B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 17-7-1998 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2198 of 1998 and Batch.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS are the non-teaching staff working in the Directors of Collegiate Education, Intermediate Education and their subordinate offices.

( 3 ) RECRUITMENT to the posts of Junior Lecturers is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education Service Rules framed in G. O. Ms. No. 302, Education (IE. 1) Department, dated 30-12-1993 in exercise of the powers under second proviso to Article 309 of the Indian Constitution. There are 3 sources of recruitment, i. e. , (i) Direct recruitment, (ii) Recruitment by transfer from School Assistants in Category 1 (b) of Class-C, Language Pandits including Hindi Pandits and Munshis Grade I in Category I of Class D of Andhra Pradesh School Education Subordinate Service Rules (G. O. Ms. No. 302), and (iii) Recruitment by transfer from any other service. Quota provided for the above 3 sources of appointment is 50% for the direct recruits, 40% for the recruits by transfer from the School Assistants and allied services and 10% for the recruits by transfer from the other services in the Education Department.

( 4 ) WE are not concerned with the first two sources of recruitment. The concern in the writ petition is only to the extent of 10%, which is allocated for non-teaching staff. The contention of the petitioners is that such non-teaching staff can only be confined to the personnel working in the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Intermediate Education and their subordinate units, it cannot be extended to the personnel working in the Director of School Education and other subordinate offices of School Education wing. Respondents 9 to 17 and the impleaded respondents represent the latter category.

( 5 ) THERE is no dispute with regard to the facts-situation and the contentions rest only on the interpretation to be given to the above G. O. Ms. No. 302, dated 30-12-1993. The question is, whether the Governmental Memo No. 503/ie 1/94-21, dated 21-3-1998, which is in tune with the interpretation sough! for by the petitioners, is valid or not?

( 6 ) THE validity of the said Memo depends upon the construction of the same. No other point is argued excepting the said aspect. Learned Counsel for the petitioners stresses that the said Governmental Memo only supplements the gap in the rule framed in G. O. Ms. No. 302, dated 30-12-1993. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents as also the learned Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submit that the Governmental Memo mentioned above seeks to supplant the statutory rule, as," while the statutory rule throws open 10% quota to all the non-teaching staff in the Education Department, the Governmental Memo dated 21-3-1998 seeks to restrict the said quota only for the non-teaching personnel serving in the Directorate of Collegiate Education keeping out the personnel working in the School Education Department from consideration. The arguments are not on the touchstone of either Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India, but only on simple construction of the said Governmental Memo that it is only supplemental and does not supplant the rule.

( 7 ) IT is a settled position that whenever the statutory provisions clash with Constitutional provisions, the latter will prevail and the statutory rule framed in excess of the statutory provision will get superseded by the latter. When there is a conflict between a statutory rule and the executive instruction, the executive instruction has to pave way for the statutory rule and to the extent of repugnancy the executive instruction becomes inoperative. This legal principle being clear, let us now examine the correctness or otherwise of the Order of the Tribunal, which, in exercise of its judicial review, has held that the said Governmental Memo exceeds the statutory rule framed in G

Click Here to Read the rest of this document