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

1966 Supreme(AP) 122

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO
P.Radhakrishna - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-01-66

A G.O. issued by the Government, even if it affects a number of people, does not constitute law unless it is clothed with the authority of law and meets the requirements of subordinate legislation.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 309 - RULES REGULATING RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE - G.O. ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT NOT A RULE MADE UNDER ARTICLE 309 - NO LEGAL DUTY CAST ON GOVERNMENT TO MAINTAIN RATIO OF PROMOTION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, Supervisors (Electrical) Grade I, were promoted as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) under emergency provisions of the rules and subsequently reverted due to lack of vacancies. They sought a writ of mandamus to enforce G.O. Ms. No. 2674, Public Works Department, dated 4-11-1960, prescribing a 2:1 promotion ratio between Junior Engineers and Supervisors, claiming that they would have been promoted under this ratio.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that G.O. Ms. No. 2674 was not a rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution and lacked the attributes of a validly made rule. It was an administrative direction given by the Government in the name of the Governor and did not create any legal right enforceable in a court of law.

Issues: 1. Whether G.O. Ms. No. 2674, Public Works Department, dated 4-11-1960, prescribing a 2:1 promotion ratio between Junior Engineers and Supervisors, was a rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the Government had a legal duty to maintain the said promotion ratio.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A G.O. issued by the Government, even if it affects a number of people, does not constitute law unless it is clothed with the authority of law. 2. To have the force of law, subordinate legislation must be authorized by the parent Act, made by competent authority, follow prescribed formalities, and be published for public information. 3. G.O. Ms. No. 2674 was not intended to be a rule under Article 309, was not published in the official gazette, and lacked the postulates of a validly made rule under Article 309. 4. The G.O. was an executive direction given for the guidance of promotion authorities and did not create any legal right enforceable in a court of law.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the G.O. in question did not have the force of law and did not cast any legal duty on the Government enforceable by a writ of mandamus.

A. GOPAL RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement and enforce G. O. Ms. No. 2674, Public Works Department, dated 4-11-1960 and to issue orders of promotion of the petitioners as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) with effect from 10-9-1963 with all the benefits of salary, rank and other rights and privileges consequential thereto.

( 2 ) THE facts, which are not in dispute, may briefly be stated. From the time of the composite Madras State, a convention had grown that promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers from the category of Junior Engineers (Electrical) and the category of Supervisors (Electrical), Grade I would be according to the ratio of 4 : 1. The State Government or Andhra Pradesh, however, issued G. O. Ms. No. 2674, Public Works Department, dated 4-11- 60 prescribing the ratio of 2:1 cm the advice of the State Public Service Commission. Some representation was made by the junior Engineers (Electrical ). The Government re-examined the issue and went back to the original ratio of 4:1 and issued G. O. Ms. No. 2570, P. W. D. , dated 8-11-1961.

( 3 ) THE petitioners, who belong to the category of Supervisors (Electrical) Grade I were promoted as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) under emergency provisions of the rules and subsequently were reverted because there were no vacancies on which they could be continued. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners ought to have been again promoted following the ratio prescribed by G. O. Ms. No. 2674 dated 4-11-1960. Since the Government have been promoting from the Junior Engineers category to the detriment of the petitioners, the petitioners are seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to oblige the Government to maintain the ratio of 2:1 and since the petitioners plead that under this ratio they would have got the promotion, they should be promoted with effect from the date mentioned earlier.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the temporary promotions, which were made, in so far as the petitioners were concerned were made under the emergency rules. The petitioners therefore had no right to the posts. According to the provisions of the rules, they were reverted and that reversion is not questioned in this writ petition. It is therefore unnecessary to go into the question whether their reversion has been proper or not.

( 5 ) IT is now a firmly established rule of law that in order to successfully obtain a writ of mandamus, it is necessary for the petitioners first to establish that a legal duty is cast upon the respondents to do or forbear from doing a particular thing in the discharge of a public duty, and secondly that in spite of a request made in that behalf the respondents are not discharging or refraining from discharging the statutory duty cast upon them. The petitioners consequently have to first establish that there is a statutory duty on the part of the Government to maintain the ratio of 2:1 between the two sets of services as is laid down in G. O. Ms. No. 2674 dated 4-11-1960. That naturally turns upon the question whether the said G. O. is a rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and it casts a legal duty on the Government to make promotions only according to the ratio prescribed in that G. O.

( 6 ) NOW, Article 809 authorises the appropriate Legislature to regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State Until such a law is made by the Legislature, the proviso to that article provides that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct. . . . . . in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating






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