9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation, scope, and impact of Article 371-D on Articles 226, 229, and 235 of the Constitution. 2. Jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal over the compulsory retirement of officers and servants of the High Court and members of the subordinate judiciary. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation, Scope, and Impact of Article 371-D on Articles 226, 229, and 235 of the Constitution: The core issue in both appeals was the interpretation of Article 371-D concerning Articles 226, 229, and 235. The Court examined whether Article 371-D, which provides for the constitution of an Administrative Tribunal for Andhra Pradesh, affects the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and the control of the Chief Justice and High Court over their officers and servants under Articles 229 and 235. The Court emphasized that Articles 229 and 235 are designed to ensure the independence of the judiciary from executive control. Article 229 grants the Chief Justice exclusive authority over the appointment and conditions of service of High Court staff, while Article 235 vests control over the subordinate judiciary in the High Court. The Court noted that these provisions aim to maintain judicial independence and prevent executive interference. 2. Jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal: The Court scrutinized whether the Administrative Tribunal constituted under Article 371-D has jurisdiction over matters involving the compulsory retirement of High Court staff and subordinate judiciary members. The Tribunal had set aside the compulsory retirement orders on the grounds that they amounted to a penalty of dismissal or removal from service, which is protected under Article 311(2). The Court concluded that the phrase "civil services of the State" in Article 371-D does not include the High Court staff and subordinate judiciary. The Court reasoned that including these judicial officers under the Tribunal's jurisdiction would undermine the exclusive control vested in the Chief Justice and High Court, thereby affecting judicial independence. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Article 371-D was to address regional disparities in public employment and education, not to alter the judiciary's independence. Conclusion: The Court held that the Administrative Tribunal's order dated August 24, 1977, was passed without jurisdiction and was a nullity. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the orders of compulsory retirement were quashed. The Court directed that the respondents could file writ petitions in the High Court to challenge their compulsory retirement orders, ensuring that no objections on grounds of laches, delay, or technicalities would be raised. Orders: 1. Civil Appeal No. 2826 of 1977: Allowed, with parties bearing their own costs. 2. Civil Appeal No. 278 of 1978: Allowed, with the appellant bearing the respondent's costs. 3. Directions: Respondents may file writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh within three weeks, and the High Court and State Government will not raise objections on maintainability grounds. The High Court shall dispose of the writ petitions on merits. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining judicial independence and clarifies the limited scope of the Administrative Tribunal's jurisdiction under Article 371-D.
|
