MALLIKARJUNA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-4-63
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on April 10,1990

MALLIKARJUNA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. RAM KISHORE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-164] [REFERRED TO]
GOBIND SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-214] [REFERRED TO]
ANIRUDDHA PANDA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-406] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA TYAGI DR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWAROOP AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH BAIJAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHIV PRAKASH [LAWS(ALL)-2004-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
PRIVATE BAS SANCHALAK KALYAN SAMITI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-131] [REFERRED TO]
ASHAGAR ALI VS. ADMINISTRATOR NAGAR MAHA PALIKA MUKHYA NAGAR ADHIKARI NAGAR MAHA PALIKA [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANA DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-1994-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
ANGAD YADAVA VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2006-10-192] [RELIED ON]
JINDAL DRUGS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-107] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1994-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
G PULLAIAH VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1994-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER GOUD R VS. A P ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(APH)-2001-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
VISAKHA RURAL DISTRICT CASUARINA PLANTATION FARMERS AND MERCHANTS DEVELOPMENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-4-133] [REFERRED TO]
P SAMBASIVA RAO VS. REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. KARNATAKA CASUAL AND DAILY RATED WORKERS UNION [LAWS(KAR)-2001-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
M G MAHESHWARA RAO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2002-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
PONNUSAMY VS. STATE OF T N [LAWS(MAD)-1994-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
ADMINISTRATION VS. NADERKOYA [LAWS(KER)-2004-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-1999-5-10] [REFERRED]
V K NASWA VS. HOME SECRETARY U O I [LAWS(SC)-2012-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SAURASHTRA MAZDOOR SANGH [LAWS(GJH)-2003-7-65] [REFERRED]
VIJAY SINGH VS. U P S R T CORPORATION [LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-157] [REFERRED TO]
RAO V B J CHELIKANI VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2010-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
C K JOSHY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2005-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
K RAGHAVENDRAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-204] [REFERRED TO]
S SIVANESAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-277] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIKANT CHHABU MAHAJAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-211] [REFERRED TO]
HOME GUARD SAINIK EVAM PARIVAR KALYAN SANGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
N SUBRAMANIAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-183] [REFERRED TO]
S PAULNADAR VS. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES TEYNAMPET [LAWS(MAD)-2010-12-217] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. KHEM CHAND SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-7-64] [REFERRED TO.]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SARKARI SAHAYATA PRAPT SHIKSHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1996-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB TRAVEL COMPANY AHMEDABAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-1-38] [REFFERED TO : 1990 LAB IC 1019 22]
S.M. RAJESHWAR RAO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2012-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
JAGBIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-159] [REFERRED TO]
S.N.SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NAMIT SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-2013-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
J. ALEX PONSEELAN VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-2-144] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2012-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2008-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
Sushil Thakur VS. State of H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2008-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
Nirmala Devi VS. State of H.P. through Principal Secretary, Health [LAWS(HPH)-2012-7-279] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P.Q [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-83] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MIZORAM VS. MIZORAM PENSIONER'S ASSOCIATION [LAWS(GAU)-2009-5-67] [REFERRED TO]
A.C.JULKA VS. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY [LAWS(P&H)-2008-10-89] [REFERRED TO]
BASHEER VS. KERALA ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(KER)-1994-11-80] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY DHANKAR VS. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 9TH FLOOR, A-WING, DELHI SECRETARIAT, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI [LAWS(CA)-2012-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA AND 126 ORS. VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
UOI VS. S. SENGATHIR [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-90] [REFERRED TO]
K.L. PATHAK VS. GENRAL MENAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-254] [REFERRED TO]
D A V COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITTEE VS. LAXMINARAYAN MISHRA [LAWS(ORI)-2011-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
SUKANTA KU DWIBEDI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2014-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
REVA ABROL VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-381] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT MOHAN SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-218] [REFERRED TO]
CH. LALNUNCHAMA, SDO VS. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2007-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANDEEP SINGH MATTU VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-2-356] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA VS. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-246] [REFERRED]
BAIDYANATH MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS VS. VIVEKANANDA GOSWAMI AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1999-10-58] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2004-7-157] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS VS. SATPAL SAINI [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-76] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH HOME GUARDS AND CIVIL DEFENCE VS. STATE OF H P AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2013-4-178] [REFERRED]
M KARUNANITHI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2010-10-456] [REFERRED]
SMT. SHIPRA JINDAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-8-548] [REFERRED TO]
SMTI. MECHI GAO, PRINCIPAL (MLTC) VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2011-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
SHIPRA JINDAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-8-576] [REFERRED]
NIRMALA DEVI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2012-7-360] [REFERRED TO]
ARYA SAMAJ VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2017-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
SRI JAGANNATH KOTI AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-8-169] [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIK ORGANICS THROUGH PARTNER GAUTAMBHAI DOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-5-177] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MEGHALAYA VS. AMON RANA [LAWS(MEGH)-2019-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
PARESHKUMAR MANSUKHLAL TRIVEDI VS. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(GJH)-2020-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
JAYAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-146] [REFERRED TO]
GAURAV JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-144] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDALINGAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-2-190] [REFERRED TO]
ADV THOUFEEK AHAMED VISHNU VIHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-537] [REFERRED TO]
ADV THOUFEEK AHAMED VISHNU VIHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-537] [REFERRED TO]
NEWAZ SHARIF VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
PRATEEK KUMAR SINGH VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-8-140] [REFERRED TO]
JARNAIL SINGH VS. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-92] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

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."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.