2010 (4) Supreme 129
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju, A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
T. Narasimhulu & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of A. P. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8116 of 2003
with
Civil Appeal Nos. 8082 of 2003, 8083 of 2003
and 8088 of 2003
Decided on : 11-5-2010
(2002) 6 SCC 127 – Relied upon
(1996) 6 SCC 634 – Distinguished
(b) Constitution of India – Article 309, Proviso – The rules made under Article 309 are required to be published just as any other Act so that the persons affected by the rules or the Act are aware of the rule or the Act. (Para 7)
AIR 1951 SC 467; AIR 1965 SC 722 – Relied upon
(c) Publication of law – Where the law prescribes the mode of publication of the law to become operative, the law must be published in that mode only – Where no mode is prescribed, such law should be published in some usual or recognized mode to bring it to the knowledge of all persons concerned. (Para 8)
(d) Service Law – Seniority – Seniority of a Government servant is not a vested right and that an Act of the State Legislature or a rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution can retrospectively affect the seniority of a Government servant. (Para 12)
(1997) 8 SCC 522 – Relied upon
(1997) 6 SCC 623 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
Amendment to the rule for sending state forest officials for training as Asstt. Conservator of Forest is challenged in this case.
Finding of the Court:
Rule 2 as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 51 is a rule relating to appointment of Forest Rangers as Assistant Conservators.
JUDGMENT
A. K. Patnaik, J. —
These are appeals against the judgment and order dated 05.04.2002 of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a batch of Writ Petitions Nos. 14689 of 2001, 25322 of 2001, 24420 of 1997 and Writ Petition No.22926 of 2001 (for short ‘the impugned judgment’).
2.The relevant facts very briefly are that on 28.07.1983 the Government of India sent a Circular to all the State Governments to depute the Forest Range Officers who have passed the Forest Ranger Course with honours for admission to two year course at the State Forest College for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. In response to the Circular, the Government of Andhra Pradesh sent the Forest Range Officers, who had secured honours in Forest Ranger Course, on deputation to the State Forest College for training as Assistant Conservators of Forests during the period 08.04.1986 to 23.06.1994. On 13.11.1994, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal delivered a judgment in O.A. No.3258 of 1994 holding that the deputation of Forest Range Officers, namely, Sri B. Narayan Reddy and Sri T. P. Thimma Reddy, for training as Assistant Conservators of Forests was contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1965 (for short ‘the Forest Service Rules’). On 29.05.1995, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 35 adding a proviso to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules that Forest Range Officers who secured first and second ranks in their batches for Honours in Ranger’s Training Course shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant Conservators and this G.O.Ms. No. 35 was published in the Gazette of the Andhra Pradesh on 01.06.1995. On 03.07.1995, the Andhra Pradesh Government issued G.O.Ms. No.51 amending this proviso to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules so as to provide that Forest Range Officers who secured Honours in their batches in the Rangers Training Course shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant Conservators and this G.O.Ms. No.51 was published in the Gazette of Andhra Pradesh on 12.09.1996. The appellants who were working as Assistant Conservators of Forests challenged the amendments to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules by G.O.Ms. No.35 and G.O.Ms. No.51 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and thereafter before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petitions.
3.Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal No.8116 of 2003, submitted that a bare perusal of the G.O.Ms. 35 dated 29.05.1995 and G.O.Ms. No.51 dated 03.07.1995 would show that the Government Orders directing that the amendments shall be deemed to have come into force from 08.04.1986 was not part of the Notification which was published in the Gazette. He submitted that the amendments by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 are amendments to Rule 2 made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and although the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution does not prescribe any specific mode of publication of the Rules made thereunder, the amendments are required to be published in the same manner in which the Rules made under an Act are published. He referred to Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act which provides that even where an Act or Rule provides for publication merely but does not say expressly that it shall be published in the Official Gazette, it would be deemed to have been duly made if it is published in the Official Gazette. He cited a decision of this Court in I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards & Anr. v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A. P. & Ors.1 [(1996) 6 SCC 634] in support of this submission. He vehemently submitted that although the amendments made to Rule 2 by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 were published by a notification in the Official Gazette, the portion of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. NOs. 35 and 51 directing that the amendments would have retrospective effect from 08.04.1986 was not published in the notificat
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.