition that they should be reverted back to their original post as and when notified candidates are allotted through APPSC under direct recruitment category. And the regularization and probation declaration in the category of Junior Accountant will be done as and when the actual vacancies arise in promotion quota after including in the regular panel.

8. And the petitioner is not eligible for regularization in the category of Junior Accountant, since she was appointed as Junior Accountant purely on adhoc basis subject to certain conditions viz, the petitioner’s services will be regularized only after approval of name in the regular panel. But the name was not included in the regular panel till date, since no vacancies earmarked for promotion has been arise and therefore the contention of the petitioner for her regularization is not tenable and not acceptable.

9. Further asserted that the rules that specified in G.O.Ms.No.22, Finance (Admn.III) Department, dated 26.02.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.135, G.A. (Ser.B) Department, dated 12.05.2014 are to be strictly followed as and when direct recruit is appointed against the point of direct recruitment quota the petitioner had to revert back and the rule of quota being a statutory one must be strictly implemented and it is impermissible for the authorities concerned to deviate from the rule due to administrative exigencies of expediency. The result of punishing down the promotees appointed in excess of the quota may work hardship but it is unavoidable and any construction otherwise would be illegal, nullifying the force of statutory rules.

10. It is further stated that the services of the petitioner will be regularized as and when the actual vacancies arise in promotion quota duly including her name in the regular panel, as on the date, there is no junior accountant vacancies are arises. Hence, her name was not included in the regular seniority. And it is further stated inclusion of the name in regular panel are alone to be drafted for induction training that too as per seniority and the petitioner was promoted only on adhoc basis and not inclusion her name in the regular panel, as such petitioner’s name was not recommended for induction training.

11. Therefore, it is stated that the averments made by the petitioner that her name was included in the panel is not correct and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. .

12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.

13.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

The substantial argument of the learned senior counsel is that the petitioner was transferred and appointed as Junior Accountant in the year 2017 since then the petitioner is discharging her duties as Junior Accountant continuously and the petitioner services has not been regularised for the last 5 years till the date of filing of the writ petition and it was contended that because the respondents have not initiated a recruitment process for the Junior Accountant cadre; the petitioner’s appointment, while initially adhoc or a stopgap arrangement, but the necessity arises for temporary period not permanent and the petitioner cannot be continued indefinitely without regularisation in the cadre of

Junior Accountant. Counsel further argued that even if the quota rule under Rule 3(b) of G.O. Ms No. 22, Finance (Admn. III) Dept., dated 26.02.2011, was technically sidestepped, the State has the authority to relax recruitment rules and regularize the services of employees who have rendered long years of service. Consequently, it was vehemently argued that the refusal to regularize the petitioner’s service is arbitrary and that such relaxation should be deemed to have been granted.

14. Counsel for the Petitioner further argues that probation should be deemed successfully completed unless the appointing authority, upon evaluating the probationer's performance by the end of the prescribed or extended period, formally decides and records that it has not been completed. The authority is required to issue an order confirming the successful completion of probation. If no such order is issued, probation is deemed to be satisfactorily completed retrospectively from the end of the extended period. While a formal order may be issued for administrative record keeping, the failure of the respondents to issue a declaration means that the Petitioner's probation is legally deemed to have been completed.

15. The contention of the respondents in the counter is that the quota prescribed by Rule G.O. Ms No. 22 dated 26.02.2011 being mandatory in character, any appointment in excess of the quota that would render the excess appointees as irregularly appointed and they would not become eligible for promotion in the service of Junior Accountant and hang outside the service, and can be demoted. It was said that once recruits are available from the source for which quota was prescribed, the promotees in excess or their quota can and must be replaced by later entrants.

16. The quota between direct recruits and promotees is governed by Rule 3 (b) of G.O. Ms No: 22, Finance (Admn. III) Dept., dated 26.02.2011 Rules which states that appointment to a category of Junior Accountants in Branches I, II, III and IV shall be made in the following order in the cycle of rotation of 6 vacancies namely:- (1st Vacancy) By transfer from lower category (2nd Vacancy) By conversion from Typists /L.D. Stenos (3rd Vacancy) By direct recruitment (4th. Vacancy) By direct recruitment (5th Vacancy) By direct recruitment (4th Vacancy) By direct recruitment

17. According to the above said rule, out of six (6) posts in the cadre of Junior Accountants, one post will be filled by transfer from the lower category. If any appointments exceed the quota for a specific category, they shall remain valid only until candidates from the alternative source become available and there is no provision for converting ad hoc promotions into permanent promotions. Furthermore, the second respondent, through a memorandum dated 10.09.2015, has authorized all Deputy Directors of District Treasuries in the state to fill Junior Accountant positions by promoting eligible lower category employees on an adhoc basis, with the stipulation that they must revert to their original posts once candidates are allotted via direct recruitment through the APPSC.

18. An adhoc appointment means temporary appointment made without selection of the candidate by any of the methods of recruitment provided under the relevant service rules, or any orders of Government where no service rules exist and otherwise than on the recommendation of the Commission if the post is in its purview." (See judgment: Chanchal Goyal (Dr) v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 3 SCC 485.

19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.G. Sainath Reddy v. Govt. of A.P.1 has held that an Ad hoc employee has no right to the post and ad hoc appointment does not count for the purpose of seniority.

20. In the case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & A.H.T.S. Association and another2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that service rendered by an adhoc appointee cannot be held to be in regular service and cannot be tagged on service rendered by him after regular appointment. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Accountant on adhoc basis and the petitioner cannot be treated as regular service to claim seniority in the Junior Accountant and to direct the respondents not to appoint any Senior Accountant.

1 (2003) 4 SCC 65 2 2000 (8) SCC 4

21. The language that employed in Rule G.O.Ms. No. 22 dated 26.02.2011 shall be treated as mandatory in character. Where recruitment to a service or a cadre is from more than one source, the controlling authority can prescribe quota for each source. The quota rule that was prescribed in the GO is one post by transfer from the lower category to the post of Junior Accountant. When the quota is prescribed, a rule of seniority by rotating the vacancies can be a valid rule for seniority. Promotion is effective from the date it is granted, and the length of service cannot be adopted as the criteria for fixing the seniority and thereby giving go bye to the date of confirmation. The petitioner was not yet confirmed as Junior Accountant in the office of Sub-Treasury, merely continuing for long term the rule of quota cannot break down the established quota rule.

22. May all the contentions raised, be paused for a while. Let the court presume that the petitioner was not given any adhoc promotion; according to the quota rule and based on the petitioner's seniority, the petitioner must wait for promotion in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated 26.02.2011 and there can be any fundamental right to promotion.

23. And at the same time the respondents cannot continue the petitioner on adhoc promotion for a long time. A stopgap or ad hoc promotion should be for short period of months not for years, an employee cannot be continued as on ad hoc basis for a long period, which results in hardship to the employee when he or she is reverted, when regular vacancies filled up by direct recruitment.

24. However, this Court is of the view that after long lapse of nine (9) years, the petitioner cannot be reverted back to office subordinate which would result the petitioner undue hardship. Continuing the petitioner years together under adhoc promotion and reverting whenever a direct recruit is appointed, will cause undue hardship to the petitioner.

25. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as Junior Accountant, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 01.09.2026 Harin

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

W.P.No.5323 of 2022

Date: 01-09-2026

Harin