1976 (9) TMI 185 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Inclusion of 63 Deputy Tahsildars in the promotion list to the post of Tahsildar.
2. Validity of retrospective relaxation of Rule 4(a) of the Special Rules by the Governor.
3. Authority of the Governor to relax rules under Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules.
4. Impact of the retrospective relaxation on the claims of the writ petitioners.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of 63 Deputy Tahsildars in the promotion list to the post of Tahsildar:

The respondents challenged the inclusion of 63 individuals, who were Upper Division Clerks in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, in the promotion list for the post of Tahsildar. These individuals were promoted to Deputy Tahsildar based on the Hyderabad Cadre and Recruitment Rules, which did not require them to pass the criminal judicial test or exercise magisterial powers. The Andhra Pradesh Government, in consultation with the Public Service Commission, included these individuals in the promotion list, assuring the Commission that the qualification requirements would be relaxed if they were otherwise found suitable.

2. Validity of retrospective relaxation of Rule 4(a) of the Special Rules by the Governor:

The High Court initially held that Rule 47 did not confer power to relax a rule retrospectively and that the impugned order dated June 30, 1971, which relaxed Rule 4(a) of the Special Rules retrospectively, was invalid. The High Court also held that the power to relax rules under Rule 47 was to be exercised by the Governor personally, and since the order was passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, it was invalid. However, the Supreme Court overruled this view, referencing the case of Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, which clarified that the Governor's power could be exercised by the Government.

3. Authority of the Governor to relax rules under Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules:

Rule 47 allows the Governor to relax the rigour of the general rules in a just and equitable manner. The Supreme Court noted that similar provisions exist in other service rules and that the power under Rule 47 is intended to address failures of justice, which may necessitate retrospective application. The Court cited R.P. Khanna and Ors. v. S.A.F. Abbas and Ors. to support the view that retrospective relaxation is practical and reasonable in certain circumstances.

4. Impact of the retrospective relaxation on the claims of the writ petitioners:

The writ petitioners argued that the retrospective relaxation of Rule 4(a) adversely affected their claims for promotion to Tahsildar. They sought a direction to include their names in the promotion panels for the years 1968 and 1969 and to fix their seniority accordingly. The High Court initially ruled in their favour, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision, stating that Rule 47 permits retrospective relaxation to serve the interests of justice and equity.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court upheld the validity of the retrospective relaxation of Rule 4(a) by the Governor under Rule 47, emphasizing that such relaxation is permissible to address failures of justice. The Court made no order as to costs.

Separate Judgments:

There were no separate judgments delivered by different judges in this case. The judgment was delivered collectively by the bench.