THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR VERSUS B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS

THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR VERSUS B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PEITTION (C) NOS. 1565­66 OF 2021]
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.    ......PETITIONERS
VERSUS
B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS             ....RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
INDIRA BANERJEE J.
These Special Leave Petitions are against a final judgment and order
dated   8th  December   2020   whereby   the   High   Court   for   the   State   of
Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, allowed the
Writ Petitions filed by the Respondent No.1 being Writ Petition (TR.) No.
5482 of 2017 and Writ Petition No. 24820 of 2017, set aside an order being
F.   No.   29/01/2016­SR(S)   dated   14th  January   2016   of   the   Ministry   of
Personnel, PG and Pensions and directed the Ministry of Personnel, PG and
Pensions to allocate the Respondent to the State of Telangana with effect
from 14th  January 2016.     The State of Telangana was directed to give a
1
posting to the Respondent in the cadre of Joint Director­Class A in the
Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Telangana and also pay
salary   to   the   Respondent   as   Joint   Director­Class   A   in   the   Animal
Husbandry Department within four weeks from the date of the judgment
and order.
2. The Respondent No.1, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, held the State
Cadre post of Joint Director­Class A in the Animal Husbandry Department
of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh.  Smt. B. Shanthabai, wife of the
Respondent   No.1,   was   also   a   State   Government   employee   working   as
Assistant Registrar in the same State. 
3. By a Notification No.S.O.655B dated 4th  March 2014, the Central
Government   notified   the   Andhra   Pradesh   Reorganisation   Act,   2014
bifurcating the State of Andhra Pradesh into two States­ the new State of
Telangana and the residue state of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 2nd
June 2014.
4. In terms of Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,
2014,   the   Central   Government   issued   a   Circular   being   F.   No.
27/13/213/SRS   dated   29th  October   2014   laying   down   guidelines   for
allocation of employees to the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh,
respectively.
5. As per the said Guidelines and in particular Paragraph No. 12 Clause
(vii) thereof, no allocable posts were to be omitted while distributing the
cadre strength between the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.   
2
6. By   a   Circular   being   G.O.   Ms.312   dated   30th  October   2014,   the
Government of Andhra Pradesh circulated the approved Guidelines for final
allocation of State Government Employees to All India Services under the
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.  Some of the relevant provisions
of the Guidelines are set out hereinbelow for convenience: 
“18. The   following   principles   and   procedure   shall   guide   the   final
allocation of personnel:
a) Persons who immediately before the appointed day are serving
on substantive basis in connection with the affairs of the existing
State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   shall   be   considered   for   allocation,
Employees holding posts on purely ad hoc basis immediately before
the ‘appointed day’ shall be considered against substantive posts
(or regular) held by them on the ‘appointed day’ if any.
b) Allocation of employees would be based on final distribution of
posts including vacant posts proposed by the Advisory Committee in
consultation with the successor States and after approval of the
Central Government.
c) Allocable employees shall be considered for allotment between
the successor States on the basis of seniority list as available on
June 01, 2014.
d)   ….There   shall   not   be   any   case   of   an   employee   not   being
allocated to either of the successor States. 
e) State   service   employees   who   hold   allocable   posts   shall   be
allocated after seeking option from the employees indicating their
preference to serve in either of the successor States after taking
their option into consideration.
f) The   allocation   shall   be   done   in   order   of   seniority   as
available on June 01, 2014. Those who have opted, who are
‘local candidate’s’ relatable to the State to which they have
opted,   shall,   in   order   of   their   seniority,   be   considered   for
allocation first.   If allocable posts in that category remain,
then others who have opted to the state may be allocated in
order   of   seniority.     If   still  posts   remain  allocation  will   be
made in reverse order of seniority.
h) Employees who are not local in relating to both States will be
allocated on the basis of place of birth or home district, as the case
may be, after due verification and certification.   Those originally
3
from other States will be allocated on a case by case basis after
considering their option.
i) Employees   who   are   members   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   or
Scheduled Tribes shall be considered for allocation on the basis of
their option if they are local candidates.  IN the event an SC or ST
employee has not exercised his option or where he has not been so
allocated he/she shall be allocated to the State where his caste or
tribe, as the case may be, is included in the concerned schedule of
the State.
k) Spouse of an All India Service (AIS) officer who belongs to a State
Cadre or is an employee of a State Government institution shall be
allocated, where so desired by the spouse, to the State to which the
AIS officer is allocated.
l) Spouses   in   State   Cadre   in   Government   or   in   the   State
Government   institutions,   local   bodies   and   those   who   are
deemed allocated as per the Act, shall as far as practicable,
be allotted to the same State, after considering options made
by them and their local candidature.  Spouses who are local
candidates   of   a   State   Shall   be   allocated   to   that   State.
Spouses   who   belong   to   different   States   may   be   allocated
after considering their options.
n) Local  candidature  shall  be  as  defined  under  the  Andhra
Pradesh   Public   Employment   (Organisation   of   Local   Cadres
and   Regulation   of   Direct   Recruitment)   Order,   1975   as
certified by the competent authority, with strict reference to
the   school   records.     While   the   committee   may   take   into
consideration   entry  made   in   the   service   register  as   prima
facie  proof  of   local  candidature,   it  shall  be  open   to  either
government  or  the  committee  to  subject  the  genuineness  of
the employee’s local candidature status to strict verification.
False   claim   of   local   candidature   or   production   of   false
certificate with the intent to mislead shall be punishable as
a criminal offence and also be subject to major disciplinary
proceedings.
s) Employees belonging to allocable categories of one department
working   in   another   department   or   organisation   on
deputation/tenure basis will be allotted by the parent department of
the officer.
x) The actual allocation of personnel to States shall be guided by
the public interest and the administrative needs of the posts in the
States.
4
19. The Committee shall follow the procedure hereinafter mentioned
for allocation of employees:
i. All employees would be asked to exercise their options in the
prescribed proforma annexed to these Guidelines, and forward their
duly   filled   option   form   to   the   Member   Secretary,   Advisory
Committee, G A State Reorganisation Department.  A P Secretariat
electronically   and   through   the   proper   channel   indicating   their
preference for either of the States within two weeks from the date of
public notification calling for options.
ii. Letter calling for options shall be given wide publicity through
print and electronic media.  A copy of the letter shall also be placed
in the public domain for wide publicity.
iii. The employees, who are eligible for allocation to either of the
successor States as specified above, will submit their option form
addressed to the Member Secretary, Advisory Committee through
the   respective   Administrative   Departments   of   the   Government   in
which   they   are   working,   to   the   Andhra   Pradesh   State   General
Administration State Reorganisation Department.
iv. Scrutiny of statements made in the option forms shall be done
and factual accuracy of the statement made therein certified by the
head of the department under whom the employee is working.  The
forms so certified shall be delivered to the GA (SR) Department of
the A P Government.
v. If no option is received within the prescribed time, or where an
employee is willing to be allotted to either of the two states such
person shall be allotted based on the other criteria.
vi. Option   once   exercised   cannot   be   changed   under   any
circumstance. 
vii.   After   the   distribution   of   posts   is   finalised,   the   Advisory
Committee   will   draw   up,   with   the   help   of   the   departments
concerned and the G A State Reorganisation Department of A P
Government, a Tentative Allocation List for all employees whether
they have exercised option or not.   The Member Secretary of the
Advisory Committee will circulate the Tentative Allocation List to the
respective   successor   State   Government   for   information   of   their
employees and for submission of representations, if any, by such
employees, within a period of two weeks from the date of such
communication.  The GA State Reorganisation Department of AP is
required   to   issue   the   Tentative   Allocation   List   on   behalf   of   the
Advisory   Committee.     The   list   shall   be   widely   published   and
circulated   inviting   representations   of   employees   against   their
tentative allocation.
5
20. Representations against tentative allocation may be received
and disposed off in the following manner:
i. An employees who feels aggrieved by his tentative allocation,
as prepared by the Advisory Committee would be at liberty to
submit his representations to the Chief Secretary to the successor
State   in   which   he   is   serving,   with   a   copy   to   the   State
Reorganisation   Department   constituted   in   the   State   of   Andhra
Pradesh.
ii. Representation of an employee should be self­contained, clearly
indicating   the   specific   points   of   grievance   and   should   be
addressed   to   the   Advisory   Committee.     The   concerned
administrative   department   will   offer   its   views   on   the
representation  and  forward  it to  the  G A  State  Reorganisation
Department of the Government of AP.
iii. The successor State of Andhra Pradesh shall furnish its official
comments   in   the   light   of   the   remarks   of   the   administrative
department on  the  representations received keeping in view of
law, rules, and orders, and would forward the same for further
consideration of the Advisory Committee.
iv. The Advisory Committee will consider the representation of the
employees after taking the views of Administrative Department
concerned at a meeting attended by the representatives of the two
States and the Central Government.   The recommendations will
thereafter   be   forwarded   to   the   Central   Government   with   the
recommendations of the Advisory committee for taking a final view
in the matter.
v. Based on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, the
Central   Government   shall   issue   final   allocation   orders   under
Section 77 of the Act allocating the employees to either of the
State.
vi. The Central Government shall have the power to review any of
its orders issued under the Act.
vii.The Member Secretary of the Committee would be responsible
for guiding the Advisory Committee in this regard.”
7. The sanctioned strength of posts in the cadre of Joint Director­Class
A in the Animal Husbandry Department were 23, out of which, 13 posts
were allotted to Andhra Pradesh and 10 posts were allotted to Telangana.
At the time of bifurcation, two out of the 23 posts were vacant.
6
8. On 7th March 2015, the Respondent opted for allocation to the State
of Telangana.  At the material point of time, the Respondent was working as
Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad on deputation.
However, by a Notification No. 21105­B/SRI/AI/2014­4 dated 12th  June
2015,   the   Respondent   was   allotted   to   the   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh
tentatively.  The Respondent submitted his objection against his tentative
allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh on 26th June 2015, pursuant to
the   proceedings   being   GAD(SR),   Department,   Notification   No.
21105/B/SRI/2014­4.
9. On 26th June 2015, the Respondent made a representation that he be
considered a local candidate of the State of Telangana.  The representation
was not considered.   By an order No. 5(2)/2016 dated 14th January 2016
in the proceedings being F. No. 29/01/2016, the Ministry of Personnel, PG
and Pensions of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of
India, allotted the Respondent to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
10. The Respondent filed an application being O.A No.209/2016 before
the Central Administrative Tribunal at Andhra Pradesh, challenging the
aforesaid   allocation   order   dated   14th  January   2016   issued   by   the
Government of India.  On 29th January 2016, the Administrative Tribunal
issued notice in the application and passed an interim order to the effect
that the final allocation of the Respondent to the State of Andhra Pradesh
would be subject to the final result of the Original Application.
11. By   an   order   4th  February   2016,   the   Animal   Husbandry,   Dairy
Development and Fisheries Department of the Government of Telangana
7
relieved   the   Respondent.     By   an   order   dated   5th  February   2016,   the
Government of Telangana, Department of Animal Husbandry, directed the
Respondent No.1 to report to the Head of the Department, Andhra Pradesh
for further posting.
12. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 4391 of
2016 in the High Court challenging the interim order dated 29th January
2016   passed   by   the   Administrative   Tribunal.     By   an   order   dated   16th
February 2016, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 4391 of 2016
and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and
directed the Tribunal to pass a speaking order, after hearing both the
parties, within two weeks.  It was also directed that the Respondent No.1
should not be relieved from his present place of posting till disposal of the
Interlocutory Application.
13. By an Order being Memo No. 8356/Agri(1)/2016 dated 16th January
2017,   the   Government   of   Telangana   Agriculture   and   Cooperation
Department, repatriated the Respondent No.1 with instructions to report to
his parent Department with immediate effect.
14. On 7th March 2017, the Respondent informed the Commissioner and
Director of Agriculture Department and handed over complete charge of the
post of Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District to Shri Y. Sudhakar
Reddy.
8
15. On the same date i.e. 7th March 2017, the Respondent was relieved
from   the   post   of   Project   Director,   ATMA,   Ranga   Reddy   District   and   a
certificate of transfer of charge was issued to him.
16. In 2017, the Administrative Tribunal for the State of Telangana was
abolished and the case being O.A. No. 209/2016 filed by the Respondent
was transferred to the High Court for the State of Telangana and for the
State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   at   Hyderabad   and   was   renumbered   as   Writ
Petition (TR) No. 5482 of 2017.
17. By the impugned judgment and order dated 18th February 2017, the
High Court allowed both the Writ Petitions, setting aside the proceedings
being F. No. 29/01/2016­SR(S) dated 14th January 2016 (Final Allocation
Order)   of   the   Ministry   of   Personnel,   PG   and   Pensions,   insofar   as   it
concerned the Respondent No.1.
18. The Ministry was directed to allocate the Respondent No.1 to the
State of Telangana with effect from 14th  January 2016 and the State of
Telangana was directed to forthwith give posting to the Respondent in the
cadre of Joint Director, Class­A in the Animal Husbandry Department of
the State of Telangana and also to release his salary within four weeks.
19. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, submitted that allocation had been made by the
Respondent No.5, i.e., the Government of India in the manner laid down by
law,   i.e.,   as   per   Sections   77(2)   and   80   of   the   Andhra   Pradesh
9
Reorganization Act, 2014, hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2014”, read
with the Final Allocation Guidelines issued on 29/30th December 2014.
20. Mr. Lekhi submitted that Section 77(2) of the 2014 Act provides that
as soon as may be, after the appointed day, the Central Government shall,
by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every
person referred to in Section 77(1) shall be finally allotted for service, after
consideration of option received from the employees, and the date with
effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have
taken effect.  The second and third proviso to the said Section provides that
“as far as local, district, zonal and multi­zonal cadres are concerned, the
employees shall continue to serve, on or after the appointed day, in that
cadre: provided also that the employees of local, district, zonal and multi
zonal cadres which fall entirely in one of the successor States, shall be
deemed to be allotted to that successor State”.
21. Mr. Lekhi further submitted that Section 80 of the 2014 Act provides
for   the   constitution   of   Advisory   Committee   (AC)   and   for   the   issue   of
allocation   guidelines   by   the   Central   Government.     The   Government   of
Andhra Pradesh vide GOMs No. 312 dated 29/30th December, 2014 notified
the final allocation guidelines prepared under Section 80 of the 2014 Act.
The allocation of personnel was to be made in the manner provided under
Guideline   14­17   and   the   allocation   was   to   be   made   in   terms   of   the
principles   guiding   allocation   laid   down   in   Guideline   18   of   the   final
allocation guidelines.
10
22. It is not in dispute that by virtue of Guideline 18(c) of the Allocation
Guidelines, the allocation from amongst allocable employees was to be
made between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in order of
seniority as available on 1st June, 2014.
23. Mr. Lekhi, however, submitted that the allocation was not to be made
solely on the basis of seniority.  Local candidates of the State for which they
opt are to be considered in order of their seniority first.   If the allocable
posts in that category still remain, then others who have opted might be
allocated in order of seniority.
24. Mr. Lekhi, argued that allocation was to be made first amongst those
local candidates of the State, who had opted for the State in order of their
seniority and thereafter, if allocable posts still remained, those posts were
to be filled up in the order of seniority from amongst non­local candidates
who had opted for the State.  
25. Mr. Lekhi argued that the respondent No.1 had submitted his option
on the ground that he was a State Cadre employee and his wife a State
Government employee in the State of Telangana.  Mr. Lekhi submitted that
a tentative allocation list of the State Cadre employees between the States
of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was prepared and notified on 12th June,
2015 whereunder the Respondent No.1 was tentatively allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradesh. 
26. The employees were given 14 days for filing representations/objections
against   the   tentative   allocation   and   the   Respondent   No.1   had   made   a
11
representation   to   be   considered   as   local   candidate   of   the   State   of
Telangana. 
27. The representation was considered by the Allocation Committee in
consultation with the heads of the department at meeting held on 16th
November 2015, but the request of the Respondent No.1 for allocation to
Telangana was not accepted for the following reasons :­
“(i)  He is a ‘local candidate’ of Andhra Pradesh.
(ii)  His request for allocation to Telangana on spouse ground
could not be accepted as his spouse was appointed to a
Zonal   Cadre,   i.e.,   Zone­II   of   erstwhile   Andhra   Pradesh
which entirely fell under the Successor State of Andhra
Pradesh   and   she   was   deemed   allocated   to   Andhra
Pradesh as per provisions of Section 77(2) of the 2014 Act.
(iii)  There   was   no   vacancy   in   the   State   of   Telangana   to
accommodate him.”
28. Mr. Lekhi further submitted that the High Court erred in describing
the   Respondent   No.1   as   a   local   candidate   in   the   judgment   and   order
impugned ignoring the deemed appointment of his wife under Section 77(2)
of 2014 Act and disregarding the absence of vacancies.  
29. Mr. Lekhi argued that the cadre strength in the category of Joint
director­Class A in Animal Husbandry Department was 23, of which 14
posts were allocated to Andhra Pradesh and 9 posts were allocated to
Telangana.  However the number of allocable employees in the category of
Joint Director – Class A was 27 and out of 27 employees, 12 employees,
who were local to the State of Telangana and had also opted for the State of
12
Telangana, were finally allocated to the State of Telangana against the 9
posts as per provisions contained in Guideline 18(f).
30. Mr. Lekhi argued that the Respondent No.1 who was ‘local candidate’
of the State of Andhra Pradesh was finally allocated to the State of Andhra
Pradesh   on   14th  January,   2016   by   the   Ministry   of   Personnel,   PG   and
Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training vide proceeding F No.
29/01/2016­SR(S).
31 Ms. Mohana appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 submitted
that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is well reasoned
and does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
32. Ms. Mohana argued that Article 136 of the Constitution of India does
not create a regular forum of Appeal.  It is only a residual provision which
enables this Court to interfere with the judgment and order of any Court or
Tribunal   in   India,   in   its   discretion,   as   observed   by   this   Court   in
Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss and Ors.1
.
33. Citing  M/s Bengal  Chemical  and  Pharmaceutical  Works  Ltd.  v.
Their Employees2
, Ms. Mohana argued that since power under Article 136
of the Constitution of India was discretionary, this Court was not bound to
set aside an order under Article 136, even if it was not in conformity with
law.
1 (2007) 9 SCC 196
2 AIR 1959 SC 633 (at 635)
13
34. Ms. Mohana also cited Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala
and   Another3
,  State   of   Bombay   v.   Rusy   Mistry4
,  Municipal   Board,
Pratabgarh and Another v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Others5
 and
Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan6
.
35. Ms. Mohana argued that the Respondent No.1 was a local candidate
of the State of Telangana. In any case, his spouse was a native of Telangana
and posted in Telangana.  As such, the Respondent No.1 was also eligible
under paragraph 18(1) of the said Guidelines dated 30th October 2014 for
allocation to the State of Telangana.
36. Ms. Mohana referred to the definition of ‘Local Candidate’.   In the
definition of local candidate in paragraph 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Public
Employment Order, 1975 which reads:
“1. A candidate for direct recruitment to any post shall be regarded  
as a  local candidate in relation to a local area.
(a)   in   cases   where   a   minimum   educational   qualification   has   been
prescribed for recruitment to the post. 
(i) if he has studied in an educational institution or educational
institutions in such local area for a period of not less then four
consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in
which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the
relevant qualifying examination; or
(ii) where during the whole or any part of the four consecutive
academic   years   ending   with   the   academic   year   in   which   he
appeared or as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant
qualifying examination he has not studied in any educational
institution, if he has resided in that local area for a period of not
less   than   four   years   immediately   preceding   the   date   of
commencement   of   the   qualifying   examination   in   which   he
appeared or as the case may be, first appeared.
3 (2000) 6 SCC 359
4 AIR 1960 SC 391 (at 395)
5 (1982) 3 SCC 331
6 AIR 2003 SC 2889
14
(b)   In   cases   where   no   minimum   educational   qualification   has   been
prescribed for recruitment to the post, if he has resided in that local area
for a period of not less than resided in that local area for a period of not
less than four years immediately proceeding the date on which the post
in notified for recruitment.”
37. Ms. Mohana pointed out that the Respondent No.1 had studied at
Khammam in the State of Telangana from Class VIII to X.  Thereafter he did
his Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry and Master of
Veterinary Science at the college of Veterinary Science, AP, Agricultural
University, Rajendernagar, Hyderabad (Telangana) from 1985 to 1992.  Ms.
Mohana   argued   that   having   studied   in   the   State   of   Telangana   for   7
consecutive years ending with the academic year in which he appeared for
qualifying examination, the Respondent No.1 was a local candidate within
the meaning of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local
Cadres   and   Regulation   of   Direct   Recruitment)  Order,   1975   (hereinafter
referred to as  “Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order, 1975”). 
38. Ms. Mohana emphasised that the Respondent No.1 had initially been
appointed   as   Assistant   Director   in   Chevella   Ranga   Reddy   District,
Hyderabad in 1993 through an examination conducted in the unified State
of Andhra Pradesh vide Recruitment Notification issued in 1992 by the
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission.
39. The Petitioner had studied at educational institutions in the State for
a period of not less than 7 consecutive academic years ending with the
academic   year   in   which   he   first   appeared   for   the   relevant   qualifying
examination and was selected and appointed by direct recruitment.   The
15
Respondent No.1 is therefore, to be regarded as a local candidate to the
zone in which the city of Hyderabad falls.
40. Referring to Clause 18(f) of the Andhra Pradesh State Guidelines
issued   on   30th  October   2014,   the   final   allocation   of   the   State   Cadre
Employees to the two states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh shall be
done on the basis of seniority as available on 1st June 2014.
41. Ms. Mohana also referred to paragraph 18(i) of the State Allocation
Guidelines under which employees who are members of the Scheduled
Castes or the Scheduled Tribes are to be considered for allocation on the
basis of their option if they are local candidates.  If an SC or ST candidate
has not exercised his option or where he has not been so allocated, he/she
shall be allocated to the State where his caste or tribe, as the case may be,
is included in the concerned schedule of the State.
42. Ms. Mohana emphasized on Clause 18(f) of the Guidelines dated 30th
October   2014,   which   clearly   states   that   allocable   employees   shall   be
considered for allotment between the Successor States on the basis of
seniority list as on 1st June 2014.  As per the seniority list, the position of
the Respondent No.1 was at Sr. NO.4.  All the three employees senior to the
Respondent   No.1   were   allocated   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   as   per   their
preference.  The Respondent No.1 was thus the senior most in his cadre to
opt for the State of Telangana.  Ms. Mohana argued that the Union of India
gave no weight to seniority of the Respondent No.1 and filled up vacancies
by persons who are native of Telangana, which is patently contrary to
clause 18 (f) of the Guidelines.  Ms. Mohana argued that the High Court
16
had correctly held that denial of posting to the Respondent No.1 from 8th
March 2017 onwards and denying him salary from that date onwards was
illegal.  The Respondent No.1 was entitled to be paid salary from 8th March
2017 till date of posting by State of Telangana with interest at the rate of
7% per annum.
43. Ms. Mohana argued that the wife of the Respondent No.1 admittedly
being   a   local   candidate   of   Telangana   allocated   to   Telangana,   the
Respondent No.1 needs to be allocated to Telangana. Ms. Mohana argued
that in any case the Respondent No.1 ought not have been relieved from
service in the State of Telangana while order of stay was operating in his
favour.
44. Ms. Mohana argued that after the Respondent No.1 was released
from ATMA, Rangareddy District on 7th March 2017, he reported to Animal
Husbandry Department Telangana and requested that he be given up the
posting but to no avail. 
45. The contentions of the Petitioners and the Respondent No.1 have
carefully   and   meticulously   been   dealt   with   by   the   High   Court   in   its
impugned judgment and order. The High Court noted:­
“7. Aggrieved   thereby,   petitioner  gave  a   representation
dt.26.06.2015   stating   that  though  he  was   born   in  Kadapa
District of Andhra Pradesh, he had studied Classes VIII, IX and
X   at   Khammam in   the   State   of   Telangana   and   subsequent
education including Post Graduation was also in the Telangana
State   and   so   he   is   to   be considered   as   a   local   candidate   of
State  of  Telangana;   he  was   initially appointed   as   Assistant
Director in Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in Telangana State
through  an  examination   conducted  by  the   A.P.   Public Service
Commission  in  1993  and   he   had   only   worked  in  Telangana
State; his wife was working  in the  Office  of the  Commissioner
17
of   Co­operation   and  Registrar   of  Co­operative   Societies,
Telangana State, Hyderabad as Assistant Registrar; that  she
was initially appointed as Junior  Assistant  in Krishna  District
of the present residuary State of Andhra Pradesh against 'nonlocal'  category  as per the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Organization  of  Local  Cadres  and Regulation  of  Direct
Recruitment)   Order,  1975  issued  by   the  President of   India
under Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371­D of the Constitution of
India   notified   vide   G.O.Ms.No.674,  General  Administration
(SPF­ A)   Department   dt.29.10.1975   (also   called   'Presidential
Order   of 1975');   during   bifurcation   process   of  the  employees
between the two States, she was allotted to Telangana State by
way   of   an  'Order  to   Serve'   proceeding   dt.31.05.2014  of   the
Director,   Ministry   of   Public Grievances  and  Pensions,
Government   of  India;   she   was   re­allocated to   the  residuary
State of Andhra Pradesh subsequently; that she gave objection
to   the  same   stating   that  she  was   born,  brought   up   and
educated in Telangana State and she had rendered service for
16   years in  the   area   covered   by  the   said   State  and   her
reallocation   to   Andhra Pradesh   was  absurd,  illegal;  that  the
same   was   pending   for consideration;   that  unless  his  wife's
request is considered or finalized his allotment ought not to be
considered.
He also stated that he had two children born and brought up
in Hyderabad, aged 15 years and 12 years respectively, who
were in Classes 10 and 8 respectively, and if he is allotted to
the State of A.P., their studies would be adversely affected.
He  also stated that  as per  the Seniority  List in the  Cadre  of
Joint Director, his  position was  at Serial  No.4 and there are
existing vacancies   in  the   Telangana  State   since   three   Joint
Directors   from Telangana   State  were   allotted  to  Andhra
Pradesh.
At the time of these events, petitioner was working as Project
Director,  ATMA,   Ranga   Reddy  District,  Hyderabad   in   the
Agriculture Department  of   the   State   of   Telangana  on
deputation.”
46. The High Court found that notwithstanding the factors noted above
and   notwithstanding   the   fact   that   the   Respondent   No.1   was   actually
working as Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad in the
Agriculture Department of the State of Telangana, at the time when the
State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated, the Respondent No.1 was allocated
to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
18
47. The High Court found that the Respondent No.1 had continued to
work as Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District in the Agriculture
Department on deputation, pursuant to the order dated 16th February 2016
of the High Court  referred  to hereinabove.    The  Respondent  No.1  was
apparently   repatriated   from   the   post   of   Project   Director,   ATMA,   Ranga
Reddy   District   on   7th  March,   2017,   after   which   he   made   several
representations   to   the   Special   Chief   Secretary,   Animal   Husbandry
Department,   Government   of   Telangana   that   he   be   given   posting.     No
posting orders were, however, issued for over four and a half years and no
salary was paid to the Respondent No.1
48. On   or  about   19th  October,   2016,   Smt.   B.   Shantabai,   wife   of   the
Respondent No.1, who had earlier been working in Telangana but later
allocated to Andhra Pradesh in 2017, made a representation for transfer to
Telangana on mutual basis with one B. Geethavani, who was not interested
in continuing in Telengana in view of her husband’s condition of health.  In
the   said   representation,   she   stated   that   she   was   willing   to   forego   her
seniority and willing to take the last rank below the last regular Assistant
Registrar working in Zone­VI in the State of Telangana.  It appears that the
State of Andhra Pradesh issued GOMs No. 51 Agriculture and Co­operation
(COOP.I)   Department   dated   12th  June,   2017   according   permission   to
transfer Smt. B. Shantabai, wife of the Respondent No.1 to the State of
Telangana.
49. On and from  14th  June  2017,  Smt.  B.  Shantabai was  posted  as
Assistant Registrar in the office of the Commissioner for Cooperation and
19
Registrar of Cooperative Societies.   The Respondent No.1 was however,
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh, ignoring his option for the State of
Telangana and in violation of the Guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms No. 312
dated 30th October 2014 and, in particular, Clause (1) of Para 18 set out
hereinbelow for convenience :­
"Spouses   in   State   cadre   in   Government   or   in   State   Government
institutions, local bodies and those who are deemed allocated as per
the Act, shall as far as practicable, be allotted to the same State,
after considering options made by them and their local candidature.
Spouses who are local candidates of a State shall be allocated to that
State. Spouses who belong to different States may be allocated after
considering their options. "
50. The allocation was also in contravention of the requirement of Clause
(f)   of   Paragraph   18   directing   that   allocation   shall  be   done   in   order   of
seniority as available.   On behalf of the Respondent No.1, it was rightly
contended that the spouse of the Respondent No.1 who had been born and
educated in the State of Telangana had to be treated as a local candidate of
the State of Telangana.  As a spouse, the Respondent No.1 ought to have
been allocated to the State of Telangana.
51. The High Court considered the Counter Affidavit filed by the State of
Telangana at length and found :
“28. The   State   of   Telangana   and  its  Director  of   Animal
Husbandry who were impleaded as respondent nos.4 and 5 in
O.A.No.209 of 2016 / W.P. (TR) No.5482 of 2017 filed counteraffidavit  / V.M.A.No.205   of   2016  in  O.A.No.209   of  2016  (renumbered   as WVMP(TR).No.703   of  2017)   to   vacate  the  order
dt.29.01.2016 granted by it and dismiss the O.A. / W.P.
29. In the said counter­affidavit,  it  is  stated that petitioner's
wife had been appointed in Krishna  District  and promoted as
Assistant Registrar   in   Zone­II   (Zonal   Cadre  Post),   that   her
seniority was also declared in the said Zone which falls in the
State of Andhra  Pradesh and  as  per Section 77(2) of  the  A.P.
20
Reorganization   Act,   2014  she  has to   work   in   the   said   State
only.
30. Therefore, it is stated that petitioner cannot claim that his
wife is  working  in the  State  of  Telangana and claim  allotment
to the Telangana State on 'spouse' grounds.
31. It is stated  that  petitioner belongs to the State of Andhra
Pradesh   as   per  his  local   candidature   and   so   he   has   been
allocated   to the   home   State  of  Andhra   Pradesh  based  on
availability of posts in the said State.
32. It  is   however   stated   that   petitioner's  representation
regarding his   provisional  allocation  to   the   State  of   Andhra
Pradesh and  the  local status of his wife were referred  to  the
Commissioner   of   Co­operatives and   Registrar   of  Co­operative
Societies,  Hyderabad   and   the   latter  vide
Lr.Roc.No.778/MINC/2014 dt.22.04.2015  informed that as  on
that date petitioner's wife is working as Assistant Registrar in
the  Office of  Commissioner   &  Registrar   of   Cooperative
Societies, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
33. It   is   admitted  that  petitioner   while   working   as   Joint
Director (Animal   Husbandry)  at  District   Project   Office,   Rajiv
Vidya   Mission had  submitted   option  form  to   the   Animal
Husbandry   Department exercising   his  option   for  the   State   of
Telangana as per preferential claim in terms of para 18(i) of the
option  form   and   also   enclosed details   of  his  spouse,  but   his
request  cannot  be   accepted,  and  the decision  was   taken  in
accordance with the guidelines for final allocation.
34. In W.P.No.24820 of 2017, the State of Telangana and the
Director   of   Animal   Husbandry   Department   filed   a   counter
stating   that as   per   para   no.   18(i)   of   G.O.Ms.No.312
dt.30.10.2014,  'employees   who   are   members   of   the   Scheduled
Castes or the Scheduled Tribes shall be considered for allocation on
the   basis   of   their   option   if   they   are   local   candidates';   that
petitioner is a local candidate of Cuddapah District of Andhra
Pradesh   State;   and   so,   petitioner   cannot   contend   that   his
allocation to the State of A.P. is incorrect.
35. It is admitted that petitioner's wife had joined in the State
of Telangana in 2017, but it is contended that petitioner falsely
pleaded that his wife was working in Telangana State at the
time of filing of O.A.No.209 of 2016 and the said plea is not
correct.
36. It   is   stated   that   though   petitioner   obtained   order   on
16.02.2016 in   W.P.No.4391   of   2016   that   he   should   not   be
relieved from  his  present place of work in the post of Project
Director,   ATMA,   Ranga Reddy   District   in   the   Agriculture
Department of the Telangana State, he was relieved because at
the   time   of   re­organization   of   Districts   in the   State   of
Telangana,   the   ATMA   Scheme   was   merged   with   Farmer
Training Centers, etc. pursuant to a policy decision.”
21
52. The State of Andhra Pradesh did not file any counter affidavit in the
High Court.   A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of
India admitting that 14 posts of Joint Directors were allotted to the State of
Andhra Pradesh and 09 posts were allotted to the State of Telangana.  The
number of allocable employees in the cadre of Joint Director were 27 more
than the sanctioned cadre strength.  The excess allocable employees were
allocated between successor States on population ratio as per Guidelines.
The Respondent No.1 though local to the State of Andhra Pradesh had
opted for Telangana but he was allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh as
per Paragraph 18(f) of the Guidelines, since there was no vacancy within
the filled posts in Telangana.  
53. The Union of India contended that the request of the Respondent
No.1 for allocation to Telangana on the ground of his spouse being a local of
Telangana could also not be accepted as his spouse belonged to the zonal
cadre of Andhra Pradesh.  
54. The High Court held :­
“46. Para  18   of  the  said   G.O.   mentioned  the
guidelines/principles  which would  be followed  for  the  purpose
of allocation of employees.
47. Clause (e) of Para 18 stated that 'State Service employees
who hold allocable posts shall he allocated after seeking option from
the employees  indicating their preference to  serve in either of the
successor States after taking their option into consideration.'
48. Admittedly, petitioner gave his option for allocating him to
the State of Telangana on 07.03.2015.
49. Admittedly, of the total 23 posts in the Animal Husbandry
Department of  the composite  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh, 9  posts
were  allocated   to   the   State  of   Telangana   and  14   posts   were
allocated to the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.
22
50. Clause   18(c)   of   the   guidelines   states   that  allocable
employees shall be considered for allotment between the successor
State on the basis of seniority list as available on 01­06­2014.
xxx xxx xxx
53. The   petitioner's   position   in  the  seniority  list  of   Joint
Directors (clause­A) in the composite State  of Andhra Pradesh
as on 02.06.2014 was Sl.No.4.
54. The   three   people who   were   senior   to   him  by  name
Tanikonda Damodar   Naidu,   Koneti   Venkata   Ramana,
M.Srinivasa   Rao,   who were   local   candidates   of   Andhra
Pradesh,   opted   for  the  State   of Andhra   Pradesh   and   were
allocated temporarily to the State of Andhra Pradesh as can be
seen   from  Notification  dt.   12.06.2015   issued   by   the General
Administration   (SR)  Department   of   the   Government  of Andhra
Pradesh and also as per annexure­I to the final allocation order
No.5(2)/2016 dt. 14.1.2016.
55. Therefore, the petitioner is the senior most among persons
in   the Cadre   of   Joint   Director   Class­A  to   opt   for  the   State   of
Telangana.
xxx xxx xxx
57. Thereafter  the  latter   part   of  sub­Clause  (f)  of   Clause   18
which says 'if allocable posts in that category remain, then, others
who have opted to the State may be allocated  in order of seniority'
will  come   to  the   aid   of   the  petitioner;   and  because   he   is   the
senior most available person in the cadre of joint Director­ Class
A,  his  claim   for   allocation   permanently  to  the  State  of
Telangana,  would   have   primacy   over   the  claims   of   all   his
juniors in the said cadre.
58. Instead  of  following   the  above  procedure  prescribed   by
Clause   (f)   of   Para  18,   a  strange   interpretation   was  given   in
para­6 of its  counter is adopted by  the  Union of India saying
'due   to   non­availability   of   vacancy   within   the   filled   posts   in
Telangana',  petitioner,   though  he  had   opted   for   the   State   of
Telangana, had to be allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
59. This suggests that the Union of India gave no weight at all
to the  seniority  of  the petitioner or to the fact  that  he  was  the
senior most person  in the cadre of Joint Director Class­A to opt
for the State of Telangana, proceeded to fill up the vacancies
allocated to the State of Telangana by persons who are 'natives
of   Telangana',   and   then  took  a stand   that   there  are  no
vacancies  in   Telangana  State,   where  the petitioner   can  be
accommodated.   This  procedure   is   patently   contrary  to  Para
18(f) of the Guidelines.
xxx xxx xxx
62. In  the   counter­affidavit  filed   by   the  State  of   Andhra
Pradesh,   in O.A.No.209   of  2016/V.M.A.No,398  of
2016/W.V.M.P.(TR)  No.701 of   2017  in  W.P.   (TR)  No.5482   of
23
2017  it  is stated  in  para­6(f)  that  the Commissioner, Registrar
of   Cooperative   Societies,   Hyderabad  had stated   in
Lr.No.778/Misc/2014   dt.22.04.2015  that  petitioner's   spouse
was working as Assistant Registrar in his Office at Hyderabad.
Admittedly,   the   petitioner's   spouse   was   initially   appointed  in
'non­local'  category in Zone­II  falling  in  the residuary State  of
Andhra Pradesh,   because  she  was   a   'local   candidate'   to   the
State   of Telangana.  She  ultimately   was  posted   on   mutual
transfer to the State of Telangana in June, 2017.
63. Therefore,  the  Union  of  India   cannot  harp   on  the
petitioner's wife's belonging to the  Zonal cadre of  the  State of
Andhra Pradesh to deny petitioner's claiming for posting in the
State of Telangana on spouse grounds. The State of Telangana
cannot also contend that the petitioner  incorrectly  stated  that
his spouse was working in the State of Telangana and that she
does not 'belong to the State of Telangana'.
xxx xxx xxx
65. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be allocated to the
State of  Telangana   even   on   spouse   ground   and   the  Union   of
India without taking note of the above  facts  erred in rejecting
petitioner's request for allocation to the State of Telangana even
on spouse ground.
xxx xxx xxx
68. Also since the  petitioner had studied Classes  VIII to X in
Khammam District in the State of Telangana and he states that
upto post­graduation,   he   studies  in  the   State  of   Telangana,
under  Para   7   of the   Presidential   order,   1975,   he  is  a   local
candidate' of the State of Telangana only, but ignoring this fact
and  simply  taking   note  of   his place   of   birth   as   Cuddapah   in
Andhra  Pradesh   State,  he   was   wrongly treated   as   a   'local
candidate'  for  the   State  of  Andhra  Pradesh.  So   even  under
Clause  (i) of para  18,  petitioner is eligible  to  be  allotted to  the
State of Telangana.
xxx xxx xxx
75. It is  the contention  of petitioner that the  order No.5 (2) of
2016 dt.14.01.2016 permanently allocating the petitioner to the
State of Andhra Pradesh itself states in para no.2 thereof that it
would  not come  into  effect  in  respect   of   any  person  who   has
obtained 'stay order' from a Court of Law against his allocation
to any of the successor States till the  time such stay order is
vacated;  and  since the order passed by the Division  Bench  on
16.02.2016   in  Writ  Petition No.4391   of   2016   directing   the
petitioner not to be disturbed from his current posting is in the
nature  of such 'stay order',  the petitioner cannot be asked to
report to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
76. We find force in the petitioner's contention and agree with
it.
24
77. So  the  petitioner  cannot be denied salary  by the  State  of
Telangana   from   8.3.2017  till   date  on   the   basis   of   the  said
relieving order   or  the  permanent  allocation   order
F.No.29/01/2016 ­  SR(S) dt. 14.01.2016 (Order  No.5(2)/2016)
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Personnel
and Training, Government of India.”
55. There is no infirmity in the well reasoned order of the High Court
which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article
136 of the Constitution of India.  As argued by Ms. Mohana, jurisdiction
under   Article   136   of   the   Constitution   of   India   is   discretionary.       The
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indian
should not ordinarily be exercised to interfere with an otherwise just and
reasonable order by recourse to hyper technicality upon a narrow, rigid and
pedantic interpretation of the guidelines. 
56. Admittedly, at the time of bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh,
the Petitioner was posted in an area which falls with Telangana.   The
Petitioner was required to exercise an option, which he admittedly did.  It is
not in dispute that 9 posts out of total 23 posts were allocated to the State
of Telangana and 14 to the State of Andhra Pradesh.   As per guidelines,
allocable employees were to be considered on the basis of seniority as on 1st
June 2014.   
57. As   found   by   the   High   Court,  the   Petitioner’s   position   was  4th  in
seniority in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh as on 1st  June 2014.
The 3 people, senior to him, were all local candidate of Andhra Pradesh,
who had opted for Andhra Pradesh.  The Respondent No.1 was senior most
of the employees who opted for Telangana.   The High Court found that the
Respondent   No.1   had   denied   allocation   to   Telangana   on   a   “strange
25
interpretation of Clause (f) of paragraph 18 of the Guidelines, giving no
weight to seniority.  The High Court found on facts that no importance at
all had been given to the fact that the spouse of the Respondent No.1 was a
local of Telangana. 
58. On a possible interpretation of the Guidelines read with the Andhra
Pradesh Public Employment Order 1975 and, in particular, paragraph 4
thereof,   the   High   Court   found   that   the   Respondent   No.1   was   local
candidate of the State of Telangana.   Admittedly, he studied from Class VIII
to X at Khammam which is in the State of Telangana.  He thereafter did his
Bachelor   of   Veterinary   Science   and   Animal   Husbandry   and   Master   of
Veterinary Science at the college of Veterinary Science, AP, Agricultural
University at Hyderabad.   He studied in that institution for 7 years from
1985   to   1992   being   the   year   in   which   he   appeared   in   the   qualifying
examination. 
59. Under the Constitution, India is a Union of States.   Every part of
every State is an integral and inseverable part of India.   Admittedly, the
Respondent was born in India.  He has his domicile in the territory of India.
As held by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India7
, under the
Indian Constitution, there is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country
and there is no separate domicile for a State.
60. The power to admit and include States into the Union under Article 2
of the Constitution, and to form new States and/or reorganize State, is in
its very nature of the power, wide and its exercise necessarily guided by
7 AIR 1984 SC 1420
26
political issues  of  considerable  complexity, many of  which  may  not  be
judicially manageable.  
61. Article 3, empowers Parliament to enact law and form a new State by
separation of territory from any State or by granting two or more States or
parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State.   The
principles relating to change of sovereignty in international law are not
applicable to re­organisation of the territory of the State under Article 3 of
the Constitution of India. 
62. When such an adjustment or reorganisation of territory takes place,
the existing law as well as administrative orders in a particular territory
continue to be in force and continue to be binding upon the successor State
so long as they are not governed, changed or repudiated by the successor
State. 
63. It  is not  in  dispute  that the  respondent  has  his domicile in the
Territory of India and was born in the territory of India.  Admittedly, he is a
citizen   of   this   country.     As   a   citizen   of   India,   the   respondent   has   a
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) to reside and settle in any part of
the territory of India. 
64. Under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India prohibits the State
from making any law which takes away or infringes the rights conferred by
Part III of the Constitution of India and any law made in contravention of
Article 13(2), to the extent of the contravention would be void. 
27
65. All statutes and all rules, regulations and bye­laws framed by the
Government, which constitute law have to be construed harmoniously with
the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part­III of the Constitution of
India. 
66.   The Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 or any other
guidelines   framed   thereunder,   including   the   guidelines   circulated   on
30.10.2014 cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in
any part of the country.  
67. It is true that when a State is divided and the employees and officers
of   the   State   Government   have   to   be   allotted   to   the   two   states,   such
allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules and Regulations and by
guidelines. 
68. However, such rules, regulations and guidelines have to be construed
harmoniously   with   the   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under   the
Constitution of India.  It is true that the respondent may have been born in
an area which now forms part of Andhra Pradesh and may have received a
substantial part of his education in areas which now form part of the State
of   Andhra   Pradesh.     However,   admittedly,   he   cleared   all   Board   and
University examinations from areas within the State of Telangana.  At the
time of bifurcation, he was posted in Hyderabad, which is now part of
Telangana.  
69. The guidelines circulated on 30.10.2014 for allocation of employees
and officers to the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are directory
and not inflexible.  On a liberal interpretation of the guidelines in the light
28
of the philosophy of the Indian Constitution read with Andhra Pradesh
Public   Employment   Order,   1975,   which   was   in   force   at   the   time   of
bifurcation, and is applicable to the respondent even under the Guidelines
referred to above, the High Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the
respondent   was   a   local   candidate   of   Telangana   and   was   entitled   to
allocation as per his seniority in terms of Paragraph 18(f) of the guidelines.
Furthermore,   admittedly,   the   spouse   of   the   respondent   was   a   local
candidate of Telangana.  
70. In   our   considered   view,   there   is   no   infirmity   in   the   impugned
judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the
judgment of the Single Bench.  
71. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. 
…..................................... J.
       [INDIRA BANERJEE]   
…..................................... J.
       [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
29

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर