Back
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, V.GOPALA GOWDA
M. SURENDER REDDY – Appellant
Versus
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?
Key Points: - G.O.Ms.No.124 dated 7th March, 2002 is prospective and not applicable to selections already started under Advertisement No.10 of 1999; retrospective applicability was rejected. (!) (!) (!) - Presidential Order 1975 and paras on local cadres/preference: State cannot grant retrospective effect to amendments affecting direct recruitment under the Order; selection processes started prior to any amendment must follow the rules in force at the time, and amendments cannot derail vested selections. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court directed completion of remaining vacancies in accordance with the Presidential Order and pre-2002 Government orders; no re-casting of merit lists for already appointed candidates except as per rules in force in 1999. (!) (!) - The warnings and interpretations on retrospective versus prospective operation of statutes and orders, with citations to constitutional provisions and earlier cases. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The appeals are allowed; the Tribunal and High Court directions to re-caste merit lists were reversed; carry forward/appointment procedures to be finalized expeditiously. (!) (!) - Local cadre reservation framework (80/20, etc.) under Presidential Order 1975 and amendments (G.O.Ms.124, 2002) subject to prospective application; issues of inter se seniority to be decided per rules. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Judgment
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against common judgment dated 27th December, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 20106, 20350, 20539 and 21554 of 2004 and common order dated 28th December, 2004 passed by the same High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 20215, 20305, 21558 and 23173 of 2004. By the impugned common judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upheld the finding of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) and held as follows:
“26. In view of our foregoing discussions, we record the following conclusions:
(a) The finding of the Tribunal that the selection process has to be in accordance with the G.O.Ms. No.124, dated 8.8.2002 cannot be said to be erroneous or contrary to law.
(b) But, however, the direction that the entire select list has to be reviewed clubbing the appointments under 1st round selection is not sustainable and accordingly the procedure as contemplated under G.O.Ms. No.124 has to be followed only in respect of the candidates excluding the appointments already made in 200
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
