{"id":232542,"date":"1992-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992"},"modified":"2018-04-11T01:47:07","modified_gmt":"2018-04-10T20:17:07","slug":"baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992","title":{"rendered":"Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 2028, \t\t 1992 SCR (2) 862<\/div>\n
Author: M Fathima Beevi<\/div>\n
Bench: Fathima Beevi, M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBAQAR HUSAAIN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nZILLA PARISHAD, MEDAK ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/04\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\nBENCH:\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR 2028\t\t  1992 SCR  (2) 862\n 1992 SCC  Supl.  (2) 400 JT 1992 (4)\t 34\n 1992 SCALE  (1)1061\n\n\nACT:\nA.P Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959: Section\n69.\nA.P.Panchyat Samithis and Zilla Panshads Ministerial Service\nRules, 1965-Rule 4-Proviso-Interpretation of-Zilla Parishads\nand  Panchayat Samithis-Employees-Seniority  and  promotion-\nPassing of Accounts Test made compulsory for  promotion-Time\ngranted\t  and  extended\t for  passing\tthe   Test-Employees\ntemporarily promoted prior to issue of Rules and passing the\nTest  within  extended period-Employees\t promoted  prior  to\nissue of Rules but passing the Test before extended  period-\nSeniority between-How reckoned.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The   Andhra  Pradesh  Panchyat  Samithis\t and   Zilla\nParishads  Ministerial\tService Rules, 1965 were  issued  on\n15.3.1965.   Rule  4  of  the  said  rules  prescribes\t the\nqualifications for appointment to the various categories  of\nemployees  of Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads.  Under\nthis  rule passing of Account Test was made  a\tprerequisite\nqualification from 15.3.1965 for the typists, lower division\nclerks\tetc. working in the Telangana area for promotion  to\nthe  post  of  Upper Division  Clerks,\tSuperintendents\t and\nmanagers.  Since  many employees had not acquired  the\ttest\nqualification and were liable to be reverted, the Government\nby its order NO. G.O.Ms.No. 487 granted two years time\tfrom\n7.8.1967  to  7.8.1969 to enable them to  pass\tthe  Account\nTest.  The time allowed for two year was extended from\ttime\nto  time and finally up to November 1974. By a\tnotification\nNo. G.O.Ms. No.822 P.R. dated 22.8.1977, Rule 4 was amended.\nThe first proviso to the amended rule provided that services\nin  the\t category of Upper Division Clerks and such  of\t the\nLower Division Clerks who were temporarily promoted as Upper\nDivision  Clerks and Senior Accountants prior  to  15.3.1965\nbut passed the Account Test before 30th November, 1974 shall\nbe  regularised\t from  the date\t of  their  first  temporary\npromotion  or from a subsequent date. Under  second  proviso\nsuch  regularisation  was not to affect\t the  seniority\t and\npromotions  to higher posts ordered in accord-\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       863\nance  with rules in favour of those who passed\tthe  Account\nTest before 7.8.1967.\n     The  appellants, initially appointed as Lower  Division\nClerks\tin Zilla Parishads, were promoted as Upper  Division\nClerk during 1960 to 1963. They passed he Account Test after\n7.8.1967  but  before November, 1974. The  respondents\twere\npromoted  as  Upper  Division Clerks before  1965  but\tthey\npassed\tthe Test before 7.8.1967. In the seniority list\t the\nappellants  were  placed above the respondents\tand  in\t due\ncourse\twere promoted as Superintendents and  Managers.\t The\nrespondents  claimed  seniority\t and  promotions  over\t the\nappellants  on the ground that they have passed the  Account\nTest  before 7.8.1967 while the appellants have\t passed\t the\nTest  after  7.8.1967 and therefore they were  entitled\t for\npromotion to the higher posts before the appellants.\n     The  Administrative Tribunal allowed  the\trespondents'\nclaim by holding that persons who were not qualified  up  to\n7.8.1967  and who got the benefit of the notification  dated\n22.8.1977  have\t to be treated as juniors  to  those  having\npassed the Account Test before 7.8.1967 were fully qualified\nfor  regular appointment as Upper Division Clerks  irrespect\nive  of whether such persons were appointed to the posts  of\nUpper Division Clerks regularly by 22.8.1977 or not.\n     In appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf  of\nthe  appellants\t that the interpretation placed on  the\t 2nd\nproviso\t to Rule 4 by the Tribunal is wrong; (2) since\ttime\nwas  granted for passing the prescribed test the  appellants\nwho   were promoted before passing the Account Test must  be\ndeemed\tto have been qualified even at the time of the first\nappointment on their passing the Account Test; (3) that\t the\nrespondents  were  also promoted as  Upper  Division  Clerks\nbefore they passed the test and their passing the test before\nthe  extended  time  did not confer on\tthem  any  right  of\nseniority  when they were juniors to the appellants  in\t the\ncategory of Lower Division Clerks.\n     Disposing the Appeals, this Court,\n     Held  : 1. The intention of the Government\t in  issuing\nthe  second proviso in G.O.MsNo.822 P.R. dated 22.8.1977  is\nto  protect  only those who passed the Account\tTest  before\n7.8.1967  and  whose  services\tin  the\t category  of  Upper\nDivision Clerks were regularised and promoted to the higher\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       864\nposts  by  22.8.1977. It is not intended  to  benefit  those\npersons who are not regularised or promoted even though they\nhad  passed  the Account Test before 7.8.1967.\tThe  crucial\nwords in the second proviso `the seniority and promotion  to\nhigher\tposts ordered in accordance with rules in favour  of\nthose\twho  passed  the  Account  Test\t  before   7.8.1967'\ncontemplated an order of promotion taking into account the\ntest  qualification acquired before 7.8.1967. If  there\t had\nnot been an order of promotion, the mere passing of the test\nbefore\t7.8.1967  does not confer seniority to\tthose  Upper\nDivision Clerks over the category which had been granted the\nconcession.\n\t\t\t\t\t  [876 D-E, 873 F-G]\n     2.\t On a plain reading of the proviso in the  light  of\nthe  various Government Orders, it is very clear that  until\nthe  Upper  Division Clerks promoted before  15.3.1965\twere\nregularised  and  promoted  to\tthe  higher  post  on  their\nacquiring  the test qualification before 7.8.1967,  they  do\nnot  get  seniority  over those who passed  the\t test  after\n7.8.1967  but within the time granted and the latter do\t not\nlose their seniority in favour of their juniors who acquired\nthe test qualification before 7.8.1967. [876 F-G]\n     3.\t Those\ttemporary  Upper Division  Clerks  who\twere\nliable to be reverted for want of test qualification and who\nhad  been conferred he concession by extending the time\t for\npassing the test were entitled to be regularised on  passing\nthe  Account  Test from the date of  their  first  temporary\nappointment  or\t the subsequent date without  affecting\t the\nseniority  of  those persons who had  secured  promotion  to\nhigher\tpost in accordance with the rules on  having  passed\nthe  Account Test before 7.8.1967. Thus the proviso  clearly\nindicates  that\t as a matter of right  the  temporary  Upper\nDivision Clerks who were liable to be reverted but had\tbeen\ngiven  the concession and had passed he Account Test  within\nthe  time granted could maintain their seniority over  those\npersons\t who had not been promoted by virtue of\t their\ttest\nqualification.\tThe  latter category who  had  already\tbeen\npromoted  had  to be treated as senior to  the\tformer.\t Any\nother interpretation of these provisos would make the second\nproviso redundant. [873 H, 874 A-C]\n     4.\t  The\tpassing\t of  the  Account  Test\t  does\t not\nautomatically result in regularisation of the appointment as\nUpper  Division\t Clerks. The persons  who  were\t temporarily\npromoted   earlier  had\t been  granted\tconcession  to\t get\nqualified  and\twhen they acquired such\t qualification\tthey\nstood  in  he  same position as those who  passed  the\ttest\nearlier. The regularisation is not with\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       865\nreference  to the date of passing the test but\twith  effect\nfrom the date of first promotion in such cases. [877 B-C]\n     5. The protection under the latter part of the  proviso\nto  Rule 4 is available to those Upper Division\t Clerks\t who\nhappened  to be juniors and who had also acquired  the\ttest\nqualification and had been promoted to the higher posts on a\nregular\t  basis\t though\t their\tsenior\tacquired  the\ttest\nqualification  within  the time allowed\t by  he\t Government.\nHowever, such protection is not available to those employees\nwho  remained in the same category of Upper Division  Clerks\nand  had been temporarily promoted as Upper Division  Clerks\nsubsequent to the appellants though they had passed the test\nbefore 7.8.1967 [877 F-G]\n     Chandrakant  v. State of Gujarat, [1977] 2 S.L.R.\t605,\nreferred to.\n     6.\t The  Tribunal\toverlooked the\ttrue  scope  of\t the\nproviso in the light of the Government order dated  7.8.1967\nand uniformly applied the protection afforded in the  second\nproviso\t to  all  those persons who had\t acquired  the\ttest\nqualification before 7.8.1967 irrespective of the fact\tthat\nthey  had  been\t regularised and promoted  to  higher  posts\nbefore 1977. The seniority list shall be prepared in all the\ncases\tin  the\t light\tof  the\t above\tfindings   and\t the\nconsequential  relief be granted to the appellants. [876  F,\n878-A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4085  &
\n4086 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated  10.7.1984  of\t the
\nAndhra\tPradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad  in\tR.P.
\nNO. 51\/77 and R.P. NO.451 of 1981.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n     C.A. NOs. 1303\/88, 3347 & 3350\/83, 3192\/85 AND 1808\/92.
\n     K.\t Madhava  Reddy, G. Prabhakar, Ms.  Malini  Poduval,
\nB.Kanta Rao. C.S. Panda, A. Subba Rao and R.N. Keshwani\t for
\nthe appearing parties.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FATHIMA BEEVI, J. Spcial Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     These  appeals raise identical question  involving\t the
\ninterpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis\t And
\nZilla Parishads Ministerial
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       866<\/span>
\nService\t Rules 1965 in relation to seniority and  promotion.
\nThe  Rules under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat  Samithis\t And
\nZilla  Parishads Act 1959 were issued under  G.O.Ms.No.\t 303
\nP.R.  dated 15.3.1965. The service consist of categories  of
\nposts of under:-\n<\/p>\n
Category I     : Managers etc. Zilla Parishads.
\nCategory II    : Superintendents in  Zilla  Parishads  and
\n\t\t Panchayat Samithis.\n<\/p>\n
Category III   : Secretarial Assistants, Revenue  Officers,
\n\t\t Endowment  Officers, Upper Division  Clerks
\n\t\t and  Senior Accountants in Zilla  Parishads
\n\t\t and Panchayat Samithis.\n<\/p>\n
Category IV    : Loan Inspectors, Lower Division Clerks\t and
\n\t\t Junior Accountant-cum-Store Keepers etc.
\n     Rule 3 so far as material reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “3.   Appointment:-  Appointment  for  the\t  categories
\nspecified  in column (1) below shall be made by\t the  method
\nspecified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof.\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
\t  Category\t\tMethod of Appointment\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
\t      1\t\t\t\t  2\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————
\nI.   (i)  & (ii)  Managers  in By promotion from Category II
\nZilla Parishads and  Panchayat Note   :\t  (i)\t  Assistants
\nSamithis\t\t       working\tin  Andhra   Pradesh
\n\t\t\t       secretariat  shall  also\t  be
\n\t\t\t       eligible to hold the posts on
\n\t\t\t       deputation  for\ta  specified
\n\t\t\t       period  to be  prescribed  by
\n\t\t\t       the Government.\n<\/p>\n
II.   Superintendents,\t Zilla By promotion from classes (i)
\n Parishads   and   Panchayat   to (iv) in Category III.
\n Samithis
\nIII.  Classes (i) to (iv)      By promotion from classes (i)
\n\t\t\t       to (iv) in Category V.”\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 4 prescribes the qualification for appointment  to
\nthe  various categories. Under this rule, Account  Test\t for
\nthe  employees\tof  local bodies or an\tequivalent  test  in
\naddition to the general educational qualification
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       867<\/span>
\nspecified  is prescribed against categories 1, 2 and  3.  As
\nthe  Account  Test became a new test from 15.3.1965  to\t the
\nemployees of Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads  working
\nin  Telangana  area, the Government granted two\t years\ttime
\nfrom 7.8.1967 to 7.8.1969 to enable them to pass the Account
\nTest. The period was extended by two more years in 1969\t and
\nfor a further period of two years in 1971. Finally, the rule
\nitself was amended extending the time up to November 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     Proviso to Rule 4 as amended reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Provided further that the services in the category  of
\n     Upper  Division  clerks of such or the  Lower  Division
\n     Clerks   working  in  Panchayat  Samithis\t and   Zilla
\n     Parishads\twho  were  temporarily\tpromoted  as   Upper
\n     Division  Clerks and Senior Accountants prior  to\t15th
\n     march,   1965, but passed the prescribed  Account\tTest
\n     before 30th November, 1974 i.e. within the time granted
\n     to them by executive orders issued from time to time by
\n     the  Government to pass the said Account Test shall  be
\n     regularised  from\tthe date of  their  first  temporary
\n     promotion or from a subsequent date:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided  also that the regularisation of service under
\n     the  foregoing proviso shall not affect  the  seniority
\n     and  promotions to higher posts ordered  in  accordance
\n     with  rules  in  favour of those who  passed  the\tsaid
\n     Account  Test before the 7th August, 1967.”
\n     Appellants\t in  Civil appeals Nos.4085 & 4086  of\t1984
\nwere  appointed as Lower Division Clerks in Zilla  Parishad,
\nMedak during the period of 1959 to 1961. They were  promoted
\nto the regular vacancies of Upper Division Clerks during the
\nperiod of 1960 to 1963. The respondents were also  appointed
\nas Upper Division Clerks before 1965.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellants who were promoted as Upper  Division  Clerks
\nbefore 15.3.1965 passed the Account Test within the extended
\nperiod\tafter 7.8.1967. The respondents,  however,  acquired
\nthe  qualification by passing the test before 7.8.1967.\t The
\nappellants   were in due course promoted  as  Superintendent
\nand Manager.\n<\/p>\n
Seniority  list\t of  Upper Division Clerks was\tprepared  by
\nproceedings
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       868<\/span>
\ndated  5.6.1975. In the seniority list, the appellants\twere
\nplaced\t above\tthe  respondents.  In  February\t 1976,\t the
\nappellant  No. 1 was promoted as Superintendent\t along\twith
\ntwo  other  and subsequently they were further\tpromoted  as
\nManagers.  On 1.7.1976, appellant No. 2 and appellant No.  3
\nwere  promoted as superintendents. Proceedings of  promotion
\ngiven  to the appellants were challenged by the\t respondents
\nbefore the Administrative Tribunal by filing R.P. No. 51  of
\n1977 on the ground that they have passed the Account Test in
\n1966-1967  while  the appellants have passed the  said\ttest
\nonly  after  1967  and,\t therefore,  the  respondents\twere
\nentitled  for  promotion  to the  higher  posts\t before\t the
\nappellants.  Similar petitions were filed by other  parties.
\nThe appellants also filed a petition as R.P. No. 451 of 1981
\nseeking\t a relief that the settled  final seniority list  of
\nUpper Division Clerks should not be disturbed and promotions
\ngiven on that basis should not be disturbed. The Tribunal by
\na   common  judgment  dated  10.7.1984\tdisposed  of   these
\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondents’ petition was allowed by the  Tribunal
\nholding\t that persons who were not qualified up to  7.8.1967
\nand  who got the benefit of the amendment issued under\tG.O.
\nMs. No. 822 dated 22.8.1977 have to be treated as juniors to
\nthose  having passed the Account Test before  7.8.1967\twere
\nfully  qualified for regular appointment as  Upper  Division
\nClerks\tirrespective of whether such persons were  appointed
\nto the posts of Upper Division Clerks regularly by 22.8.1977
\nor not.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Tribunal adopted the reasoning that a\t person\t who
\nhas  passed  the Account Test is entitled  to  be  appointed
\nregularly to the post of Upper Division Clerk and person who
\nhas  not  passed  such Account Test cannot  be\theld  to  be
\nentitled  to  such  regular appointment\t until\teither\tthey
\npassed\tthe Account Test or are exempted from  passing\tsuch
\ntest.\tThe   Tribunal\theld  that  because  of\t  the\ttest
\nqualification\tsuch  persons  were  eligible  for   regular
\nappointment   and   those   who\t have\tnot   acquired\t the
\nqualification are to be treated as unqualified persons until
\n7.8.1967  the date on which the relevant orders giving\tthem
\nthe necessary concessions were issued. In this view,  relief
\nwas  granted  in  all  the  petitioners\t before\t it  by\t the
\nTribunal.  Aggrieved  by the decision of the  Tribunal,\t the
\nappeals have been preferred on special leave granted by this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through
\nthe  Government\t orders, the relevant rules  and  the  other
\nmaterial papers and the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       869<\/span>
\njudgment   of\tthe   Tribunal.\t He   contended\t  that\t the
\ninterpretation\tplaced on the 2nd proviso to Rule 4  by\t the
\nTribunal  in  the light of the other  Government  Orders  is
\nwrong,\tthat  on  prescribing  the  test  qualification\t for
\npromotion  to the cadre of Upper Division Clerks since\ttime
\nhas  been  granted  for\t acquiring  the\t qualification,\t the
\nappellants who have been promoted before passing the Account
\nTest must be deemed to have  been qualified even at the time
\nof the first appointment on their passing the Account  Test.
\nIt  was\t submitted  that  the  respondents  have  also\tbeen
\npromoted as Upper Division Clerks before they  acquired\t the
\ntest  qualification and merely because they have passed\t the
\ntest before the time was extended by the Government, it\t did
\nnot confer any right of seniority when they were juniors  to
\nthe appellants in the category of Lower Division Clerks.  It
\nis  also  pointed out that the seniority list  finalised  in
\n1975 was not objected to and the promotion made on the basis
\nof  that  list\tcould  not  be\tassailed.  Counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents,  on the other hand, maintained that  until\t the
\nappellants passed the Account Test, they were not  qualified
\nfor being promoted as Upper Division Clerks. Their Temporary
\npromotion did not confer any right on them and their regular
\nappointment  can be deemed to have been made only when\tthey
\npassed\tthe  Account Test and that being subsequent  to\t the
\ndate  on  which the respondents qualified  themselves,\tthey
\nlost their seniority and, therefore, the Tribunal was  right
\nin its conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
     In order to appreciate these arguments, it is necessary
\nto  refer to the relevant Government orders. The proviso  to
\nRule  4\t deals\twith the service in the\t Category  of  Upper
\nDivision  Clerks and such of the Lower Division\t Clerks\t who
\nwere temporarily promoted as Upper Division Clerks prior  to
\n15.3.1965  but passed the Account Test before 30th  November
\n1974  and they are to be regularised from the date of  their
\nfirst temporary promotion or from the subsequent date.\tSuch
\nregularisation shall not affect the seniority and promotions
\nto  higher  posts ordered in accordance with  the  rules  in
\nfavour of those who passed the said Account Test before\t 7th
\nAugust, 1967.\n<\/p>\n
     The   Andhra  Pradesh  Panchayat  Samithis\t and   Zilla
\nParishads Act 1959 came into force on 18.9.1959. Under\tRule
\n4,  District Cadre Staff includes both governments and\tnon-
\ngovernments   servants.\t Qualification\tprescribed  by\t the
\nGovernment  for similar posts were followed as\tper  G.O.Ms.
\nNo.  2107  dated 2.8.1961 in  Telangana.  Appointments\tmade
\nafter  1.12.1959 by the District Selection Committee was  to
\nbe treated as regular
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       870<\/span>
\nservice\t and their services will be regularised after  issue
\nof  rules  and\tpromotions may be made\ton  emergency  basis
\npending\t issue\tof  rules  on the basis\t of  date  of  first
\nappointment. The Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla
\nParishads  Ministerial\tService\t Rules were  issued  by\t the
\nGovernor  of  Andhra  Pradesh  in  exercise  of\t the  powers
\nconferred  under  Section 69 of the Act\t on  15.3.1965.\t The
\nqualifications\tare prescribed in Rule 4. The  Account\tTest
\nbecame\tobligatory  from  15.3.1965  to\t the  employees\t  of
\nPanchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads working in  Telangana
\narea also.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant in Civil Appeals No. 4085 & 4086 of\t1984
\nwere   appointed  in  the  Panchayat  Samithis\t and   Zilla
\nParishads, Medak, as Lower Division Clerks during the period
\nof  1958  to 1961 of selection made  by\t District  Selection
\nCommittee.   These   appellants\t 1  to\t9   Baqar   Hussain,
\nAmeeruddin,  S.\t Vittal,  Ghosuddin,  C.H.  Jagannatham,  G.
\nTulasidas,  Y.\tVittal Das, Mallaiah Gupta  and\t J.Janardhan
\nReddy  were  promoted  to the  regular\tvacancies  of  Upper
\ndivision Clerks during the period of 1960 to 1963. The rules
\nwhich  came into force on 15.3.1965 prescribed Account\tTest
\nfor regularisation of the employees in the cadre post. These
\nappellants passed the Account Test after 7.8.1967 but before
\nNovember 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondents Venkatesam\t and Ballaiah were  promoted
\nas  Upper  Division  Clerks  on\t 16.11.1964  and  21.10.1963
\nrespectively. Venkatesam passed the Account Test in 1966 and
\nBallaiah passed the Account Test in 1967.\n<\/p>\n
     Baqar Hussain was promoted as Superintendent along with
\nZakir  Hussain\tand  Srinivas Rao  On  7.2.1976.  They\twere
\nfurther\t promoted  as Managers on 1.7.1967.  Ameeruddin\t was
\nalso  promoted as Manager. These promotions were  questioned
\nby  the respondent claiming seniority over these persons  on
\nthe  ground that they have passed the Account Test  in\t1966
\nand 1967.\n<\/p>\n
     In Civil Appeals Nos. 3347 & 3350 of 1983,\t respondents
\nchallenged the seniority list dated 28.1.1976.\n<\/p>\n
     Civil Appeal No. 13003 of 1988 arises from R.P.No.\t 242
\nof  1978.  The appellants were appoints\t were  appointed  as
\nLower Division Clerks during the period of 1957 to 1959\t and
\npromoted  as  Upper  Division Clerks between  1961  to\t1964
\nbefore\tthe  rules  came into force.  The  respondents\twere
\npromoted   as  Upper  Division\tClerks\tsubsequent  to\t the
\npromotion of the appellants and
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       871<\/span>
\nafter the rules came into force. The respondents had  passed
\nthe  Account  Test prior to 7.8.1967.  The  appellants\twere
\nfurther promoted as Superintendents and Managers during\t the
\nperiod 1978 to 1982.\n<\/p>\n
     By the G.O. Ms. No. 2107 dated 2.8.1961, the Government
\ndirected   that\t  pending   issue   of\t rules\t prescribing
\nqualifications\tto  each  post\tunder  the  Andhra   Pradesh
\nPanchayat  Samithis  Act 1959, the rules  obtaining  in\t the
\ndifferent  District Boards should be followed. It  was\talso
\nordered\t that  wherever such District Board  rules  are\t not
\navailable  in respect of any post included in  the  District
\nCadre  i.e.  Panchayat Samithis and   Zilla  Parishads,\t the
\nqualifications\t prescribed  for  similar  post\t should\t  be
\nfollowed.  In Andhra area, under the Andhra  District  Board
\nRules,\tthe Account Test for the local bodies employees\t was
\nprescribed  for promotion of Lower Division Clerks as  Upper
\nDivision Clerks. In Telangana area, no such Account Test was
\nprescribed as a prerequisite qualification for promotion  of
\nLower Division Clerks as Upper Division Clerks. No  specific
\ninstructions  were issued by the Government that  the  Lower
\nDivision  Clerks  or  the Junior Accountants  in  the  lower
\ncategory  should pass the Account Test for holding the\tpost
\nof  Upper  Division Clerks in Panchayat Samithis  and  Zilla
\nParishads in the Telangana area.\n<\/p>\n
     With effect from 15.3.1965, passing of Account Test for
\nthe  employees\tof  local bodies or an\tequivalent  test  in
\naddition  to  general qualification was\t prescribed  in\t the
\nAndhra\tPradesh\t Panchayat  Samithis  and   Zilla  Parishads
\nMinisterial  Services Rules as a prerequisite  qualification
\nfor the Typists, Lower Division Clerks etc. for promotion to
\nthe post of Upper Division Clerks, Superintendents, Managers
\nPanchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads. The test thus became
\nobligatory in Telangana area with effect from 15.3.1965.\n<\/p>\n
     Prior  to\tthe  issue of the  rules  certain  employees
\nincluding  the\tappellants were promoted as  Upper  Division
\nClerks on temporary basis in accordance with the orders\t and
\ngeneral\t rules issued. Most of them had\t not   acquired\t the
\nAccount\t Test qualification and, therefore, they are  liable
\nto be reverted. The Government examined the question and  by
\nG.O.Ms.\t No. 487 dated 7.8.1967 directed the two years\ttime
\nfrom the date of the issue of the orders shall be allowed to
\nthose  employees who were promoted as Upper Division  Clerks
\nprior  to  the issue of the rules to pass the  Account\tTest
\nprescribed under the rules. It was further provided that the
\nservices
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       872<\/span>
\nof  the\t employees  referred to shall  be  regularised\twith
\nreference to the date of their appointment as Upper Division
\nClerks provided they passed the Account Test within the time
\nof  two\t years allowed, and others who do  not\tacquire\t the
\nabove  qualifications  within  the  time  allowed  shall  be
\nreverted.   This  concession  was  not\tapplicable  to\t the
\nemployees who were promoted after 15.3.1965. it was  further
\ndirected that the employees who acquired the age of 45 years
\non  or before 15.3.1965 shall be exempted  from passing\t the
\nAccount\t Test, and when so exempted they shall\tbe  eligible
\nfor   promotion\t  along\t with  others\twho   acquire\tsuch
\nqualifications. The time allowed for two years was  extended
\nfrom  time  to\ttime  and finally up  to  November  1974.  A
\nNotification  was  issued on 22.8.1977 and the\tproviso\t was
\ninserted which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Provided further that the Services in the category  of
\n     Upper  Division  Clerks of such of the  Lower  Division
\n     Clerks   working  in  Panchayat  Samithis\t and   Zilla
\n     Parishads\tin  the Districts  of  Hyderabad,  Adilabad,
\n     Medak,   Warangal,\t  Nizamabad,   Khammam,\t   Nalgonda,
\n     Karimnagar,  who  were temporarily\t promoted  as  Upper
\n     Division  Clerks and Senior Accountants prior  to\t15th
\n     March,  1965,  but passed the prescribed  Account\tTest
\n     before  30th  November,  1974,  i.e.  within  the\ttime
\n     granted to them by executive orders issued from time to
\n     time  by the Government to pass the said  Account\tTest
\n     shall  be\tregularised  from the date  of\ttheir  first
\n     temporary promotion or from a subsequent date.”
\n     “Provided\talso  that the\tregularisation\tof  services
\n     under  the\t foregoing  proviso  shall  not\t effect\t the
\n     seniority\tlist and promotions to higher posts  ordered
\n     in accordance with rules in favour of those who  passed
\n     the said Account Test before 7th August 1967.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The latter proviso is clear that the regularisation  of
\nservices  of the employees who were temporarily promoted  as
\nUpper  Division\t Clerks prior to 15.3.1965  but\t passed\t the
\nprescribed Account Test within the time granted was to be  f
\nrom  the date of their fist temporary promotion or from\t the
\nsubsequent date and subject to seniority of those  employees
\nwho had been promoted to higher posts in accordance with the
\nrules  on  their  having  passed  the  Account\tTest  before
\n7.8.1967.  The concession in G.O.Ms. No. 487 dated  7.8.1967
\nwas conferred on those Upper Division Clerks who were
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       873<\/span>
\nholding the post temporarily and were liable to be  reverted
\nfor  want  of  the test qualification only  subject  to\t the
\nsecond\tproviso. The latter proviso refers to the  employees
\nwho  had  passed  the Account Test before  7.8.1967  and  by
\nvirtue\tof  such  qualification they had  been\tpromoted  to
\nhigher\tposts in accordance with the rules. That  definitely
\nrefers to those Upper Division Clerks who had been appointed
\nas Upper Division Clerks on a regular basis and such of them
\nwho  had  been\tpromoted to the\t higher\t post  after  having
\nacquired  the necessary test qualification. Their  seniority
\nover  those  employees who had not passed the  Account\tTest
\nbefore 7.8.1967 is secured by this proviso. It is only\twhen
\nthe promotion to higher posts had been ordered in accordance
\nwith  the  rules in their favour after having  acquired\t the
\ntest  qualification,  before 7.8.1967  the  proviso  becomes
\napplicable.  Even if the Upper Division Clerks had  acquired
\nthe  test  qualification before 7.8.1967 but  had  not\tbeen
\npromoted  to the higher posts and before they were  promoted
\nthe  other  persons who had been  temporarily  appointed  as
\nUpper\tDivision   Clerks  had\talso   acquired\t  the\ttest
\nqualification within the time granted, their  regularisation
\nfrom the date of the first temporary promotion entitles them
\nto  retain the original seniority. They lose  the  seniority
\nonly  in  favour  of Upper Division Clerks  who\t passed\t the
\nAccount Test before 7.8.1967 and had been promoted to higher
\nposts  in accordance with the rules, even though they  might
\nhave been junior to the category who passed the Account Test
\nafter  7.8.1967\t but within the time granted.  This  is\t the
\neffect\tof the proviso. it benefits only the Upper  Division
\nClerks\twho had been promoted to higher posts by  virtue  of
\ntheir test qualification. So long as such promotions had not
\nbeen  ordered, they remained in the same category  as  those
\nwho  had been granted  the concession up to  November  1974.
\nThe  inter se seniority between these two categories is\t not
\naffected  until\t their promotion. The crucial words  in\t the
\nsecond\tproviso `the seniority and promotions to higher post
\nordered in accordance  with  rules in favour  of  those\t who
\npassed\tthe  Account Test before 7.8.1967′  contemplated  an
\norder\tof   promotion\t taking\t into\taccount\t  the\ttest
\nqualification  acquired\t before 7.8.1967. If there  had\t not
\nbeen  an  order of promotion, the mere passing of  the\ttest
\nbefore\t7.8.1967  does not confer seniority to\tthose  Upper
\nDivision Clerks over the category which had been granted the
\nconcession.  Those temporary Upper Division Clerks who\twere
\nliable to be reverted for want of test qualification and who
\nhad been conferred the concession by extending the time\t for
\npassing the test were entitled to be
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       874<\/span>
\nregularised  on\t passing the Account Test from the  date  of
\ntheir  first  temporary appointment or the  subsequent\tdate
\nwithout\t affecting  the seniority of those persons  who\t had
\nsecured the promotion to higher post in accordance with\t the
\nrules on having passed the Account Test before 7.8.1967. The
\nproviso\t clearly  indicates  that as  matter  of  right\t the
\ntemporary  Upper  Division  Clerks who\twere  liable  to  be
\nreverted  but had been given the concession and\t had  passed
\nthe  Account  Test within the time  granted  could  maintain
\ntheir seniority over those persons who had not been promoted
\nby  virtue of their test qualification. The latter  category
\nwho  had already been promoted had to be treated  as  senior
\nto  the former. Any other interpretation of  these  provisos
\nwould make the second  proviso redundant. Those who acquired
\nthe test qualification before 1967 and had been promoted  to
\nhigher post by virtue of such qualification are entitled  to
\nseniority  over\t those who acquired the\t test  qualification
\nafter  1967  and  were regularised in  the  cadre  of  Upper
\nDivision  Clerks  even if their first appointment  as  Upper
\nDivision  Clerks was prior to that of the earlier  category.
\nThis  does not mean that those of the Upper Division  Clerks
\nwho acquired the test qualification before 1967 but remained
\nas Upper Division Clerks even when the seniors acquired\t the
\ntest  qualification  would be entitled to seniority  in\t the
\ncategory  of Upper Division Clerks so long as they have\t not
\nbeen  promoted\tto the higher post in  accordance  with\t the
\nrules on regularisation.\n<\/p>\n
     Sri S.K. Yousufuddin and seven other employees of Zilla
\nParishads,  karimnagar, claimed seniority over some  of\t the
\njuniors who acquired the Account Test Qualification  earlier
\nto the seniors promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerks
\nbefore\t1965 and who had passed the Account Test within\t the
\nextended  time\tgranted by the government.  Similarly,\tM.A.
\nSaleem, and six other employees of karimnagar Zilla Parishad
\nclaimed\t seniority over the juniors who had passed the\ttest
\nbefore 7.8.1967.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Government  by  the order  dated  23.1.1978  after
\nexamining the question stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “According to the amendment issued in  G.O.Ms.
\n\t No.  822 P.R. dated 22.8.1977, the service  of\t the
\n\t Lower Division\t     Clerks in Telangana region\t who
\n\t were  temporarily\tpromoted as  Upper  Division
\n\t Clerks\t  and  Senior\t    Accountants\t  prior\t  to
\n\t 15.3.1965 but
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       875<\/span>
\n\t passed\t  the\tprescribed   Account   Test   before
\n\t 30.11.1974  i.e.  within the time  granted  by\t the
\n\t Government  shall be regularised from the  date  of
\n\t their\t first\t temporary  promotion  or   from   a
\n\t subsequent date provided that the regularisation of
\n\t services   shall  not\taffect\tthe  seniority\t and
\n\t promotion to the higher post ordered in  accordance
\n\t with  the rules in favour of those who\t passed\t the
\n\t said  Account Test before 7.8.1967. It\t means\tthat
\n\t the Lower Division Clerk who were promoted as Upper
\n\t Division  Clerks temporarily prior to the issue  of
\n\t the rules on 15.3.1965 but passed the Account\tTest
\n\t subsequently before 30.11.1974 are entitled to have
\n\t their\tservices  regularised  retrospectively.\t But
\n\t however  such of those employees who were  promoted
\n\t temporarily  as  Upper\t Division  Clerk  prior\t  to
\n\t 15.3.1965  but\t passed\t the  Account  Test   before
\n\t 7.8.1967  and\twho have also been promoted  to\t the
\n\t higher post in accordance with the rules shall\t not
\n\t be effected.”\n<\/p>\n
In  this view, the government directed that the services  of
\nSri Yousufuddin, Manager, who was promoted as Upper Division
\nClerk  temporarily from 3.5.1961 and passed the Account Test
\nin  May\t 1967  and  who was  also  promoted  as\t Manager  be
\nregularised  with  effect from 3.5.1961 in the\tcategory  of
\nUpper  Division Clerks and also in the category of  Managers
\nwith  effect from the date of his promotion as he was  fully
\nqualified  to  the post on that date as\t per  the  amendment
\nissued\tin  G.O.Ms.  No. 822 P.R. dated\t 22.8.1977.  It\t was
\nfurther\t directed  that\t the  services\tof  other  who\twere
\npromoted  as  Upper  Division Clerks  earlier  to  Sri\tS.K.
\nYousufuddin  but  passed the Account Test  within  the\ttime
\nlimit after 7.8.1967 and who were promoted to higher post of
\nManagers  be regularised with effect from 3.5.1961 i.e.\t the
\ndate on which the services of Sri S.K. Yousufuddin are to be
\nregularised and that they be placed below Yousufuddin in the
\nseniority of Upper Division Clerks.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Government also directed that the services of\t the
\nother  Lower  Division\tClerks who were\t promoted  as  Upper
\nDivision  Clerks temporarily prior to 15.3.1965\t but  passed
\nthe Account Test subsequently before 30.11.1974 and who have
\nnot  been promoted to higher posts such\t as  Superintendents
\nand  Managers,\ton  the date of issue of  the  amendment  be
\nregularised from the date of regularisation of the  services
\nof the individuals
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       876<\/span>
\nwho  had  already  been\t promoted.  After  regularising\t the
\nservices  of these temporary Upper Division Clerks  promoted
\nprior to 15.3.1965, the services of those who were  promoted
\nafter 15.3.1965 be regularised.\n<\/p>\n
     The   respondents\tVenkatesam  and\t  Ballaiah   claimed
\nseniority  on  the ground that they had passed\tthe  Account
\nTest before 7.8.1967.\n<\/p>\n
     The question whether the protection given by the second
\nproviso in regard to seniority applies to those persons\t who
\nwere holding the rank of Upper Division Clerks on  22.8.1977
\nwas considered.\n<\/p>\n
     The  protection  afforded applies only to\tthe  regular
\nUpper Division Clerk who have passed the Account Test before
\n7.8.1967  and promoted to higher posts and not to the  Upper
\nDivision  clerks  who have passed the  Account\tTest  before
\n7.8.1967 and not promoted to the higher posts.\n<\/p>\n
     The intention of the Government in issuing\t the  second
\nproviso\t in  G.O.Ms.  No. 822 P.R.  dated  22.8.1977  is  to
\nprotect\t only  those  who passed  the  Account\tTest  before
\n7.8.1967  and  whose  services\tin  the\t category  of  Upper
\nDivision Clerks were regularised and promoted to the  higher
\nposts  by  22.8.1977. It is not intended  to  benefit  those
\npersons who are not regularised or promoted even though they
\nhad passed the Account Test before 7.8.1967
\n     The   Tribunal  in\t disposing  of\tthe  petitions\t has
\noverlooked the true scope of the proviso in the light of the
\nGovernment Order dated 7.8.1967 and had uniformally  applied
\nthe  protection afforded in the second proviso to all  those
\npersons\t who  had  acquired the\t test  qualification  before
\n7.8.1967  irrespective\tof  the\t fact  that  they  had\tbeen
\nregularised  and promoted to higher post before 1977.  On  a
\nplain  reading\tof the proviso in the light of\tthe  various
\nGovernment  Orders,  it is very clear that until  the  Upper
\nDivision  Clerks promoted before 15.3.1965  are\t regularised
\nand promoted to the higher post on their acquiring the\ttest
\nqualification  before  7.8.1967, they do not  get  seniority
\nover those who passed the test after 7.8.1967 but within the
\ntime granted and the latter do not loose their seniority  in
\nfavour\t of   their   juniors\twho   acquired\t the\ttest
\nqualification.. before 7.8.1967. The Tribunal has in para 93
\nof the judgment held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Consequently  these persons who were not qualified  up
\nto
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       877<\/span>
\n\t 7.8.1967  and who got the benefit of the  amendment
\n\t issued\t under G.O.Ms. No. 822 dated 22.8.1977\thave
\n\t to  be\t treated  as junior  to\t those\twho,  having
\n\t passed\t the  Accounts Test  before  7.8.1967,\twere
\n\t fully qualified for regular appointment as U.D.Cs.,
\n\t irrespective of whether such persons were appointed
\n\t to the post U.D.C., regularly by 22.8.1977 or not.”
\n     We\t do not agree with this proposition. The passing  of
\nthe   Account\tTest  does  not\t automatically\t result\t  in
\nregularisation of the appointment as Upper Division  Clerks.
\nThe persons who were temporarily promoted earlier had\tbeen
\ngranted concession to get qualified and when  they  acquired
\nsuch qualification they stood in the  same position as those
\nwho passed the test earlier. The regularisation is not\twith
\nreference  to the date of passing the test but\twith  effect
\nfrom  the  date\t of  first promotion  in  such\t cases.\t The
\nregularisation with effect from the date of first  promotion
\nin  such  cases.  The  regularisation  with  effect  from  a
\nsubsequent  date  is only in those cases where\tthe  juniors
\nhave  already  been promoted to higher posts  by  virtue  of
\ntheir  test qualification. In such cases, the date on  which
\nsuch juniors are regularised would be the relevant date\t for
\nthe  regularisation  of\t the seniors  who  passed  the\ttest
\nsubsequently  (subsequent  date\t mentioned  in\tthe  proviso
\ncovers only such cases). Once both categories are  qualified
\nand become eligible for being regularised and considered for
\npromotion  they\t are in the same stream and on\tpar  in\t all
\nrespects.  They\t then belong to the  same  class.  Once\t the
\nappellants are eligible for regularisation under the  rules,
\nthey  stand  on\t the  same  queue  as  others  according  to
\nseniority vide Chandrakant v. State of Gujarat [1977] 2\t SLR\n<\/p>\n
605.
\n     We\t agree with the Tribunal that the  protection  under
\nthe  latter  part of the proviso to rule 4 is  available  to
\nthose Upper Division Clerks who happened to be\tjuniors\t and
\nwho  had also acquired the test qualification and  had\tbeen
\npromoted to the higher posts on a regular basis though their
\nseniors\t acquired  the test qualification  within  the\ttime
\nallowed\t by  the  Government.  We  however  hold  that\tsuch
\nprotection is not available to those employees who  remained
\nin the same  category  of Upper Division Clerks and had been
\ntemporarily promoted as Upper Division Clerks subsequent  to
\nthe  appellants\t though\t they had  passed  the\ttest  before
\n7.8.1967.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t accordingly modify the judgment of the Tribunal  to
\nthis extent
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       878<\/span>
\nand direct that the seniority list shall be prepared in all
\nthese  cases  in the light of our findings and\tdirect\tthat
\nconsequential  relief  be granted to the appellants  in\t all
\nthese  cases. The appeals are disposed of as above.  In\t the
\ncircumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
T.N.A.\t\t\t\t       Appeals disposed of.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       879<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 2028, 1992 SCR (2) 862 Author: M Fathima Beevi Bench: Fathima Beevi, M. (J) PETITIONER: BAQAR HUSAAIN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: ZILLA PARISHAD, MEDAK ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/04\/1992 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBaqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-10T20:17:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-10T20:17:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992\"},\"wordCount\":4568,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992\",\"name\":\"Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-10T20:17:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-10T20:17:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992","datePublished":"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-10T20:17:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992"},"wordCount":4568,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992","name":"Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-10T20:17:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baqar-husaain-and-ors-etc-etc-vs-zilla-parishad-medak-etc-etc-on-28-april-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baqar Husaain And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Zilla Parishad, Medak Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1992"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=232542"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232542\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}