Back
1986 Supreme(AP) 67
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, V.BHASKARAN NAMBIAR
Bommaraju Hanumantha - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. represented by its Secretary to Government (Revenue) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 02-04-86
A state government's assurance to the Supreme Court, recorded in a judgment, is a solemn commitment that cannot be disregarded.
Headnote:
ABOLITION OF PART-TIME VILLAGE OFFICERS ACT - ASSURANCE OF ABSORPTION OF FORMER OFFICERS - VALIDITY OF AD-HOC RULES - INCLUSION OF MLA IN SELECTION COMMITTEE - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance was promulgated in 1984, abolishing the posts of part-time village officers. The ordinance was challenged in writ petitions, and both the High Court and the Supreme Court upheld its constitutional validity. The petitioners, former part-time village officers, contended that the state government's assurance to consider them for fresh appointments in the newly created posts of Village Assistants was legally binding. The government argued that no such assurance was given and that the Ad-hoc Rules for the recruitment of Village Assistants did not provide for preferential treatment to the former officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the state government's assurance to the Supreme Court, recorded in the judgment, was a solemn commitment that could not be disregarded. The court found that the Ad-hoc Rules were invalid to the extent that they did not provide for the absorption of the former Village Officers in the post of Village Assistants in the true spirit of the assurance given to the Supreme Court. The court also held that the provision in Rule 5 of the Ad-hoc Rules, which empowered the government to nominate an MLA on the Special District Level Committee for selection of candidates, was invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the state government's assurance to consider the former Village Officers for fresh appointments in the newly created posts of Village Assistants was legally binding. 2. Whether the Ad-hoc Rules for the recruitment of Village Assistants were valid in light of the assurance given to the Supreme Court. 3. Whether the provision in Rule 5 of the Ad-hoc Rules, which empowered the government to nominate an MLA on the Special District Level Committee for selection of candidates, was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the state government's assurance to the Supreme Court, recorded in the judgment, was a solemn commitment that could not be disregarded. The court found that the Ad-hoc Rules were invalid to the extent that they did not provide for the absorption of the former Village Officers in the post of Village Assistants in the true spirit of the assurance given to the Supreme Court. 2. The court also held that the provision in Rule 5 of the Ad-hoc Rules, which empowered the government to nominate an MLA on the Special District Level Committee for selection of candidates, was invalid.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from taking any steps in implementation of the notification issued by the 2nd respondent calling for applications for the Village Assistants (Recruitment) examination. The court also held that the Ad-hoc Rules were invalid to the extent to which it does not provide for the absorption of the erstwhile Village Officers in the post of Village Assistants in the true spirit of the assurance given to the supreme Court in the judgment dt. 27-3-85 in W P No. 629/84 and connected cases, and to the extent it provides for the nomination by the government of an M L A on the Special district Level Committee for selection of candidates for being appointed to the posts of Village Assistants. The court directed the respondents to take all the necessary steps to appoint the erst while village Officers who have the requisite educational and age qualifications as prescribed in Rule 6 of the Ad hoc Rules, provided that they are physically fit and have not incurred any punishment during the course of their service as Village officers without requiring them to acquire any new qualifications or to appear for any written examination or oral test, as early as possible, at any rate, within six months from to-day.
( 2 ) THE petitioners are persons who had been previously holding the posts of part-time village officers. The costs of part-time village officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh have been abolished by the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Part-time village Officers Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1/84) promulgated on January 0,1984 by the Governor under recommendation of the State Government "due to administrative necessity and in public interest" in view of the report of the "village Officers Enauiry Committee", appointed under G 0 Ms No 1042, revenue (H) Department, dated June 6, 1961. under the Chairmanship of Sri k M. Unnithan I C S , and the report dated 5-7-83 of Sri I. Narasimha Rao, i A S. Collector and District Magistrate, guntur, who had conducted a study on "re-organisation of Village Establishment in Andhra Pradesh". This Ordinance was followed by a series of Ordinances containing identical provisions (Ordinance Nos, 7/84 13/84, 18/34, and 21/84 which were promulgated respec- tively on 21-3-1984, 27-4-84 7-6-84 and 20-7-84), No "ordinance with the same or similar provisions was issued after the expiry of the life of ordinance No. 21/84, but the Andhra pradesh Abolition of the Posts of Village officers Act (Act VIII of 1 985) hereinafter referred to as the abolition Act with identical provisions as contained in the ordinances referred to above, was enacted in 1985. This Act, which received the assent of the Governor on 7- 4- 85 was brought into force with effect retrospectively from 6-1-84, the date on which, as already noticed, Ordinance No. 1/84 was promulgated.
( 3 ) ORDINANCE No. 1/84 was challenged in writ. petitions before this court and in the Supreme Court. Both the Courts upheld the Constitutional validity of the provisions in regard to the abolition of the posts of part-time village officers. In WPMP 571/84 in WP. 420/84 and connected cases, however, a division Bench of this court had on 12-1-84 made the following observations:"the learned Advocate Generaf also has read out the assurance given by the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh where he assured that the persons who are denuded of the part-time offices but are possessed of qualifications prescribed for the post of Village Assistants and suitable, would be considered for fresh appointments. "a constitution Bench of the Supreme court while disposing of writ petition no. 629/84 and connected cases, by judgment dt 27-3-85 (reported in T. Venkata Reddy, V. State of A P (1) AIR 1985 SC 754 has stated in the concluding portion of the judgment as follows:-"24. It is lastly urged that the state Government may be asked to consider the cases of those petitioners who possess the prescribed qualifications for appointment as Village Assistants. We are informed that the number of posts of Village Assistants that are going to be created would be about one-eighth of the number of posts of parttime Village officers which are abolished. It is also difficult in law to issue any direction in that bahalf in the facts and circumstances of this case. We, however, record that in paragraph 21 of the Counter-Affidavit filed by B V Janardhan Reddy, Deputy secretary to Government, Revenue department, Govt. of A. P. , it is stated thus: "in addition, the Government is of the view that such of those Village officers who possess the required qualifications as prescribed and otherwise found suitable will also be considered for appointment of Village Assistants subject to the availability of the posts. " 25. We trust that the State government will give due regard to the above said statement while making appointments. Statements contained in affidavits are meant to be honoured. "in paragraph 20 of the WP No 12620/85 there is reference to the following direction having been given by Justice Upondralal waghray in
