A V S NARASIMHA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are persons employed in the Ministerial Services of the Andhra Pradesh Government. All of them were working in various offices located in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. On January 19, 1969, leaders of all political parties in the Legislature of the Andhra Pradesh State appeared to have met and reached a decision that to implement what are called Telangana Safeguards', the following measures should be taken:

(2.) The Government of Andhra Pradesh then passed an order [G. O. Ms. 36 G. A. (SR) Dept.] on January 21, 1969 relieving before February 28, 1969 all non-domicile persons appointed on or after November 1, 1956 to certain categories of posts reserved for domiciles of Telengana under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959. Names of such incumbents were to be shown in a proforma and they were to be employed in the Andhra region without breaking service by creating supernumerary posts, if necessary. These supernumerary posts were to be treated as temporary addition to the strength of the office concerned and were to be adjusted against future vacancies in corresponding posts as they arose. The action was based upon Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 (44 of 1957) which was an Act of Parliament made in pursuance of Clause (3) of Article 16 of the Constitution making special provision for requirement as to residence and brought into force on March 21, 1959. Section 3 of the Act gave the power to make Rules in respect of certain classes of employment in certain areas. It provided:

(3.) The petitioners were appointed between December 27, 1956 and July 4, 1968. They challenge the Act, the Rules and the proposed action as ultra vires the Constitution. Their case is that Article 16 (3) under which the Act and the rules purpose to be made has been misunderstood as conferring a power to make a law prescribing requirement as to residence in a part of a State. For this reason Section 3 of the Act is challenged as ultra vires the Constitution.