1989 (5) TMI 325 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of amended Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service Rules, 1963.
2. Compatibility of the amended Rule 3 with the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (Presidential Order).
3. Authority of the State Government under para 5(2) of the Presidential Order to make provisions contrary to the local cadre scheme.
4. Judicial review of the Executive's policy decisions regarding recruitment and transfers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Amended Rule 3:
The appeals question whether amended Rule 3, which allows the transfer of Assistant Section Officers from the Finance Department to zonal posts, is valid. The Tribunal initially held that Rule 3, as amended, was not valid because it did not conform to the Presidential Order. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation, as the amended Rule was framed in accordance with para 5(2) of the Presidential Order, which allows the State Government to make provisions for transfers contrary to the local cadre scheme.

2. Compatibility with the Presidential Order:
The Tribunal had declared that the amended Rule 3 was inconsistent with para 5(1) of the Presidential Order, which mandates that zonal cadres be treated as separate units for recruitment and promotion. The Supreme Court clarified that para 5(2) of the Presidential Order grants the State Government overriding powers to make provisions for transfers, which are necessary for public interest and administrative exigencies. Therefore, the amended Rule 3 was not in violation of the Presidential Order, as it was enacted under the powers conferred by para 5(2).

3. Authority under Para 5(2) of the Presidential Order:
The Tribunal's interpretation that the State Government lacked authority to make such amendments was incorrect. The Supreme Court emphasized that para 5(2) explicitly allows the State Government to override the local cadre scheme for administrative reasons. The Tribunal's failure to recognize the full scope of this provision led to its erroneous judgment. The Supreme Court underscored that the State Government's decision to amend Rule 3 was within its rights under para 5(2), which forms part of the Presidential Order's scheme.

4. Judicial Review of Executive Policy Decisions:
The Tribunal's attempt to question the Executive's policy on recruitment and transfers was beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reiterated that decisions regarding recruitment modes and categories fall within the Executive's domain and are not subject to judicial review unless challenged on grounds of arbitrariness or discrimination. The Tribunal's interference in policy decisions was deemed inappropriate, as these matters are administrative necessities and exigencies.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Tribunal, allowing the appeals and declaring Rule 3 of the amended Rule to be valid under the Presidential Order. The Court emphasized the Executive's prerogative in policy decisions regarding recruitment and transfers, reinforcing that such decisions are not subject to judicial scrutiny unless they are arbitrary or discriminatory.