K.BHASKARAN C.J. - (1.) It is convenient to dispose of all these writ petitions (28 in number) by a common judgement as there arises a common point, and that is the only paint for decision, in all of them; and that point is whether a Writ of Mandamus would issue from t his Court to the respective respondents to consider the applications for appointment in respect of the petitioners with out insisting an their being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, as according to them, the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 did not prohibit the consideration of such applications received direct from the candidate. Their contention is that under the said Act, once the employer makes the requisition to the concerned Employment Exchange, his liability ceases and the employer is not precluded from candidate direct the applications received from the candidate direct. The petitioners placed reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Sankara Reddy's case (1979) 1 Andh LT 404 and a decision of the Division Bench in N. Hara Gopal's case (1985) 3 APLJ 150 : (1986 Lab IC 182). (N. Hara Gopal's case is reversed by Supreme Court. Pl. refer AIR 1987 SC 1227 : 1987 Lab IC 915
(2.) On 2-2-1987 when W.P. Nos. 1001/87 and 1021/87 came up before Kodandaramayya, J., for admission the learned Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench on account of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court on 9-1-1987, which reads as follows :- "List the appeal along with Civil Appeals' Nos. 9-15/86. Pending disposal of the stay application and notwithstanding any orders made by the High Court in other cases, recruitment will be effected in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 535, Dated June 28, 1975 and G.O. Rt., No. 1406, Dated November 6, 1975 issued by the State Government. The Transfer Petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order placed on the file." When the matter was before the Division Bench, which consisted of two of us (the Chief Justice and Anjaneyulu, J.) a preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the writ petitions in view of the bar under Art.371-D of the Constitution was raised. The learned Advocate General, who appeared and assisted the Court at our request, submitted that the decision in Dr. Venkat Reddy's case (1982 Lab IC 1927 (Andh Pra)), on which the petitioners placed reliance, required reconsideration. As the Division Bench also doubted the soundness of the decision in the said case, it was referred to a Full Bench along with other cases involving the same question; and that was how these cases are before us.
(3.) The historical background of the insertion of Art.371-D into the Constitution is wellknown. In the year 1956, as a result of the reorganisation of States on linguistic basis, the Andhra and Telangana regions came to be merged, paving the way for the formation of the new State of Andhra Pradesh. There was a massive agitation for a separate State by the people of Telangana arising out of discontentment with respect to conditions in Government service which were at variance in different regions. The high-level deliberations in a bid to find a durable solution culminated in what is known as the six point formula dated September 21, 1973 which was intended to secure balanced development of the State as a whole, providing equitable opportunities to different areas of the State in the matter of education and employment in public services. The implementation of this six point Formula envisaged inter alia amendment of the Constitution conferring power on the President of India to take the necessary steps in order to secure smooth implementation of the measures based upon the said formula without giving rise to litigation and consequent uncertainty. Inasmuch as one of the measures contemplated in that formula related to the setting up of an Administrative Tribunal with jurisdiction to deal with grievances relating to public services, Art.371-D was introduced in the Constitution by the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973, and pursuant to Cl.(3) of that Article, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Presidential Order') has been issued by the President of India on May 19, 1975 constituting an Administrative Tribunal for the State of Andhra Pradesh with jurisdiction to deal with the service matters specified in that Order. For our present purpose, it would be sufficient to notice the provisions contained in Cls. (3), (4) and (7) of that Article, which we extract below :- "(3) The President may, by order, provide for the constitution of an Administrative Tribunal for the State of Andhra Pradesh to exercise such jurisdiction, powers and authority (including any jurisdiction, power and authority which immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973, was exercisable by any Court (other than the Supreme Court) or by any Tribunal or other authority) as may be specified in the order with respect to the following matters, namely : (a) appointment, allotment or promotion to such class or classes of posts in any civil service of the State, or to such class or classes of Civil posts under the State, or to such class or classes of posts under the control of any local authority within the State, as may be specified in the order; (b) seniority of persons appointed, allotted or promoted to such class or classes of posts in any civil service of the State, or to such class or classes of civil posts under the State, or to such class or classes of posts under the control of any local authority within the State, as may be specified in the order; (c) such other conditions of service of persons appointed, allotted or promoted to such class or classes of posts in any civil service of the State or to such class or classes of civil posts under the State or to such class or classes of posts under the control of any local authority within the State, as may be specified in the order. (4) An order made under Cl.(3) may - (a) authorise the Administrative Tribunal to receive representations for the redress of grievances relating to any matter within its jurisdiction as the President may specify in the order and to make such orders thereon as the Administrative Tribunal deems fit; (b) contain such provisions with respect to the powers and authorities and procedure of the Administrative Tribunal (including provisions with respect to the powers of the Administrative Tribunal to punish for contempt of itself) as the President may, deem necessary; (c) provide for the transfer to the Administrative Tribunal of such classes of proceedings, being proceedings relating to matters within its jurisdiction and pending before any court (other than the Supreme Court) or Tribunal or other authority immediately before the commencement of such order, as may be specified in the order; (d) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees and as to limitation, evidence or for the application of any law for the time being in force subject to any exceptions or modifications) as the President may deem necessary. (7) The High Court for the State shall not have any powers of superintendence over the Administrative Tribunal and no court (other than the Supreme Court) or Tribunal shall exercise any jurisdiction, power or authority in respect of any matter subject to the jurisdiction, power or authority of, or in relation to, the Administrative Tribunal." Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Presidential Order, to the extent relevant for our purpose, provide as follows : 6. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal : - "(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Order, the Tribunal shall exercise all the jurisdiction, powers and authority which, immediately before the commencement of this Order, were exercisable by all Courts (except the Supreme Court) with respect to appointment, allotment, or promotion to any public post, seniority of persons appointed, allotted or promoted to such post and all other conditions of such persons." xxx xxx xxx xxx 7. Authority of the 'Tribunal to receive representation :- (1) The Tribunal may receive, from persons employed, or, as the case may be, from persons claiming under them, representations for the redress of their grievances relating to matters within its jurisdiction and admit, after such enquiry as it may deem fit, such representations. xx xx xx xx xx (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-para (1) of this Para, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, admit a representation made under that sub-para if it is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just and proper to do so. xxx xxx xxx;