2015 (2) TMI 1402 - SC - Indian Laws

Applicability of G.O. Ms. 124 dated 7th March 2002 to the posts for which selection process has already started pursuant to 1999 advertisement - retrospective in nature or not - If the said G.O. Ms. is retrospective whether it is required to review the entire select list disturbing the appointments already made during the period between the 2001 and 7th March 2002? - HELD THAT - In Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha 1961 (4) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT the Constitution Bench of this Court while considering the question as to whether an Act is to be made operative prospectively or retrospectively held a section may be prospective in some parts and retrospective in other parts. While it is the ordinary rule that substantive rights should not be held to be taken away except by express provision or clear implication many Acts though prospective in form have been given retrospective operation if the intention of the legislature is apparent. A statutory provision is held to be retrospective either when it is so declared by express terms or the intention to make retrospective clearly follows from the relevant words and the context in which they occur. By Presidential order 1975 the State Government has not been empowered to pass any order under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 or paragraph 8 with retrospective effect. Apart from the fact that the State Government was not empowered by the Presidential Order 1975 to pass any orders with retrospective date in absence of any terms or the intention to make it retrospective date the G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March 2002 cannot be given effect from a retrospective date - In any case the State Government cannot pass any order amending a procedural law regarding reservation in the matter of selection to posts with retrospective effect once the procedure of selection starts. The G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March 2002 is prospective and is not applicable to the process of selection started pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 1999 including the 973 executive posts which were ordered to be filled up by the High Court pursuant to the advertisement. The Tribunal erred in directing the APPSC to re-caste the merit list pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March 2002. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 27th December 2004 rightly held that the order passed by the Court will not affect the appointments already made to the executive post between 2001-2002 but erred in holding that the selection is to be made in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March 2002. The Respondents are directed to fill up the rest of the posts including the posts of Municipal Commissioners Grade-III Asstt. Commercial Tax Officers Asstt. Labour Officers in executive cadre and Asstt. Section Officers in non executive cadre which are vacant as per President Order 1975 and the Government orders in consonance with the Presidential Order which were prevailing in the year 1999 when the Advertisement was issued. The inter se seniority between the persons appointed in the 1st round and the persons appointed afterwards in the same cadre if any shall be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with the rules depending on the merit ranking obtained by them. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March, 2002.
2. Retrospective application of G.O. Ms. No. 124 to ongoing selection processes.
3. Inter se seniority between first-round appointees and second-round selectees.
4. Reservation for PHC category under Special Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March, 2002:
The Supreme Court examined whether G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March, 2002 was valid under the Presidential Order, 1975. The Appellants argued that the G.O. was null and void since it was issued after the period of limitation prescribed in sub-para(1) of Paragraph 3 of the Presidential Order, 1975. The Court noted that the Presidential Order empowered the State Government to organize local cadres within 27 months from the commencement of the Order and did not explicitly empower the State to issue orders with retrospective effect. The Court concluded that the G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March, 2002 could not be given retrospective effect.

2. Retrospective application of G.O. Ms. No. 124 to ongoing selection processes:
The Supreme Court addressed whether G.O. Ms. No. 124 could be applied retrospectively to the selection process initiated by Advertisement No. 10 of 1999. The Court referred to the principles of statutory interpretation and the absence of explicit retrospective application in the G.O. The Court held that the G.O. was prospective and could not affect the selection process that had already started. Thus, the Tribunal's direction to re-caste the merit list based on G.O. Ms. No. 124 was erroneous.

3. Inter se seniority between first-round appointees and second-round selectees:
The Court considered the issue of seniority between candidates appointed in the first round and those selected in the second round. The High Court had directed that the inter se seniority should be decided by the appropriate authority based on merit ranking. The Supreme Court upheld this direction, stating that the appropriate authority should determine seniority according to the rules and merit ranking obtained by the candidates.

4. Reservation for PHC category under Special Rules:
The Court addressed the issue of reservation for the PHC category. It held that reservation to the PHC category could not be claimed where it was not provided under the Special Rules. The Tribunal's findings on this issue were upheld, and no interference was deemed necessary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the impugned judgments of the High Court. The Court directed that the remaining posts, including Municipal Commissioners Grade-III, Asstt. Commercial Tax Officers, Asstt. Labour Officers, and Asstt. Section Officers, be filled as per the Presidential Order, 1975, and the prevailing Government orders in 1999. The inter se seniority between first-round appointees and later inductees should be decided by the appropriate authority based on merit ranking. The process of selection was directed to be completed expeditiously within three months. The appeals were allowed with the specified observations and directions.