The Recognition of Pre-Regularization Service in Determining Seniority

1. Introduction

The case of P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas (2025 INSC 212) was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of India on February 13, 2025. It addressed a significant dispute concerning the seniority of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) who were initially appointed on a temporary basis between 1990 and 1995 in the Panchayat Raj Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh, vis-à-vis the seniority of regularly selected AEEs through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) in 1997.

The appellants (i.e., certain AEEs who joined between 1990 and 1992) challenged the judgment of the High Court that had set aside a government order granting these earlier appointees seniority from the date of their initial engagement. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed that these temporarily appointed AEEs are entitled to count their pre-regularization service toward seniority.

The ruling clarifies and strengthens an important principle in Indian service law: if an appointment, although called “temporary,” is not made as a mere stop-gap but is under valid governmental orders and continues uninterrupted until it is ultimately regularized, that pre-regularization period may be counted for determining seniority.

The key parties to this dispute were:

Appellants: AEEs appointed between 1990 and 1992 under various Government Orders (e.g., G.O.M. No. 540 of 1990) for time-bound reconstruction projects but who continued to serve well beyond those projects.
Respondents: AEEs regularly selected through APPSC in 1997 and other temporarily appointed AEEs from 1993 to 1995 who claimed seniority rights or objected to the appellants’ seniority.
State Government: Initially issued two Government Orders, G.O.M. No. 234 (placing all temporarily appointed AEEs below the 1997 recruits) and the impugned G.O.M. No. 262 (granting pre-1994 appointees seniority from the date of first appointment).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, thereby restoring the government’s revised policy (G.O.M. No. 262 of June 17, 2006) which allowed AEEs appointed between 1990 and 1992 to retain seniority from their original date of joining. The High Court’s central holding—that the State had become “functus officio” (unable to revise its policy after G.O.M. No. 234)—was overturned.

Specifically, the Court held:

When no specific service rules were in existence and the AEEs were appointed on sanctioned posts under certain exigencies, their appointments could not be termed de hors (contrary to) the rules.
The notion that the government’s first order (G.O.M. No. 234) rendered it powerless to issue G.O.M. No. 262 was rejected. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of “functus officio” does not fetter future policy decisions of the executive branch.
The pre-regularization service of the AEEs appointed between 1990 and 1992 would be counted towards seniority because their initial appointments were not ad hoc in the sense of being purely temporary stop-gap arrangements.
Consequently, the “1997 APPSC recruits” cannot claim seniority over individuals who had been serving continuously from 1990-1992 until regularization in 2005.

The final verdict confirmed that the AEEs appointed before the promulgation of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services) Act, 1994 should be granted seniority from the date of their first uninterrupted engagement.

3. Analysis

a) Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court heavily relied upon the Constitution Bench case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715, which laid down two key propositions relevant to determining seniority:

Proposition (A): If an initial appointment is purely ad hoc, not in keeping with the rules, and is made as a stop-gap measure, the period of service before regularization cannot be counted for seniority.
Proposition (B): If the initial appointment, while possibly irregular, is not purely ad hoc, and the appointee continues uninterruptedly until being regularized according to the rules, the pre-regularization service can be counted towards seniority.

The Court also considered Santosh Kumar v. State Of A.P. and Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State Of Orissa to illustrate cases where ad hoc or temporary service was counted for seniority when the appointments were not truly stop-gap measures. Furthermore, it cited ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA (2023 SCC OnLine SC 309) and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 to clarify that the State Government is not rendered functus officio with respect to policy decisions or rule-making.

b) Legal Reasoning

At the heart of the legal reasoning was the question: “Should temporarily appointed AEEs between 1990-1992 be granted seniority over those who were regularly recruited in 1997?”

Regular vs. Temporary Appointment: The appellants’ appointments were labeled “temporary” but were made against sanctioned posts under G.O.M. No. 540 of 1990. Significantly, G.O.M. No. 540 did not mandate selection by APPSC, unlike later orders. This indicated that these appointments were not a short-term stop-gap arrangement.
Uninterrupted Service till Regularization: The AEEs appointed under the Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project (CERP) and similar schemes continued to serve from the early 1990s uninterruptedly. Their services were ultimately regularized in 2005 via G.O.M. No. 234.
Classification within Temporarily Appointed AEEs: G.O.M. No. 262 (of 2006) created a necessary distinction between those appointed before the promulgation of the 1994 Act (i.e., 1990-1992 batch) and those after it (1993-1995). Only the earlier batch had effectively been appointed when no specific service rules (requiring APPSC selection) applied.
Policy Modification and “Functus Officio”: The Court roundly rejected the High Court’s view that once G.O.M. No. 234 was issued, the State could not revise its policy. The Court declared that the executive is not prevented from revising its administrative orders, especially in service matters, under the principle of functus officio.

c) Impact

The ruling clarifies a vital area of service jurisprudence regarding how to evaluate the status of “temporary” departmental appointments when they remain in place for extended periods. By melding short-term rules with constitutional and administrative law principles, the Court underscored that genuine long-term service should not be overlooked merely due to the initial manner of appointment, especially if caused by a state’s failure to promptly enact or amend its recruitment rules.

Consequently:

It paves the way for similarly situated employees in other departments and states—who were appointed under pressing project-based exigencies and later regularized—to claim service benefit for those earlier years of work.
It reaffirms that “functus officio” is often inapplicable to executive or policy decisions, thereby ensuring government flexibility to correct or refine policy announcements.
It provides clarity for future recruitment and appointment schemes, guiding policymakers to structure temporary or ad hoc hires consistently with recognized service rules to minimize prolonged litigation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts emerged in this case. Below is a simplified explanation of the major ones:

Ad hoc / Stop-Gap Appointments: These are short-term, immediate appointments made to prevent administrative breakdowns. Generally, employees so appointed for a short period do not get seniority benefits from such appointments unless their service is subsequently recognized as valid from the initial date.
Functus Officio: This doctrine suggests that once a judicial or quasi-judicial body has decided a matter, it cannot revisit that decision. The Court, however, underlined that this doctrine does not apply with the same strictness to policy decisions taken by the government, allowing the executive to revise or improve upon earlier decisions.
Regularization: The process through which initially hired temporary or irregular employees are given a recognized, permanent status in the service. After regularization, earlier services may be counted for future promotions or seniority if the initial hiring was not purely ad hoc and the employee continued uninterrupted.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas (2025 INSC 212) concludes that if an appointment was validly made (though on a temporary footing) and continued without interruption until the employees’ services were regularized, that pre-regularization period counts toward seniority. In overturning the High Court’s ruling, the Court emphasized that the government retains the power to refine and revisit its administrative decisions. Consequently, the appellants, who started their service between 1990 and 1992, are entitled to be placed above the 1997 APPSC recruits in the seniority list.

In effect, the judgment stands as an authoritative precedent reinforcing that courts must look beyond the label of “temporary” or “ad hoc” to examine the nature and continuity of the appointment—preventing potential injustice to employees caught in bureaucratic delays or unforeseen policy gaps.

— End of Commentary —