P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas
Background
The appellants, B.Tech-qualified engineers, were appointed as temporary Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) in the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Department between 1990 and 1992 for a time-bound school-construction project, at a time when no formal selection rules existed for such posts. They worked continuously in that role until their service was eventually regularised by G.O.M. No. 234 (2005). Regularly appointed AEEs from a later 1997 recruitment batch challenged a subsequent Government Order, G.O.M. No. 262 (2006), which credited the appellants' pre-2005 officiating service toward seniority, placing the appellants above the 1997 batch. The Telangana High Court sided with the 1997-batch respondents, holding that the government had become "functus officio" after issuing G.O.M. No. 234 and could not revisit the matter through G.O.M. No. 262.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the appellants' case fell squarely within the recognised exception (from Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association) allowing officiating service to count toward regular seniority where no selection rules existed at the time of appointment and the service was continuous and substantive, not stop-gap or ad hoc. On the "functus officio" question, the Court held the doctrine, which normally binds judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, cannot be used to freeze a government's policy-making and rule-making powers under Article 245 of the Constitution; treating an administrative decision as final and unchangeable would paralyse governance. The Court also rejected the High Court's view that affected parties needed to be given a prior hearing before the State revised its policy, noting settled precedent that such a requirement is not invariable and would itself cripple administrative functioning. It therefore upheld G.O.M. No. 262 as valid, quashed the High Court's judgment, and allowed the appeals.
Lesson Learnt
A government is not permanently barred from revisiting and correcting its own earlier administrative order under the doctrine of "functus officio": that principle applies to judicial and quasi-judicial decisions, not to a state's ongoing policy-making powers, and officiating service rendered continuously in the absence of formal selection rules can count toward an employee's seniority.