SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(AP) 346

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMASWAMY
Y.VASUDEVA RAO - Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAW and LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS HYDERABAD - Respondent
Decided On : 06-25-87

The Government has the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to regulate the service conditions of the Standing Counsel or Law officers of the State Public Undertakings or the Corporations or the co-operative Societies registered under the relevant law.

Headnote:

ARTICLE 309 - PUBLIC SERVICE - LAW OFFICERS - STANDING COUNSEL - STATE PUBLIC UNDERTAKINGS - CORPORATIONS - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE SERVICE CONDITIONS - AMENDED RULES - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 309 AND RELATED PROVISIONS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, members of the Bar, challenged the power of the Government to amend the Andhra Pradesh Law Officers (Recruitment Conditions of service and Remuneration) Rules, 1967, through G.O. Ms. No. 89 Law (Law Officers) dated September 21, 1981, which amended the definition of Law Officers to include Standing Counsel of State Public Undertakings and Corporations, and introduced new rules regulating their appointment, service conditions, and remuneration.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Government had the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to make the Amended Rules regulating the appointment and service conditions of the Standing Counsel of the Corporations or State Public Undertakings or Societies.

Issues: 1. Whether the Government has the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to regulate the service conditions of the Standing Counsel or Law officers of the State Public Undertakings or the Corporations or the co-operative Societies registered under the relevant law. 2. Whether the definition of "state" in Article 12 of the Constitution can be interpreted to include State Public Undertakings, Corporations, and Co-operative Societies for the purpose of Part XIV of the Constitution, which deals with services under the Union and the State.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Article 309 of the Constitution and held that the power to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to services or posts under the State includes the power to regulate the service conditions of Law Officers or Standing Counsel of State Public Undertakings, Corporations, and Co-operative Societies. 2. The court held that the definition of "state" in Article 12 of the Constitution should be interpreted in a wider sense to include State Public Undertakings, Corporations, and Co-operative Societies, as they are instrumentalities or agencies of the Government and subject to its control. 3. The court held that the Amended Rules were validly made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and that the Government had the power to regulate the appointment and service conditions of the Standing Counsel of the Corporations or State Public Undertakings or Societies.

Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the validity of the Amended Rules was dismissed.

K. RAMA SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) TWO members of this Bar ably supported by their learned Counsel sri V. Venkatramanaiah, raised an interesting question of law as to the pc wer of the Government under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution to regulate the service conditions of the Standing Counsel or Law officers of the State Public Undertakings or the Corporations or the co-operative Societies registered under the relevant law. The Government in exercise of the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution amended the Andhra Pradesh Law Officers (Recruitment Conditions of service and Remuneration) Rules, 1967, for short, "the Rules", through g. O. Ms. No. 89 Law (Law Officers) dated September 21, 1981, amended the definition of Clauses in Rule 2 (b) (vii) and introduced another definition in Clauses in Rule 2 (b) (vii) and introduced another definition in Clauses 2 (d) (xi) State Public Undertakings" and incorporated Rules 3a, 3b, 8a and 8b and also invested transitionary power in the Government under Rule 8c (for short, "the Amended Rules" ).

( 2 ) THE petitioners mounted their attack on the power of the government to make amended Rules from two fronts. Firstly, it is their case that the power under the proviso to Article 309 could be exercised only to regulate the recruitment and to prescribe conditions of service of persons appointed to services or posts under the State. So long as there is no law made in that regard by the Legislature regulating the service conditions of employees under the Corporations, they are not public servants within the concept of Article 309 of the Constitution. The Law Officers or Standing counsel of these institutions are governed by the rules or regulations made by the respective institutions. Therefore, the rule making power under proviso to Art. 309 cannot be invoked to amend the Rules and make the amended Rules applicable to Standing Counsel of the Public Undertakings or Co-operative Societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Alternatively it is contended that for the purpose of Part XIV of the constitution viz. , services under the Union and the State, the word "state" is to be interpreted under Article 367 read with Clause (58) of Sec. 3 of the general Clauses Act, 1897. The term "state" is defined under Art. 12 of the Constitution in a wider canopy. Since the Constitution itself made a distinction between the Government servant who has a statutory status from the employees of a Corporation, their services are governed by the regulations made, under the relevant law. So long as no regulations arc marie under the relevant laws or the bye-laws of a Society, the Service conditions of Law Officers cannot be regulated by exercise of the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) BEFORE posing the question for consideration it is necessary to note the undisputed facts viz. , that the Government have under its control several state Public Undertakings and the Corporations in which they have 51% paid up share capital of the principal Corporation or subsidiary units or the societies constituted under the relevant law viz. , Andhra Pradesh co-operative Societies Act, 1964, or Companies Act, as the case may be. It is also admitted that the Government have supervisory control over these Corporations. It is also cannot be disputed that the Corporations are independent legal entities but subject to the control of the Government. The area of controversy centres round the question whether the Government can interpose and interdict the power ot the Corporations to appoint a counsel of its choice to act or defend its case in a court of law by making Amended rules. It is now well settled law, as far as this State is concerned, that government is entitled, in exercise of the power under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution to issue the Amended Rules and the Rules regulating the appointments, service conditions and remuneration of Law Officers.

( 4 ) IN t
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top