S PRAKASHA RAO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
LAWS(SC)-1990-2-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on February 23,1990

S.PRAKASHA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

CHANDRA SHEKHAR SAXENASTATE OF U P VS. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BASIC [LAWS(ALL)-1996-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
K RADHAKRISHNA REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-1997-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
DEVARAKONDA RAJESH BABU VS. NIZAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES [LAWS(APH)-1997-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
D RAJESH BABU VS. NIMS [LAWS(APH)-1997-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
M SHYAM SUNDER VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
K VENKATESWARLU VS. K PEDDA VENKAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2001-9-145] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. A SURYANARAYANARAO:P KRISHNAIAH [LAWS(SC)-1991-9-24] [RELIED ON]
M KESAVULU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2003-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
B VAMSI PAVANI VS. GOVERMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-7-113] [REFERRED TO]
MOAZAM KHAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2007-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P VEMA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2007-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
MOAZAM KHAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2008-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
Abdulgafar A Nadiadwala VS. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax [LAWS(BOM)-2004-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
ABDULGAFAR A NADIADWALA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(BOM)-2004-3-135] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD GHOUSE MOHINUDDIN [LAWS(SC)-2001-8-35] [REFERRED]
AJAY KUMAR VS. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION [LAWS(ALL)-1996-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
M.VENKATA SEKHAR VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,P.R. & R.D. DEPT. [LAWS(APH)-2012-11-112] [REFERRED TO]
CHEBROLU LEELA PRASAD RAO AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER VS. MOHAN BREWARIES AND DISTRILLERIES LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2020-6-28] [REFERRED TO]
SAMPAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-12-94] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Special leave. granted.
This appeal under Article 136 is against the order dated October 6, 1989 made in R.P. No. 2403/1987. The facts are as under:

(2.)The respondents Nos. 4 and 5, B. Kumara Swamy and G. Amarender, in this appeal filed R. P. No. 1615 of 1984 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, contending for promotion from Senior Assistant to Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, zonal seniority of Warangal local area comprising of Warangal, Khammam, Karimnagar and Adilabad is the criteria. The Adilabad division consisting of Adilabad and Karimnagar Districts of the Commercial Taxes Division cannot be treated to be a zone and the divisional seniority prepared by the department is bad in law. It was held by the Tribunal by order dated February 18, 1986, that the zonal seniority is the criteria. Though, for the administrative convenience a division consisting of the revenue districts of Adilabad and Karimnagar may be treated as one division and Warangal and Khammam as Warangal division may be carved out, for the purpose of promotion zonal seniority has to be maintained. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the Representation petition. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercising its power under Cl. (5) of Art. 371-D annulled that order which had given rise to filing of W. P. No. 998 of 1986 in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. This Court declared Cl. (5) of Art. 371 -D of the Constitution as ultra vires violating the basic structure. The State Government filed S.L.P. No. 8868 of 1987 against order in R.P. No. 1615 of 1984 which was dismissed by this Court on December 7, 1987. Subsequently, the petitioners impleading the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and the 6th respondent, G. Satya Rao, filed R.P. No. 2403 of 1987, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The appellants filed Civil Appeal No. 3203 of 1989 which was allowed by this Court and remitted to the Tribunal and directed, "to examine the legal effect of the Government order in GO Ms. No. 1648 dated November 20, 1982 after again hearing the parties." Thereafter, the Tribunal after considering the effects of the G.0, held that in the impugned order G.O. Ms. No. 1648 was issued under para 5(2)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of local cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 for short "the' order'. No allotment of cadre in terms of para 4 of the order was issued. The G.O. Ms.. No. 1648 and, G.O. Ms. No. 1900 do not mention the constitution of new local cadre for Adilabad Division and no order was issued constituting a separate cadre in terms of 'the order'. Accordingly, it reiterated the original order dated April 29, 1988.
(3.)The Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973 through S. 3 thereof brought into the Constitution Art. 371-D with effect from July 1, 1974. This is a special provision in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh empowering the President, having regard to the requirements of the State as a whole for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State, in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various parts of the State to make an order, in particular-
(a) require the State Government to organise any class or classes of posts in a civil service of, or any class or classes of civil posts under the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State and allot in accordance with such principles and procedure as may be specified in the order the persons holding such posts to the local cadres so organised;

(b) specify any part or parts of the State which shall be regarded as the local area-

(i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre (whether organised in pursuance of an order under this article or constituted otherwise) under the State Government .........

(Other clauses are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Hence omitted.)

;


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