9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's judgment striking down certain provisions of the Special Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. 2. Interpretation of para 5(2) of the Presidential Order issued under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. 3. Applicability of previous Supreme Court decisions in similar cases. Detailed Analysis: 1. Correctness of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's Judgment: The Tribunal struck down the Special Rules framed under Article 309, holding them violative of the Presidential Order issued under Article 371-D. The Tribunal concluded that the Presidential Order enforced on 18.10.1975 required the organization of cadres in each department, including the determination of cadre strengths. It held that the local cadre is the unit for recruitment, appointment, seniority, promotion, and transfer under para 5(1) of the Presidential Order. The Tribunal found that the impugned Rules violated paras 3 and 5 of the Presidential Order because they allowed ministerial employees from the Factories and Boilers department to be considered for posts in the Labour department, which should be restricted to the local cadre of the Labour department. 2. Interpretation of Para 5(2) of the Presidential Order: The core issue was whether para 5(2) of the Presidential Order, which allows the State Government to make provisions for the transfer of persons between local cadres, also includes promotional prospects. The appellants argued that the term "transfer" in para 5(2) should be interpreted broadly to include promotions. However, the Court held that the term "transfer" refers to a change of place of employment within an organization and does not include promotions. The Court emphasized that the distinction between transfer and promotion made in para 5(1) should also apply to para 5(2). The Court concluded that the Presidential Order's intention was to provide equitable opportunities for people from different parts of the State, and including promotions within the term "transfer" would be contrary to this objective. 3. Applicability of Previous Supreme Court Decisions: The appellants relied on the decisions in "State of Andhra Pradesh vs. V. Sadanandam" and "Govt. of A.P. vs. B. Satyanarayana Rao" to argue that similar provisions had been upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the Court found these decisions to be incorrectly decided. The Court noted that in "Sadanandam's case," the Tribunal's failure to properly interpret para 5(2) of the Presidential Order led to an erroneous conclusion. The Court clarified that para 5(2) does not override the scheme of local cadres prescribed under para 5(1). Consequently, the Court held that the impugned Rules were invalid as they were not framed within the permissible limits of para 5(2) and were contrary to the Presidential Order. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's judgment, declaring the impugned Rules void to the extent they allowed ministerial employees from the Factories and Boilers department to be considered for posts in the Labour department. The Court emphasized that the Presidential Order's provisions must be strictly followed to ensure equitable opportunities for public employment across different parts of the State. The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal's conclusions and highlighting the need for the State Government to consider creating promotional avenues within each department to avoid stagnation and discontentment among employees.
|
