T.S. Thakur, J. - (1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)THESE appeals are directed against an order dated 9 March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the High Court has set aside the order passed by the State Administrate Tribunal in OA No. 6334 of 1997 to the extent the same holds the judgment of this Court in V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. : (2001) 10 SCC 401, to be prospective in its application. An order dated 3rd November, 2010 passed by the High Court dismissing a review petition filed by the Appellants against the said order has also been assailed. The facts in the backdrop are as under:
In V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. : (2001) 10 SCC 401, a three -Judge Bench was examining whether Special Rules framed by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to the extent the same permitted "appointment by transfer" to a higher category on the basis of seniority -cum -efficiency were violative of para 5(2) of the Presidential Order issued Under Article 371D of the Constitution of India, 1950. Answering the question in the affirmative this Court held that the Presidential Order dated 18 October, 1975 issued Under Article 371D of the Constitution was aimed at providing equitable opportunities and facilities to the people belonging to different parts of the State in the matter of public employment, education etc. and that the Rules framed by the State Government under proviso to Article 309 whereby UDCs of the Labour Department, and Factories and Boilers Department were made eligible for recruitment by transfer to the posts of Assistant Inspector of Labour/Assistant Inspector of Factories were violative of the Presidential Order. The question had arisen on account of a challenge mounted by the Ministerial employees of the Labour Department against GOMs No. 72 dated 25 February, 1986 and GOMs No. 117 dated 28 May, 1986 whereunder UDCs in the Labour Department and those working in Factories and Boilers Department were made eligible for recruitment by transfer to the posts of Assistant Inspectors of Labour and Assistant Inspectors of Factories. A full Bench of Tribunal before whom the challenge came up for consideration declared that the impugned Rules to the extent they enabled the Ministerial employees of the Factories and Boilers Department or any other department to be considered for appointment to the posts in the Labour Department were violative of paras 3 and 5 of the Presidential Order and hence void. The view taken by the Tribunal was questioned before this Court by the aggrieved employees. Dismissing the appeals, this Court held that according to the scheme of the Presidential Order, local cadre was the unit under para 5(1) thereof for recruitment, appointment, seniority, promotion and transfers. This Court further held that while para 5(2) authorised the State Government to make provisions for 'transfer' in certain specified circumstances, yet the term 'transfer' could not be enlarged in its amplitude so as to include promotional aspects. This Court observed:

18. We find that para 5(2) of the Presidential Order speaks of transfer and not of promotion. It would be hazardous to accept the contention of the Appellants that promotion is included in the expression "transfer" and no assistance can be availed from the distinction made in para 5(1) of the Order. No provision or word in a statute has to be read in isolation. In fact, the statute has to be read as a whole. A statute is an edict of the legislature. It cannot be said that without any purpose the distinction was made in para 5(1) between transfer and promotion and such distinction was not intended to be operative in para 5(2). The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid as to what has been said as also to what has not been said. (See Mohd. Ali Khan v. CWT : (1997) 3 SCC 5111 and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse : (1997) 6 SCC 312.)

19. We, therefore, find no reason to accept this stand of the Appellant that the expression "transfer" takes within its scope a promotion.

(3.)OVERRULING the decisions rendered by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. V. Sadanandam and Ors. : 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 574, and in Govt. of A.P. and Anr. v. B. Satyanarayana Rao (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. : (2000) 4 SCC 262, this Court held that in terms of Article 371D(10) of the Constitution any order made by the President shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the Constitution or in any law for the time being in force. This implies that if the Presidential Order prohibits consideration of employees from the feeder category from other units then any rule made by the Governor in exercise of powers vested in him under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution will be bad in law, hence, liable to be struck down. So also if the State Government makes any provision which is outside the purview of the authority of the Government under para 5(2) of the Order, any such provision shall also be legally bad and liable to be struck down. This Court on that logic held:
In the case in hand, the impugned provisions do not appear to have been framed in exercise of powers under para 5(2) of the Presidential Order and as such the same being a Rule made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Presidential Order would prevail, as provided Under Article 371D(10) of the Constitution. Even if it is construed to be an order made under para 5(2) of the Presidential Order, then also the same would be invalid being beyond the permissible limits provided under the said paragraph. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal rightly held the provision to the extent it provides for consideration of employees of the Factories and Boilers Units to be invalid, for the purpose of promotion to the higher post in the Labour Unit and as such we see no justification for our interference with the said conclusion of the Tribunal and the earlier judgment of this Court in Sadanandam case : 1989 Supp (1) SCC 574 must be held to have not been correctly decided. As a consequence, so would be the case with Satyanarayana Rao case : (2000) 4 SCC 262.