Allowed

P.Dasthagiri v. Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution company

Telangana HC2 Mar 2009WP/14717/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of four writ petitions challenging the cancellation of a recruitment notification and selection list after the process was completed. The Court held that altering recruitment criteria after finalizing the selection list to implement a subsequent policy was arbitrary and irrational.

What did the court decide?

Notification dated 21.07.2007 set aside; Notification dated 06.10.2006 confirmed; Select list held good; Writs allowed.

P.Dasthagiri Vs Andhra Pradesh Central Power… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

*** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY**

¶2

+ W.P.Nos.14717, 15514, 16065 and 16583 of 2007

¶3

% 02-03-2009

¶4

W.P.No.14717 of 2007

¶5

# 1.P.Dasthagiri and others … Petitioners PETITIONER

¶6

VS.

¶7

$ 1.A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad-04 & Ors.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA

¶10

^COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 4 : MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (S.C. FOR A.P. TRANSCO)

¶11

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.5: GOVT. PLEADER FOR G.A.D.

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? CITATIONS:

1) 2003 (4) ALT 36

¶16

2) 2005 (6) ALT 210

¶17

3) (2003) 7 SCC 285

¶18

4) (2008) 3 SCC 512

¶19

5) (2002) 5 ALT 454

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶21

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶22

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH,

¶23

TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT

¶24

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14717, 15514, 16065, and 16583 of 2007 W.P.No.14717 of 2007

¶25

Between:

¶26

1. P.Dasthagiri S/o.subbarayudu, R/o.Flat No.208, Sri Sai Maruthi Apartments SP colony, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad-15 2. P.Sivasankar S/o.P.Mallaiah, R/o.SE office quarters, RRC North, APCPDCL Beside LIC office branch-14, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad15 3. P.A.V.Prasad S/o.Satyanaryana, R/o.Chandanagar, Engineers enclave, PlotNo.66, Sri Hema Durga Residency, Flat No.7, Hyderabad50

¶27

..... PETITIONERS

¶28

AND

¶29

1 Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution company Ltd, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad-04 rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director 2 The Director (HR&Comml) APCEPDCL, Singareni Bhavan Red Hills, Hyderabad-04 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Ranga Reddy (North) APCPDCL, Gun Rock ,Secunderabad 4 The Superintending Engineer (Operation0 Hyderabad (North) APCPDCL, Mint compound, Hyderabad-500063. 5. The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. (R5 is impleaded as per C.O. dated 06.11.2008)

¶30

.....RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the appointment orders to the petitioners as Sub-Engineers (contract) based on the selection list pursuant to the notification dated 6.10.2006 in spite of issuing Lr.No.SE/OP/North/Hyd/ Adm.A3/D.No.1964/2007, dated 24.2.2007 to the 3rd petitioner by the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue the appointment orders to the petitioners as Sub-Engineers (Contract) based on the selection list pursuant to the Notification dated 6.10.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC

¶34

FOR AP TRANSCO)

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GOVT. PLEADER FOR G.A.D.

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO : 15514 of 2007

¶37

Between:

¶38

K. Siddharaja S/o Manik , r/o H. No. 2-40, Post & Vill. Tadkal, Kangti (M). Medak District

¶39

..... PETITIONER

¶40

AND

¶41

1 Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabd-04, rep by its Chairman & managing District. 2 The Director (HR & Comml) APCEPDCL., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad-04 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operation), Medak APCPDCL, Main Road, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 4. The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. (R4 is impleaded as per C.O. dated 06.11.2008)

¶42

.....RESPONDENTS

¶43

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate, Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the appointment order to the petitioner as sub-Engineers (contract), based on the selection list dated 19-02-2007 pursuant to the notification dated 06-10-2006, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue the appointment order to the petitioner as Sub-Engineers(Contract), based on the selection list dated 19-02-2007 pursuant to the Notification dated 06-10-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass such other orders as may be just.

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA

¶45

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO)

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GOVT. PLEADER FOR G.A.D.

¶47

¶48

WRIT PETITION NO : 16065 of 2007 Between:

¶49

1. M. Kondaiah S/o Narasimha , R/o Peddamanadadi(Vill & M)

¶50

Mahaboob Nagar (dist) 2.P. Dasthagiri S/o Subbarayudu , R/o Flat No. 208, Sri Sai Maruthi Apartments S.P. colony, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad-15. 3. P.A. V. Prasad S/o Satyanarayana , R/o Chandanagar, Engineers Enclave Plot No.66. Sri Hema Durga Residency, Flat NO.7, Hyderabad50 4. A. Kanakaiah S/o Komaraiah , R/o Nancharapally (Village)(Post) bakrichepyal, Siddipet (M) Medak (dist) 502277. 5. K. Siddaraj S/o Manik R/o H. No. 2-40 (post & Village), Tadkal, kangti(M), Medak District. 6. V. Muniswamy S/o v. Balamunaiah , R/o Door No. 26/1182, Mitaamadi, Rameswaram Proddutur, Kadapa District./ 7 K. Krishna S/o K. Venkataswamy R/o H. No. 26/244, Nethaji Nagar 1st Ward, Proddutur, Kadapa (district). 8 Firoj Khan S/o Yakub Khan R/o H. No. 16-1-167 Mesco House, Room No. Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad. 9 Bon Kuru Maheswar Reddy S/o B. Mahanand Reddy R/o Maopad (Vill), Mahabubnagar (dist)-509128. 10 G. Bala Swamy s/o G. Ayyanna R/o Undavelli(Vill) manopad(M), Mahabubnagar District- 509153. 11 V. Ravi S/o V. Redya R/o Pochamma Gadda Thanda, Chedhurpally(VIll) Veldanda (M) Kalwa Kurthy Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS

¶51

AND

¶52

1 Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad-04 rep by its Chairman & Managing Director,. 2 The Director (HR & Comml) APCPDCL., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad-04 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Ranga Reddy (North), APCPDCL., Gun Roack Secunderabad. 4 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Hyderabad (North), APCPDCL., Mint Compoud, Hyderabad-500063. 5 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Medak, APCPDCL., Main Road Sanga Reddy , Medak District 6 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Kurnool APCPDCL. Bellary Road, Kurnool-518001. 7 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Nalgonda APCPDCL., Near RTC Bus Stand Nalgonda-508001 8 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Mahabubnagar APCPDCL., Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar-509002. 9. The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. (R9 is impleaded as per C.O. dated 06.11.2008)

¶53

.....RESPONDENTS

¶54

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the appointment orders to the petitioners as sub-Engineers (Contract0 bases on the selection list dt 19-02-2007 pursuant to the notification dt 06-10-2006, in spite of issuing Lr NO. SE/OP/North./HYD/ADm. A3/D. No. 1964/2007, dt 24-02-2007 to the 3rd petitioner by the 4th respondent and issuing the fresh notification dated 21-07-2007 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set a side the notification dt 21-07-2007 and direct the respondents to issue the appointment orders to the petitioners as sub-Engineer(contract) based on the selection list dated 19-02-2007 pursuant to the Notification dated 06-10-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass such other orders as may be just..

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA

¶56

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 8: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO)

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent No.9: GOVT. PLEADER FOR G.A.D.

¶58

¶59

WRIT PETITION NO : 16583 of 2007

¶60

Between:

¶61

1 T.Pradeep Kumar S/o.Laxmi Narayana R/o.H.No.10-3-139, Vidyanagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 B.Prabhakar S/o.Narayana R/o.H.No.2-72/1, Post & Vilage Asifnagar, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶62

3 B.Chandra Shekhar S/o.Katamaiah R/o.H.No.3-7, Yadagiri Gutta, Nalgonda District.

¶63

..... PETITIONERS

¶64

AND

¶65

1 Andhra Pradesh central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad - 04 rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director. 2 The Director (HR & Comml) APCEPDCL, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operation), Ranga reddy (North), APCPDCL, Gun rock, SEcunderabad. 4 The Superintending Engineer (Operation), Medak APCPDCL, Main Road, Sanga REddy, Medak District.

¶66

5. The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. (R5 is impleaded as per C.O. dated 06.11.2008)

¶67

.....RESPONDENTS

¶68

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the appointment orders to the petitioners as Sub-Engineers (Contract), based on the selection list dated 19.2.2007, pursuant to the notification dated 6.10.2006, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue the appointment orders to the petitioners as Sub-Engineers (Contract), based on the selection list dated 19.2.2007 pursuant to the Notification dated 6.10.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass such other orders as may be just..

¶69

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA

¶70

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO)

¶71

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GOVT. PLEADER FOR G.A.D.

¶72

The Court made the following :

¶73

COMMON_ORDER:

¶74

As common issues are involved in all the four writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶75

2. Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited-1^st respondent issued notification dated 6.10.2006 inviting applications for the post of Sub-Engineers/Electrical in various operation circles spread over the districts of Anantapur, Kurnool, Mahaboobnagar, Medak, Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts on yearly contract basis. The petitioners responded to the notification and appeared for the written test held on 4.2.2007. They became successful in the written examination and appeared for viva. Some of the petitioners got intimation with regard

¶76

to their provisional selection and they were asked to furnish the original certificates on or before 6.3.2007 and accordingly they submitted their certificates. While so, the 1^st respondent Distribution Company in the meeting held on 14.5.2007 resolved to give preference to the local candidates in appointment and accordingly organized the SubEngineers posts as local cadre posts. Some other posts such as L.D.C, Typists, Attenders in Accounts services and JLM and O&M services were also organized as local cadre posts. In view of the SubEngineering posts being organized to local cadre posts, the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 6.10.2006 came to be cancelled and fresh notification was issued inviting applications for filling up of 122 posts of Sub-Engineers/ Electrical. Questioning the action of the respondents in not issuing the appointment orders based on the select list pursuant to the notification dated 6.10.2006, some individuals viz., P.Dasthagiri, P.Sivasankar and P.A.V.Prasad have filed W.P.No.14717 of 2007; K.Siddharaj filed W.P.No.15514 of 2007 and T.Pradeep Kumar, B.Prabhakar and B.Chandra Shekhar filed W.P.No.16583 of 2007. 11 (eleven) individuals viz. M.Kondaiah and others assailed the action of the respondents in issuing fresh notification dated 21.7.2007 calling for applications for filling up of various posts such as Sub-Engineers/Electrical etc. on yearly contract basis filed W.P.No.16065 of 2007.

¶77

3. The petitioners in W.P.No.16065 of 2007 moved WPMP.No.20411 of 2007 seeking interim suspension of the notification dated 21.7.2007. An order of interim suspension came to be granted on 27-7-2007. Subsequently the order came to be modified on 18.6.2008. The modified order reads as under:

¶78

“ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, at length. An important question arises for consideration in this case, viz., whether the A.P. Power Distribution Companies can adopt the Presidential order of A.P. Public Employment (Organization of Local cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975, and if so, the procedure that is required to be followed therefore.

¶79

The petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in Government of A.P., v. P.Vema Reddy (2007(3)ALT 287 (DB)), which arose in the context of bringing about a unified cadre of teachers in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Another judgment is the one, in Ch.Raji Reddy v. A.P.S.R.T.C. (2003(4) ALT 36), which is in respect of the services in the A.P.S.R.T.C. Those two cases were distinguishable from facts.

¶80

One important feature is that, the respondents have decided to follow the “spirit of the Presidential Order”. The matter needs elaborate consideration. It is felt that the Assistance of the learned Advocate General is necessary in this case.

¶81

Hence, the Registry is directed to issue notice to the learned Advocate General, to appear and apprise this Court, of the legal position, duly indicating the next date of hearing as 25-6-2008.

¶82

It is true that the results of the petitioners, in the examination, which was held in pursuance of the notification dated 6.10.2006, were cancelled. The fresh examination is contemplated under the notification dated 21.7.2007. No harm would be caused to anyone, if the examination is held. In the event of the writ petition being dismissed or further orders being passed, the respondents would be in a position to take the recruitment procedure further.

¶83

Hence, in modification of the interim order dated 27.7.2007, it is directed that it shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the written test, in pursuance of the notification dated 21.7.2007. To avoid further confusion, it is directed that the respondents shall issue a public notice, to the effect that all the candidates, who have submitted their applications, in response to the notification dated 6.10.2006, shall also be eligible to take part in the examination, subject, however, to the condition that their cases would be considered in terms of the notification dated 21.7.2007. It shall be open to the parties to approach this Court for necessary direction, after the examination is held, and the results are declared.

¶84

Post on 25.6.2008, along with W.P.Nos.14717, 145514 and 16583 of 2007.”

¶85

4. The petitioners in W.P.No.16065 of 2007 filed WPMP.No.29394 of 2008 seeking amendment of the prayer. The amendment sought for reads as under:

¶86

“ that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in COO (CGM-COMML.) ms.No.189, dated 6.6.2007, issued by the 1^st respondent are not challenged, while the consequential notification dated 21.7.2007, issued by the 2^nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, being in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same, by holding that the petitioners are entitled for their appointment to the post of Sub-Engineers (Contract) based on the selection list dated 19.2.2007, in pursuance of the notification dated 6.10.2006, issued by R2.”

¶87

5. At the cost of repetition I may state that W.P.No.16065 of 2007 is

¶88

filed questioning the subsequent notification dated 21.7.2007 and whereas the other three writ petitions are filed assailing the action of the respondents in not acting on the select list pursuant to the notification dated 6-10-2006.

¶89

6. The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited (for short ‘A.P.C.P.D.C.L.’) filed counter-affidavit in all the writ petitions. It is suffice to refer the counter-affidavit filed by the A.P.C.P.D.C.L. in W.P.No.15514 of 2007. N.Sattaiaha, Chief General Manager (HRD), A.P.C.P.D.C.L., has sworn to the counter-affidavit. The factual aspect of issuance of notification, conducting written examination followed by viva-voce to the successful candidates is not disputed. It is stated that though selection process is completed, appointment orders have not been issued and therefore, no right accrued to them to seek appointments. Paras.7 to 9 of the counter-affidavit need to be noted and they are thus:

¶90

“7. It is submitted that although the selection process has been completed no appointment orders were issued, therefore the petitioners did not acquire any vested right to get appointment. The process of selection does not create any right to be appointed to the post and same cannot be enforced by writ of mandamus. The selection is only on contract basis. Although the selection process has been concluded, there is a justifiable reason to provide employment in view of the fact that a decision was taken to give preference to local cadre candidates. Since, the appointment orders were not yet been issued and petitioners and similarly situated persons have not joined the post, a decision was taken to cancel the same and to readvertise the posts in view of the fact the earlier notification was issued prescribing the age 18-34 years as on 01.11.2006, same age qualification has been prescribed in the present notification also.

¶91

8. It is open to the petitioners to make applications for consideration of their candidatures in the vacancies notified. The allegation that the appointment orders were not issued on the ground of G.O.Ms.No.610 dated 30.12.1985 is misconceived. Although, the presidential order has no application to the APCPDCL and though the post notified were not civil posts, a decision was taken since the respondent company being a public sector undertaking decided to give preference to local cadre candidates.

¶92

9. Therefore, posts are offered circle wise/district wise. Hence, there is no irregularity in canceling the results of the written test conducted pursuant to the earlier notification and issuing a fresh notification dated 22.07.2007. The allegation that other distribution companies viz., APSPDCL, APEPDCL have issued similar notification and issued appointment orders to the select candidates is specifically denied. In any event, the procedure adopted by APSPDCL and APEPDCL may not be relevant for the present in as much as in APCPDCL appointment orders were not issued to the persons to applied in pursuance of the earlier notification. The age bar will not come in the way as the same was taken

¶93

care of in the present notification dated 22.07.2007 also.”

¶94

7. The Government of Andhra Pradesh filed counter-affidavit in all the writ petitions. S.Balasubrahmanyam, Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that in the meeting held on 24.09.2007, a decision was taken to implement the spirit of Presidential Order as well as local (communal) reservations to Contract appointments and Outsourcing and the same was communicated, among other departments, to Finance Department vide U.O. Note No.16372/MC.I/2007-1, General Administration (MC.I) Department, dated 28.09.2007, for taking necessary action. The Finance (SMPC) Department issued Circular Memo.No.17944/668/A2/SMPC/2007, dated 06.10.2007 to all the Departments of Secretariat/All the Heads of Departments/All the District Collectors/all District Employment Officers/All the District Labour Officers stating that Government have issued guidelines for outsourcing the supporting services in the Government as well as Quasi-Governmental Organizations and that Government have reviewed the issue and decided to provide Rule of Reservation and implement the Presidential Order in all outsourcing appointments in the State and issued instructions accordingly.

¶95

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel of A.P.C.P.D.C.L. appearing for the respondents (except respondents 5, 4, 9 and 5 in WP Nos.14717, 15514, 16065 and 16583 of 2007 respectively) and learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department appearing for the respondents 5, 4, 9 and 5 in WP Nos.4717, 15514, 16065 and 16583 of 2007.

¶96

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions would submit that any decision with regard to the applicability of Presidential Order to the posts in A.P.C.P.D.C.L. after completion of process of selection can be given effect prospectively and not

¶97

retrospectively. Alternatively, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the posts in A.P.C.P.D.C.L. are not civil posts and therefore, Presidential Order would have no application. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Ch.Raji Reddy v. APSRTC^[1] ; Dr.N.Ram Gopal v. Executive Officer, TTD .^[2] , and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu^[3] and K.Manjusree v. State of A.P .^[4] .

¶98

10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the A.P.C.P.D.C.L. submits that the notification dated 06.10.2006 came to be cancelled in view of the Government decision to implement the Presidential Order with regard to the posts in A.P.C.P.D.C.L. and therefore, it being a policy matter, the petitioners have no right to question the same.

¶99

11. Learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department appearing for the respondents 5, 4, 9 and 5 in WP Nos.14717, 15514, 16065 and 16583 of 2007 respectively, while supporting the contentions advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for APCPDCL, submits that the selected candidates have no right to seek Mandamus to appoint them to the posts for which they applied.

¶100

12. The question that falls for consideration is, whether the action of the A.P.C.P.D.C.L. in canceling the notification dated 06.10.2006 in the given facts and circumstances is rational or arbitrary.

¶101

13. It is an admitted position that A.P.C.P.D.C.L. conducted written examination followed by viva-voce for the successful candidates in the written examination and finalized the selected list and communicated the same to some of the petitioners with regard to their selection and directed them to submit necessary documents for verification. I am in no doubt to conclude that the action of the A.P.C.P.D.C.L. in sending

¶102

communication to the candidates about their selection amounts to completion of the selection process. Even if any decision has been taken by the A.P.C.P.D.C.L. to implement the Presidential Order after the completion of selection process pursuant to the Notification dated 06.10.2006 can be given effect to prospectively i.e. to the subsequent notifications.

¶103

14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that it is only the civil posts, under the State, the State Government is obliged to organize the local cadre and since the posts in A.P.C.P.D.C.L. are not “Civil Posts” under the State, the provisions of the Presidential Order have no application.

¶104

15. Article 371-D of the Constitution of India is intended to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State. It aims at maintaining the integrity of the State and to dispel any feeling of one region dominating the other. While interpreting the Presidential Order, the philosophy behind Article 371-D of the Constitution of India cannot be lost sight of. (M.Shyam Sunder Vs. Govt. of A.P .^[5] ) . The primary purpose of incorporating Article 371-D was (i) to promote accelerated development of the backward areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh so as to secure the balanced development of the State as a whole and (ii) to provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the State in the matter of education, employment and career in public service. (Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A.Dikshitulu (AIR 1979 SC 193). Article 371-D of the Constitution of India is a special provision, for the State of Andhra Pradesh, which makes a departure from the general scheme of the Constitution of India. (Govt. of A.P. Vs.A.Suryanarayana Rao (AIR 1991 SC 2113)). Article 371-D(1) is in general terms and applies to public employment as a whole. Article 371-D(2) which, in particular, applies to direct recruitment, is only complementary to clause (1) and particularizes the matters to which an

¶105

order made under clause (1) provides for. (Govt. of A.P. v. A.Suryanarayana (AIR 1991 SC 2113).

¶106

16. THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER:

¶107

After insertion of Article 371-D of the Constitution, by the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973, the President of India, issued the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Presidential Order”). The Presidential Order was intended to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the matter of public employment. Para 3 of the Presidential Order casts an obligation on the State Government to organise classes of posts in the civil services and the classes of civil posts under the State, into different local cadres for different parts of the State to the extent and in the manner provided in the Presidential Order. The enabling provision for organisation of different local cadres is intended to achieve the main objective of Article 371-D, namely, to provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the State, in the matter of employment and career prospects in public services as well as to promote accelerated development of the backward areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh, so as to secure the balanced development of the State as a whole.

¶108

17. Though a contention has been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Presidential Order cannot be made applicable to the posts in A.P.C.P.D.C.L. as they are not the civil posts, I am not inclined to dwell upon that point since the same is not required to be adjudicated for the purpose of this case. It is suffice to say that once the selection process is over, it cannot be nullified on the ground of subsequent decision to implement the Presidential order to the posts in the A.P.C.P.D.C.L. It is well settled that rules of game cannot be altered after the game is over – vide the decision of the Supreme Court in

¶109

K.Manjusree v. State of A.P. (4 supra). It is also well settled that once advertisement has been issued on the basis of the existing Rules/Regulations in force, the effect would be that selection process should continue on the basis of criteria which were laid down and it cannot be on the basis of criteria which had been made subsequently.

¶110

18. In that view of the matter, I am in no hesitation to record a finding that cancellation of the notification dated 06.10.2006 is irrational and issuance of subsequent notification dated 21.07.2007 by the A.P.C.P.D.C.L. is unjustified and accordingly, the latter notification is hereby set aside. The select list prepared by the A.P.C.P.D.C.L. pursuant to the notification dated 06.10.2006 shall hold good. There cannot be any impediment to the A.P.C.P.D.C.L. to act on the select list and fill-up the notified posts.

¶111

19. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.

¶112

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶113

Date:02^nd March, 2009. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. B/O Cs/Tnb

¶114

..... REGISTRAR

¶115

// TRUE COPY //

¶116

SECTION OFFICER To