Back
2009 Supreme(SC) 1634
2009(8) Supreme 312
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.
P.V. Radha Krishna and others — Appellants
versus
State of A.P. and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5141 of 2002
Decided on : 09-10-2009
Headnote:Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli – Section 3(b), 4 and 7 – Andhra Pradesh Members of Police Force (Regulation of Transfers) Act, 1985 – Sections 2(b), (c), 3 and 4 – Issuance of notification by State Government whereby the private respondents who were then working as Inspectors of Police in Hyderabad City Police (City Range), were transferred back/repatriated to their parent cadres in other police ranges –The private respondents challenged said notifications – Applications dismissed by Tribunal. – On writ petitions thereagainst Full Bench of High Court held that no separate cadre had been organised for the City of Hyderabad within the meaning of para 3(6) of Presidential Order – Appeals – Plea of appellants that Full Bench committed serious error by indirectly bringing the post of Police Officer as defined in Section 3(b) of the Hyderabad Act in the scheme of localization/zonalisation of cadres – The observations of the Full Bench that no separate cadre had been organized and no Police Officer had been appointed under the Hyderabad Act was based on the premise that in the advertisement issued for recruitment of Police Officers and appointment orders of the appellants and other similarly situated persons, reference had not been made to Hyderabad Act – While doing so, the Full Bench omitted to take note of fact that in terms of Section 7 of the Hyderabad Act, powers to appoint and promote Inspector, Sub – Inspector and other subordinates of the police force vests in the Commissioner of City Police Hyderabad and the said Section finds specific mention in the preamble to the Special Rules framed in 1959 – Rule 3 of those Rules clearly lays down that as far as Hyderabad City Police is concerned, the Commissioner of Police shall be appointing authority of Sub – Inspectors of Police etc. and by virtue of that power, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad had been making appointments on various subordinate posts including those of Sub – Inspectors – In the advertisement of 1985 pursuant to which appellants were appointed as Sub-Inspectors, 93 posts were separately earmarked for Hyderabad City which, for the sake of convenience, was described as Zone VII or free zone – Even in the subsequent advertisements issued in 1991 and 1994, the vacancies of Sub-Inspectors were separately earmarked for Hyderabad City Police Range – The orders of appointment of the appellants were issued by the Commissioner of Police – This showed that a separate cadre had been carved out for Hyderabad City Police and recruitment to the post of Police Officer as defined in Section 3(b) of the Hyderabad Act had been made by designated competent authority in terms of Section 7 thereof – Hence Full Bench was not justified in curtailing the width and scope of exclusion clause contained in paragraph 14(f) of the Presidential Order by holding that there is no separate cadre of Hyderabad City Police and there is no incumbent of the post of Police Officers as defined in Section 3(b) of Hyderabad Act – In view of this held that the conclusions recorded by the Full Bench held unsustainable and liable to be set aside – Appeals allowed. (Paras 29 to 33)
Facts of the Case :
Notification was issued by State Government herein in the instant case whereby the private respondents who were then working as Inspectors of Police in Hyderabad City Police (City Range), were transferred back/repatriated to their parent cadres in other police ranges.The private respondents challenged said notifications. Said Applications were dismissed by Tribunal. On writ petitions thereagainst Full Bench of High Court held that no separate cadre had been organised for the City of Hyderabad within the meaning of para 3(6) of Presidential Order.
2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of Full Bench of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
The observations of the Full Bench that no separate cadre had been organized and no Police Officer had been appointed under the Hyderabad Act was based on the premise that in the advertisement issued for recruitment of Police Officers and appointment orders of the appellants and other similarly situated persons, reference had not been made to Hyderabad Act. While doing so, the Full Bench omitted to take note of fact that in terms of Section 7 of the Hyderabad Act, powers to appoint and promote Inspector, Sub-Inspector and other subordinates of the police force vests in the Commissioner of City Police Hyderabad and the said Section finds specific mention in the preamble to the Special Rules framed in 1959. Rule 3 of those Rules clearly lays down that as far as Hyderabad City Police is concerned, the Commissioner of Police shall be appointing authority of Sub-Inspectors of Police etc. and by virtue of that power, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad had been making appointments on various subordinate posts including those of Sub-Inspectors. In the advertisement of 1985 pursuant to which appellants were appointed as Sub-Inspectors, 93 posts were separately earmarked for Hyderabad City which, for the sake of convenience, was described as Zone VII or free zone. Even in the subsequent advertisements issued in 1991 and 1994, the vacancies of Sub-Inspectors were separately earmarked for Hyderabad City Police Range. The orders of appointment of the appellants were issued by the Commissioner of Police. This showed that a separate cadre had been carved out for Hyderabad City Police and recruitment to the post of Police Officer as defined in Section 3(b) of the Hyderabad Act had been made by designated competent authority in terms of Section 7 thereof. Hence Full Bench was not justified in curtailing the width and scope of exclusion clause contained in paragraph 14(f) of the Presidential Order by holding that there is no separate cadre of Hyderabad City Police and there is no incumbent of the post of Police Officers as defined in Section 3(b) of Hyderabad Act. In view of this held that the conclusions recorded by the Full Bench were unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Appeals were allowed.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.—
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh comprises of three regions known as Andhra area, Telangana area and Raylaseema area. At the time of formation of the State in 1956, certain safeguards were envisaged for Telangana area in the matters of development, employment opportunities and educational facilities for the residents of that area. The legislature enacted the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 for providing employment opportunities for the residents of Telangana area but the relevant provisions of that Act were declared unconstitutional by this Court. In 1969, an agitation was launched by some political parties demanding separate statehood for Telangana area on the ground that people of that area were not getting their due in the matters of education, government employment and economic development. In the backdrop of the agitation, a six-point formula was evolved which, among other things, envisaged equitable employment opportunities and career prospects for the people of different areas of the State by ensuring preferential treatment to the local candidates. Subsequently, clarification dated 22.10.1973 was issued in which it was visualized that the State as a whole may consist of five or six divisions and the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad including the cantonment will be constituted into a separate division. This is evident from paragraph 7 of the clarification, which reads as under:
“7. In regard to the service the basic approach of the formula is that the people of different areas should have equitable employment and career prospects. The concepts of local candidates and local areas are interrelated because local candidates will be identified with reference to a local area. In specifying any local areas it should not be necessary to go below the level of district. For recruitment of Class IV posts and posts of LDC and equivalent in district office, the district will then be the local area. For other categories of posts it would be desirable to group contiguous districts into divisions. We, however, visualize that the State as a whole may consist of five or six divisions, the twin cities including the cantonment being constituted into a separate division.” (emphasis added)
2. For giving effect to the six-point formula, Articles 371D and 371E were inserted in the Constitution by the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973. Clauses (1) and (10) of Article 371D read as under:
(1) The President may, by order made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh provide, having regard to the requirements of the State as a whole, for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State, in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various parts of the State.
(10) The provisions of this article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.
3. In exercise of power under clause (1) of Article 371D, the President made the Andhra Pradesh Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Presidential Order’). The relevant provisions of the Presidential Order, as amended from time to time, read as under:-
“2. INTERPRETATION: In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires.
(a) ‘City of Hyderabad’ means the part of the State comprising the territories specified in the First Schedule;
(b) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(c) ‘local area’ in relation to any local cadre, means the local area specified in paragraph 6 for direct recruitment to posts in such local cadre, and includes, in respect of posts belonging to the category of Civil Assistant Surgeons, the local area specified in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph (6) of this Order;
(d) to (g) xxxx xxxx xxxx (h) ‘Schedule’ means a Sched
