Kuldip Singh, J. - (1.) The questions arising for our consideration in these appeals are as under:(1) Can the High Court/ Administrative Tribunal direct the State Government to frame or amend the existing statutory rules to alter the conditions of service of the civil servants in terms of the directions (2) When there are specialised. posts in a feeder cadre and also in the higher cadre, can the Government restrict the promotions from feeder cadre to the higher cadre only specialitywise irrespective of the seniority
(2.) The conditions of service of the Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Department were initially governed by the Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called 1961 Rules). Under these Rules Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were eligible for promotion to three different categories of posts called Class IV posts and R. 6 provided special elibibility 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 August 24, 1973 rejected the contentions of the writ petitioners in the following words: "I do not find it possible to agree with the broad contention that Rule 6 is ultra vires and unconstitutional for the reasons stated by the petitioners. As stated earlier, Rule 6 merely prescribed certain qualifications for promotion to certain posts by way of experience in a particular specialised service of undergoing training in a particular field. It cannot be argued and in fairness to the learned counsel for the petitioners it may be stated, it was not argued, that is not permissible to prescribe such qualifications. The main reason for contending that R. 6 is ultra vires was not that it prescribed certain qualifications but because in the absence of any guiding principles the Government would be enable to pick and choose persons who would be given opportunities to obtain those qualifications which would enable them to get promotion. This circumstance cannot in my view render the rule itself ultra vires. If the Government or the Authorities concerned posted certain employees in the special sections or gave them opportunity to undergo a service in a special issued section 'for a particular period or denied similar opportunity to deserving candidates with the oblique motive of preferring one set of persons to another for the purposes of promotion, it was open to the aggrieved officer to challenge the act of the Government in each particular case. The postings and directions have been made from time to time from 1962 and none of these petitioners approached this Court questioning the denial of the posting as the case may be all these years"........... "I therefore see no reason for declaring R. 6 as ultra vires and unconstitutional.";