1990 (4) TMI 307 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Authority of High Court/Administrative Tribunal to direct the State Government to frame or amend statutory rules.
2. Restriction of promotions from feeder cadre to higher cadre based on specialty irrespective of seniority.
3. Validity and constitutionality of Rule 6 of the 1961 Rules.
4. Implementation of High Court observations by the State Government.
5. Arbitrary nature of the Special Rules and their compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of High Court/Administrative Tribunal to Direct the State Government to Frame or Amend Statutory Rules:

The judgment clarified that it is neither legal nor proper for the High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals to issue directions or advisory sermons to the executive in respect of areas exclusively within the domain of the executive under the Constitution. The High Court's observations in Civil Writ Petition No. 4532 of 1971 were advisory in nature and not binding on the State Government. The Tribunal erred in treating these observations as binding directions. The Court emphasized that the judiciary cannot usurp the functions assigned to the executive under the Constitution, nor can it indirectly require the executive to exercise its rule-making power in any specific manner.

2. Restriction of Promotions from Feeder Cadre to Higher Cadre Based on Specialty Irrespective of Seniority:

The Special Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, categorized posts in Class IV and Class V and restricted promotions from Class V to Class IV within their respective categories. Despite a common seniority list for Class V officers, promotions were category-wise, rendering seniority irrelevant outside the specific category. The Court noted that while this system might cause dissatisfaction, it was within the State Government's discretion to frame such rules.

3. Validity and Constitutionality of Rule 6 of the 1961 Rules:

Rule 6 of the 1961 Rules prescribed special eligibility qualifications for promotions to Class IV posts, which some Veterinary Assistant Surgeons challenged as ultra vires and unconstitutional. The High Court, in its earlier judgment, upheld Rule 6, stating that prescribing qualifications for promotions is permissible. However, the Court acknowledged that the discretionary power to select individuals for specialized training could lead to favoritism, but this did not render the rule itself ultra vires. The aggrieved officers had the option to challenge specific instances of favoritism or denial of training opportunities.

4. Implementation of High Court Observations by the State Government:

The Administrative Tribunal directed the State Government to amend the Special Rules in line with the High Court's observations, merging all categories in Class IV and Class V and making promotions based on seniority alone. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal overstepped its authority by issuing such directions, as the High Court's observations were merely advisory and not binding. The judgment emphasized the separation of powers, reiterating that the judiciary should not interfere with the executive's rule-making powers.

5. Arbitrary Nature of the Special Rules and Their Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:

The respondents contended that the Special Rules were arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, arguing that the initial recruitment to Class V was at the Government's discretion without statutory rules or executive instructions. They also claimed that posts in the seven categories of Class V were inter-transferable. The State of Andhra Pradesh countered these arguments, asserting that options were provided at the time of recruitment and subsequently, and that the posts were not interchangeable. The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal did not address these points, focusing instead on the High Court's observations. The case was remitted to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for a detailed examination of these issues, with directions to decide the matter expeditiously.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal, dismissing the Representation Petition No. 578/78 filed by M. Srinivasan and others. The case was remitted to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for further consideration of the points raised regarding the arbitrariness of the Special Rules and their compliance with constitutional provisions. The Tribunal was instructed to provide an opportunity for additional affidavits and documents and to decide the matter within three months. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.