9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity qualifications for those posts. Only those Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were considered for promotion to Class IV posts who fulfilled the qualifications/ specialised training prescribed under R. 6 of the 1961 Rules. 3. Some of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons challenged the vires of R. 6 of the 1961 Rules by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 4532 of 1971 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It was alleged that at the time of recruitment all the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons possessed Bachelor Degree in Veterinary Science and the special qualifications and training prescribed under R. 6 could only be acquired after joining as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and that also at the discretion of the Government. It was open to the Government to choose any person for the specialised training and may deny such an opportunity to another person who may be equally or better suited for such training. Since the imparting of specialised qualifications/ training was under the control of the Government it could pick and choose persons for the purpose and in the process making favoured persons eligible for promotion to Class IV posts under the 1961 Rules. Learned single Judge by his judgment dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requisite for such development. It is not advisable to it that a particular authority however high placed he may be to choose persons at his sweet will and pleasure to undergo training in a particular field or have service in a particular sections especially when such training and service would affect the chances of promotion to higher posts. In this connection, it may be noted that in regard to the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Service, it was realised that condition of separate section within the same service results in great injustice as several senior officers would be deprived of their promotion while the junior who happened to work in a specialised section get early promotion. By G.O. dated 27-6-1972 all these sections were merged into one unit and all the posts were brought under a common set of rules. It would be advisable to frame a similar rule for the Animal Husbandry Department also and see that as far as possible the area of discretion on the part of the authorities concerned is reduced if not eliminated altogether. 5. The State Government amended Rule 6 of the 1961 Rules on May 10, 1976 by which the categories of Class IV posts were increased to thirteen. The 1961 Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... centers, and Officers of similar rank in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad such as Public Health Veterinarian. Category (8) Asst. Director of Animal Husbandry (Statistics) Class V. Category (1) Veterinary Officers. Category (2) Veterinary Officers (Cattle Farms) Category (3) Asst. Lecturers, Institute of Animal Reproduction and Veterinary Officers, Centralised Semen Collection centers. Category (4) Veterinary Officers (Sheep Farms) Category (5) Veterinary Officers, Pig Breeding Stations. Category (6) Veterinary Officers, Poultry Farms. Category (7) Veterinary Officers in Veterinary Biological and Research Institute; Animal Health centers, Clinical Laboratories and Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. 2. Appointment: Class IV: Category (1) Asst. Directors of.. (i)... (ii) by promotion from among the Veterinary included in category (I) of class V of the said service. (iii)... Category (2) Asst. Directors of... (i).... (ii) by promotion from among the Vety. Officers included in Cat. (2) of Class V of the said service (iii)... Category (3) Lecturers.... (i).... (ii)by promotion from among the Vety. Officers included in Cat. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to above. The Tribunal then answered the question as under: It must be observed that not to speak of direction, even an observation from the High Court of the land is binding on the State Government when the State Government has not chosen to set aside the said observation in the Supreme Court. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the relief asked for and I find no good reasons not to grant the same. The R.P., is accordingly allowed and once again directions are issued to the respondents to evolve proper and rational method of determination of seniority among the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in the matter of promotions to the next higher rank of Assistant Director of Veterinary Surgeons in the light of the one framed under G.O.Ms. No. 1 supra. 8. It may be mentioned that G.O.Ms. No. 1 dated 1-1-76 which was directed to be adopted and followed in the Animal Husbandry Department related to the Agriculture Department. It was argued before the Tribunal that because of functional differences between the two departments it would not be possible to adopt the conditions of service prevalent in the Agriculture Department. The Tribunal, however, issued the above quoted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he legislative power. This power under the Constitution has to be exercised by the President or the Governor of a State as the case may be. The High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals cannot issue a mandate to the State Government to legislate under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Courts cannot usurp the functions assigned to the executive under the Constitution and cannot even indirectly require the executive to exercise its rule making power in any manner. The Courts cannot assume to itself a supervisory role over the rule making power of the executive under Article 309 of the Constitution. 13. We are therefore, of the view that the High Court in Civil Writ Petn. No. 4532 of 1977 and the Administrative Tribunal in the judgment under appeal transgressed its limits in issuing the impugned directions. We set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss the Representation Petition No. 578/78 filed by M. Srinivasan and 44 others to the extent indicated above. 14. Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, however, contends that the Special Rules are arbitrary and are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He contends ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
