2001 Supreme(SC) 1170

2001(6) Supreme 464
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad)
G.B. Pattanaik and Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1651-1652 of 1997
Decided on 27-8-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : G. Prabhakar, Ms. T. Anamika, Advocates.
For the Appellant in C.A. No. 1653/97 : L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr. Advocate, Jayanth Muthraj, K.C. Sudarshan, and S.U.K. Sagar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.S. Narasimha, P. Sridhar and V.G. Pragasam, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The A.P. Administrative Tribunal Committed serious errors in interpreting different provisions of the Presidential Order (A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975) and the notifications of State Govt. (G.O. Ms. 581 of 1976) issued in exercise of powers conferred unit under paragraphs 3(1) of the Presidential order and accordingly the said order of the Tribunal is set aside.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Arts. 371-D and 16-Presidential Order under Art. 371-D-A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975-Public employment to mean both direct recruitment as well as promotion-Paragraphs 3 and 6-G.O.Ms. No. 581 issued by State Govt. in 1976-Applications before A.P. Administrative Tribunal-Tribunal directing re-determination of inter se seniority zone-wise in different cadres for promotion to higher posts in three Deptts., Commercial Tax, Revenue & Police-Whether impugned order is sustainable? (No)-Appeals allowed-Case law referred.

       Held : We have considered the rival submissions and we find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Nageswara Rao and Mr. Prabhakar, appearing for the appellants, both on the question of delay as well as on the interpretation of the Presidential Order as well as the order issued by the State Government, in exercise of powers under paragraph 3(1) of the Presidential Order. From the impugned order of the tribunal as well as the materials on record, it is crystal clear that the notifications issued by the State Government in the year 1976, organising smaller units of cadre in respect of non-gazetted posts, remained operative till the tribunal was approached in 1992-93. The recruitment, promotion and other service conditions of these employees, in respect of posts enumerated in the order of the State Government was made within the organised cadre, issued by the State Government, which was essentially meant for equitable opportunities and facilities in the matter of public employment. It is a cardinal principle in Service Jurisprudence, that a particular method or procedure adopted for a long time, need not be ordinarily interfered with, unless such method is repugnant to any constitutional provision or is contrary to any statutory rule. That apart, under the Administrative Tribunal Act, a period of limitation is provided for, in Section 21. In this view of the matter, when the units formed the cadre, pursuant to notifications issued by the State Government, in the year 1976, in respect of non-gazetted posts and on that basis, appointment to and promotion within the cadre was being considered, in respect of non-gazetted posts, applications filed before the tribunal in 1992-93, after expiry of more than 15 years, could not have been entertained and the settled position could not have been unsettled, as has been done by the tribunal in its final order. On this ground alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Let us now examine the provisions of the Presidential Order as well as the notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it under the Presidential Order, to find out whether by such notifications, there has been any infraction of the constitutional provision or the provision contained in the Presidential Order itself. When one speaks of public employment , immediately Article 16 comes into focus. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 guarantee equality of opportunity to all citizens, in the matter of appointment to any office or any employment under the State. Clauses (3) to (5) lay down exception to the above rule and Clause (4) permits reservation for backward classes of citizens, who are not in the opinion of the State, adequately represented in the services of the State. In view of the mandate of Article 16, but for the Presidential Order issued under Article 371-D, it would not have been possible to consider the question of employment within the narrower units of cadre, created by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it under paragraph 3(1) of the Presidential Order. Article 371D, however was inserted in the Constitution by the Constitution (32nd Amendment) Act, 1973, authorising the President to pass special order in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The history behind insertion of the aforesaid Article has been elaborately dealt with in the impugned order of the tribunal. Suffice it to say that, as there was lot of disparity in the matter of opportunities, available in public employment between the inhabitants of Telengana region and the Andhra region, there was a political turmoil and ultimately, the political will culminated in a six point formula and it is in implementation of the aforesaid formula, Article 371-D was inserted, conferring power on the President of India to pass appropriate order for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State, in the matter of public employment. Clause (2) of Article 371-D enables the President of India, to provide in the order, requiring the State Government to organise any class or classes of posts in a civil service of the State, into different local cadres for different parts of the State and allot, in accordance with such principles and procedure, as may be specified in the order, the persons holding such posts to the local cadre, so organised. The State Government, which is supposed to be aware of the representation of the people from different areas of the State in any class or classes of civil posts, has thus been conferred with power to organise smaller units, as cadre for the purpose of recruitment, promotion and other conditions of service in public employment, so that people from different parts can share responsibility, which in turn would ensure all round development of the State. The Presidential Order, that has been issued in exercise of powers under Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371-D, unequivocally authorises the State Government in paragraph 3 of the Order for organisation of local cadres for different parts of the State. Sub-para (7) of Paragraph 3, itself stipulates that in the matter of organising a separate cadre in respect of any category of posts, in any department for any part of the State, nothing stated in the Presidential Order can be deemed to prevent the State Government from such act. A combined reading of sub-para (1) of Paragraph 3 and sub-para (7) of Paragraph 3, unequivocally indicates that any order issued by the State Government in the matter of organising a separate cadre, in respect of any category of posts, will have an over-riding effect and no part of the Presidential Order, including sub-para (3) of Paragraph 3, on which Mr. Narasimha, strongly relied upon be a fetter on the said power of the State Government. Such power has been designedly conferred upon the State Government to achieve the main objective for which Article 371-D was engrafted, viz. to provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the State, in the matter of employment and career prospects in public services, and for achieving the aforesaid objective, undoubtedly, the State Government would be in possession of all datas and materials, enabling it to organise different local cadres. We have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that paragraph 3(1) read with para 3(7) is not subject to Paragraph 3(3), as was held by the tribunal and as was contended by Mr. Narasimha. On the other hand, paragraph 3(7) of the Presidential Order, would have an over-riding effect over paragraph 3(3) and, therefore, any order issued by the State Government under Paragraph 3(1), constituting different local cadres for different parts of the State would be the area of operation for the purpose of recruitment, promotion and other service conditions, so far as the non-gazetted posts are concerned. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion that the tribunal committed serious error in interpreting different provisions of the Presidential Order and the notifications of the State Government issued in exercise of powers conferred upon it under paragraph 3(1) of the Presidential Order, and accordingly, the said order of the tribunal is set aside. The conclusions of the tribunal, on interpreting the provisions of the Presidential Order, on the face of it, are erroneous and cannot be sustained. We are unable to sustain the conclusion that the very principle on which Supreme Court struck down the subsequent notifications, purported to have been issued in exercise of powers under paragraph 3(7) of the Order, would apply to the initial notification issued for organising various local cadres. We also fail to understand, how by organising local cadres under notifications issued by the State Government, any requirement of the Presidential Order has been contravened. The further conclusion of the tribunal that paragraph 3(7) only enables the State Government to have separate cadres for administrative convenience, is based upon a mis-reading of the said provision and would be repugnant to the purpose for which the Presidential Order was issued in exercise of powers under Article 371-D, and the State Government was conferred power for organising smaller cadres in different parts of the State to achieve uniform development and to offer equal opportunities in the matter of employment. We, therefore, unhesitatingly, set aside the conclusions arrived at, by the tribunal in the impugned judgment. These appeals are allowed. The applications filed before the tribunal, stand dismissed. (Paras 7, 8, 9 & 10)