SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., S. NATARAJAN, J.
State of A.P. and another, Appellants
Versus
V. Sadanandam and others etc. etc, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3490-3491 of 1987
Dated 16-5-1989.*
Advocates appeared
Mr. P. A. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, Mr. T.V.S.N. Chari, Ch. Badrinath and Mrs. Sumitha Rao, Advocates with him, for Appellants; Mr. C. Seetharammayya, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. Parthasarthi and Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocates with him, for Respondents.
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 371-D and 309 - Andhra Pradesh Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 – Rule 3 - Validity of the amended Rule - Special leave - Appeals by the State of Andhra Pradesh are directed against judgments of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal - Originally, Government in purported exercise of its powers under clause 5 of Article 371-D of Constitution passed an order G.O. to annul two judgments of Tribunal - This Court negatived powers of annulment assumed by State Government by striking down Cl. 5 of Art. 371-D and proviso thereto as being opposed to basic structure of Constitution - State has preferred these appeals by special leave against judgments of Administrative Tribunal - Validity of the amended Rule was questioned in the context of certain Assistant Section Officers in Finance Department of the Government being appointed to post of Sub-Treasury Officers borne on the subordinate offices under Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts borne on Zones - Seven persons belonging to category 5 of Branch II of Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service presented a representation petition before Administrative Tribunal for declaring Rule 3 of the Rules ultra vires, in so far as it made provision for promotion of Clerks of Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts and Assistants of Finance Department of Secretariat to the posts of Head Accountants and Sub Treasury Officers, in violation of Presidential Order - Whether amended Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 is violative – Held, court are now only left with the reasoning of Tribunal that there is no justification for continuance of the old Rule and for personnel belonging to other zones being transferred on promotion to offices in other zones - Court need only point out that mode of recruitment and the category from which recruitment to a service should be made are all matters which are exclusively within the domain of the executive - It is not for judicial bodies to sit in judgment over wisdom of executive in choosing mode of recruitment or the categories from which recruitment should be made as they are matters of policy decision falling exclusively within purview of the executive - When the Rules provide for such transfers being effected and when the transfers are not assailed on the ground of arbitrariness or discrimination, policy of transfer adopted by the Government cannot be struck down by Tribunals or Court of Law - In the light of court discussion, court find that the grievance expressed by State over judgment of Tribunal is well founded - In so far as Civil Appeal is concerned, though there was no direct challenge therein to the validity of the amended Rule 3, Tribunal has allowed representation petition filed by petitioners because of the view taken by it in R.P. Hence the judgment of the Tribunal in that case also has to be set aside - In the result, court set aside the judgments of Tribunal, and allow both appeals and declare Rule 3 of amended Rules to be ultra vires of Presidential Order - Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
NATARAJAN, J.:— These appeals by the State of Andhra Pradesh are directed against the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in R. P. Nos. 1595 and 788 of 1984. Originally, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in purported exercise of its powers under clause 5 of Article 371-D of the Constitution passed an order G.O. Ms. No. 215 dt. 14-7-1986 to annul the two judgments of the Tribunal. On 20-12- 1986. this Court negatived the powers of annulment assumed by the State Government by striking down Cl. 5 of Art. 371-D and the proviso thereto as being opposed to the basic structure of the Constitution. Thereafter, the State has preferred these appeals by special leave against the judgments of the Administrative Tribunal.
2. What falls for consideration in these appeals is whether amended Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) is violative of the \ Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Presidential Order) issued on 18-10-1975 by the President of India under clauses I and 2 of Art. 371-D of the Constitution.
3. The Validity of the amended Rule was questioned in the context of certain Assistant Section Officers in the Finance Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the Secretariat Officers) borne on Zone VII being appointed to the post of Sub-Treasury Officers borne on the subordinate offices under the Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts (hereinafter referred to as the Local Cadre) borne on Zones I to IV. For a proper appreciation of the matter, it is necessary that Rule 3 before and after amendment and the Presidential Order are set out.
4. Under R. 3 of the Rule, the posts of Head Accountants and Sub-Treasury Officers could be filled up by any of the following methods : -
(i) By direct recruitment;
(ii) By promotion from category 3, 4 or 5 of Branch 11 or from category 3 of Branch I, III. IV, VI or category 2 of Branch VII; and
(iii) By transfer from among the U. D. Clerks (now called Assistant Section Officers) in the Finance Department of the Secretariat.
5. Rule 3 thus made provision for the posts of Head Accountants and Sub Treasury Officers being filled inter alia by :-
Promotion of Upper Division Clerks of the Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts & Transfer from among the Assistant Section Officers in the Finance Department of the Secretariat,
However as per other Rules, only 4 Assistant Section Officers, at any given time were eligible for being recruited as Sub Treasury Officers.
6. On 18-10-1975, the Presidential Order came to be passed. Para 3 of the Order which enjoins the State Government to organise the posts under the State into different local cadres reads as follows :-
"3. Organisation of Local Cadres (1) The State Government shall, within a period of twelve months from the commencement of this Order, organise classes of posts in the civil services of, and classes of civil posts under the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State to the Extent, and in the manner, hereinafter provided."
Para 5 which deals with local cadres and transfers of persons consists of 2 sub-paras. The para reads as follows -
"5. Local Cadres and transfers of persons -
(1) Each part of the State for which a local cadre has been organised in respect of any category of posts, shall be a separate unit for purposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge, seniority, promotion and transfer, and such other matters as may be specified by the State Government, in respect of that category of post.
(2) Nothing in this Order shall prevent the State,, Government from making provision for -
(a) the transfer of a person from any local cadre to any Office or Establishment to which this Order does not apply, or vice-versa;
(b) the transfer of a person from a local cadre comprising posts in any
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.