Back
1970 Supreme(AP) 123
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : KRISHNA RAO
G.Pandurangaiah - Appellant
Versus
Special Secretary to Government, A.P., Panchayat - Respondent
Decided On : 06-10-70
Article 35(b) of the Constitution of India saves pre-Constitution laws relating to residential requirements for employment only if they conform to the scope of Article 16(3), which allows Parliament to prescribe such requirements within a State. Laws that apply to a region within a State, rather than the entire State, cannot be considered valid under Article 35(b).
Headnote:
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - REQUIREMENT AS TO RESIDENCE - MULKI RULES - REVIVAL - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 35(B) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, appointed as Supervisors in the Subordinate Engineering Service of the Telangana Area in the State of Andhra Pradesh, challenged their retrenchment order, claiming residential qualification under the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 and Rules framed thereunder.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act and the Rules framed thereunder were ultra vires, as per the Supreme Court's decision in A. V. S. N. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
Issues: 1. Whether the Mulki Rules, prescribing residential qualifications for employment in the erstwhile Hyderabad State, revived after the Supreme Court's decision striking down the provisions of section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act? 2. Whether the Mulki Rules continued to be valid in light of Article 35(b) of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Mulki Rules did not revive automatically upon the striking down of section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, as the Act was intended as a temporary replacement of the Mulki Rules, and the period of its validity had expired. 2. The Court interpreted Article 35(b) of the Constitution to mean that only pre-Constitution laws conforming to the scope of Article 16(3) (allowing Parliament to prescribe residential requirements within a State) would continue to be valid. Since the Mulki Rules applied to a region within the State of Andhra Pradesh and not the entire State, they could not be considered valid under Article 35(b).
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to be retained in service based on residential qualifications under the Mulki Rules, and that the Government could retrench them as a measure of administrative efficiency.
( 2 ) THE two petitioners are appointed by the Chief Engineer, Local Administration, hyderabad in proceedings No. A-2/1761/66, dated roth May, 1966, under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh General Rules for State and Subordinate Services as Supervisors in the Hyderabad Circle stating that the appointments are purely temporary and that their services are liable to be terminated at any time without notice or without reasons. After some time, when the petitioners were working as. Supervisors, the Chief Engineer Panchayat Raj Department, Andhra Pradesh, hyderabad issued orders in proceedings No. A-2/776o//68-5, dated 30th April, 1968 terminating the services of the petitioners with effect from 5th May, 1968. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, the petitioners filed the above writ petition alleging that the petitioners should be retained in service as they possess the residential qualification under the provisions of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) act of 1957, and that retrenchment, if any, should be effected with reference to other supervisors who do not possess such residential qualifications. The Government filed a counter-affidavit stating that as the petitioners were appointed on a purely emergency temporary basis, they are liable to be retrenched in view of the abolition of certain posts and that no question of residential qualification arises in the matter of retrenchment. It is further pointed out in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the continuance of certain other persons in the posts of supervisors.
( 3 ) DURING the pendency of this writ petition it was held by Chinnappa Reddi, J. , in W. P. Nos. 2235, 3907, and 3962 of 1968, dated 3rd Ferbuary, 1969, that the provisions of section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act and the Rules thereunder are unconstitutional and that they did not fall within the purview of Article 16 sub-clause 3 which envisages legislation prescribing residential requirement in the entire State taken as a unit and not with reference part any to of the State of Andhra Pradesh. This decision was reversed on appeal by a Division bench consisting of Jaganmohan Reddi, C. J. , and Sambasiva Rao, J. , in writ appeal Nos. 44, 45 and 49 of 1969, dated 2oth February, 1969 which took the contrary view that Article 16, sub-clauses of the Constitution contemplates legislation prescribing residential requirements even with regrad to any portion within the state of Andhra Pradesh. Before the disposal of the appeal by the above Division bench, certain other persons, employed in the Ministerial Service of the Andhra pradesh Government working in various offices in the twin cities of Hyderabad and secunderabad, filed an independent writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the provisions of section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 and the Andhra Pradesh Rules framed thereunder, in so far as it relates to the Telangana Area, on the ground that such legislation is not contemplated by Article 16 sub-clause 3 of the Constitution of India, The supreme Court delivered its judgment shortly after the Judgment of the Division bench of this High Court, taking the same view, as the one expressed by Chinnappa reddi, J. Though the judgment of the Division Benc
