1985 (3) TMI 252 - SC - Indian Laws

Constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984 questioned Held that -The abolition of the posts and the declaration that the incumbents of those posts would cease to be holders of those posts under section 3 of the Ordinance being completed events, there is no question of their revival or the petitioners continuing to hold those posts any longer. The above contention has, therefore, to be rejected in the circumstances of this case. In view of what has been stated above it is not necessary to consider the contention of the petitioners that it was not open to the Government to issue one ordinance after another to keep alive the effect of the first ordinance as the first ordinance itself brought about the desired effect by section 3 thereof. Even if the other provisions of the Ordinance have ceased to be in force, there can be no constitutional difficulty arising therefrom because it is open to the State Government to create new posts in exercise of its powers under Article 162 of the Constitution as long as the field is not occupied by an Act of the Legislature or a rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984.
2. Effect of the Ordinance lapsing without being replaced by an Act.
3. Alleged infringement of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Ordinance:

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984, promulgated by the Governor under Article 213 of the Constitution. The Ordinance abolished the posts of part-time village officers and introduced Village Assistants. The petitioners argued that the Governor did not apply his mind to the subject matter of the Ordinance.

The Court discussed the legislative power conferred on the Executive under Article 213, which allows the Governor to promulgate ordinances when the Legislature is not in session. The Court emphasized that the power to issue ordinances is legislative, not executive, and is subject to the same limitations as the legislative power of the State Legislature. The Court noted that the Ordinance was promulgated based on a policy decision taken by the State Government, which concluded that the system of part-time village officers was outdated and needed replacement with full-time officers.

The Court rejected the petitioners' contention, stating that the satisfaction of the Governor regarding the necessity of the Ordinance is not justiciable. The Court held that an ordinance is a 'law' and should be approached on that basis, carrying all the attributes of an Act of the Legislature.

2. Effect of the Ordinance Lapsing Without Being Replaced by an Act:

The petitioners argued that since the Legislature did not pass an Act to replace the Ordinance, the posts abolished by the Ordinance should be deemed to have revived. They contended that the successive issuance of ordinances did not serve any purpose.

The Court examined clause (2) of Article 213, which states that an ordinance shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature unless replaced by an Act. The Court clarified that the language of Article 213 does not imply that the Ordinance becomes void ab initio if not replaced by an Act. Instead, it ceases to operate prospectively. The Court noted that the abolition of posts and the cessation of incumbents' employment were completed events on January 6, 1984, and could not be reversed by the lapse of the Ordinance.

The Court referred to the decision in State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose, where it was held that the rights created by a validating ordinance endure even after its expiry. The Court concluded that the abolition of posts under the Ordinance was irreversible except by express legislation.

3. Alleged Infringement of Fundamental Rights Under Article 21:

The petitioners claimed that the abolition of posts and the consequent deprivation of their right to hold those posts amounted to an infringement of their fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court dismissed this contention, stating that the petitioners were not being deprived of their right to life and liberty by the abolition of posts. The Court noted that the abolition of posts was an administrative decision taken in the interest of public administration.

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984. The Court held that the Ordinance's provisions were valid and effective until they ceased to operate, and the abolition of posts was a completed event that could not be reversed by the lapse of the Ordinance. The Court also found no violation of Article 21 in the abolition of the posts. The Court recorded the State Government's statement that eligible ex-village officers would be considered for appointment as Village Assistants, subject to availability.

← Previous Next →