MALLIKARJUNA RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 418

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL

Case summary

;· dates with the oblique motive of preferring one set of persons to another for the purposes of promotion, it was open to the aggrieve officer to challenge the act of the Government in each particular case....

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. The questions arising for our consideration in these appeals are as under: (1) Can the High Court/Administrative Tnbunal direct the State Government to frame or amend the existing statutory rules to alter the conditions of service of the civil servants in tenns of the directions? (2) When there are specialised posts in a feeder cadre and also in the higher cadre, can the Government restrict the promotions from feeder cadre to the higher cadre only speciality-wise irrespective of the seniority? The conditions of service of the Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Department were initially gqverned by the Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called 1961 Rules). Under these Rules Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were ~ _ eligible for promotion to three different categories of posts called class IV posts and Rule 6 provided special eligibility qualifications for those posts.

Only those Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were considered for promotion to class IV posts who fulfilled the qualifications/specialised training prescribed under Rule 6 of the 1961 Rules. Some of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons challenged the vires of Rule 6 of the 1961 Rules by way of Article 309 of the :Constitution of India. We are therefore, of the view that the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4532/71 and the Administrative Tribunal in the judgment under appeal transgressed its limits in issuing the impugned directions. ~ We set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss the Representation Petition No. 578/78 filed by M. Srinivasan and 44 others to the extent indicated above. Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, however, contends that the Special Rules are arbitrary and are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

He contends that at the time of initial recruitment to Class V the Government at its discretion picks-up persons for appointment to any of the categories. According to him neither there are any statutory rules or executive instructions providing options to class V officers to join T category of their choice nor in fact any such options were given at the relevant time. He has further argued that the posts in seven categories of class V are inter-transferable. He invited our attention to the docu- fi ments on record showing transfers from one category to another. Mr. Madhava Reddy learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh on the other hand has controverted the above arguments. · · According to him options were not only given at the time of initial recruitment into class V service but also subsequently as and when the rules were amended. He categorically denied that the posts iiivarious categories are interchangeable.

The learned counsel on both s~es wanted us to go into the various documents in support of their respective contentions•. We do not have before us the factual-matrix to appreciate the argument of Mr. Vaidyanathan that the special Rules are arbitrary. We, however; find from the judgment under appeal that all these points were raised before the Tribunal in one form or the other but the Tribunal based its judgment on the observations of the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4532nI and did not go into any other point. While setting aside the judgment under appeal we remit the case to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for decision on other D/ points as indicated hi- us or as may be raised by the parties. The Tribunal shall give further opportunity to the parties to file additional affidavits/documents. We request the Tribtinal to decide the matter expeditiously and if possible within three_. months. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. Y.

Lal Appeals allowed. ---~d - --