Judgment

RAY C.J.I. :- These writ petitions challenge the compulsory retirement of the petitioners. The petitioners were retired compulsorily under order dated 23 September, 1975.

2. The order dated 23 September, 1975 in the case of the first petitioner in writ petition No. 97 of 1976 may be referred to as typical of orders in the case of other petitioners. This order stated first that the said first petitioner completed 25 years of qualifying service on 24 July, 1975. The order next stated that the Commissioner of Police being the authority to make a substantive appointment to the post of Inspector of Police is of opinion that it is in public interest to retire the persons mentioned in the order.

3. The order thereafter states that in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of sub-rule (2)/sub-rule (2) (A) read with Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961/sub-rule (1) of Rule 2/ Rule 3 read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Government Servants Premature Retirement Rules, 1975, the Commissioner of Police directs that the person mentioned in the order shall retire in public interest from service with effect from the date of service of the order and that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for 3 months in lieu of notice calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing immediately before the date on which the order is served on him.

4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh passed a general order dated 28 November, 1975. In that Government order it is stated that in several Government orders recited therein, orders for the premature retirement of the Government servants in public interest had been issued in those cases after giving 3 months previous notice in writing or after giving 3 months salary in lieu of such notice. The 28 November, 1975 order next states that an instance came to the notice of the Government that a Government servant after compulsory retirement as per orders mentioned above was reappointed in a co-operative institution as executive officer. Though the re-appointment of the incumbent was in the Semi-Government Institution, his re-appointment was stated to be irregular and contrary to the intention of the Government in retiring corrupt and inefficient persons. The Government order directed that all the Departments of the Secretariat, all Heads of Department and all Collectors., should ensure that on no account persons who are retired prematurely in pursuance of orders issued by the Government should be re-instated or re-appointed in any Semi-Government or Quasi-Government Institutions.

5. The petitioners challenged the compulsory retirement orders as violation of Article 16. The petitioners also challenged the Government order forbidding re-appointment of compulsorily retired persons in Semi-Government or Quasi-Government Institutions as a stigma within the meaning of Article 311.

6. At the outset it should be stated that enforcement of violation of Article 311 does not come within the scope of Article 32. The challenge to the Government order forbidding re-appointment of compulsorily retired persons as a stigma within the meaning of Article 311 is, therefore, not an infringement of fundamental rights.

7. The petitioners challenged the orders of compulsory retirement as an infraction of Article 16. It is not known how the petitioners have been discriminated against other persons because no such person is impleaded as a respondent and there are no allegations to that effect.

8. During the subsistence of the Presidential Order issued under Article 359 (1) it is not competent to invoke Article 14 for enforcement of any fundamental rights. Articles 14 and 16 are to a certain extent overlapping in regard to rights of equality.

9. Equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment is not violated by provisions for compulsory retirement of Government servants in public interest after the completio