LexA. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. versus S. PURUSHOTHAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 1055 .... -; A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. A v S. PURUSHOTHAM & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2963 of 2008) APRIL 24, 2008 B (S.B. SINHA AND SIRPURKAR, JJ.) ~- Andhra Pradesh Secretariat service Rules. 1998: r3- Note (3) - Promotion - Quota for SOs and PSs for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary - By G. Os. c promotional posts for PSs limited to 10 in the cadres of Assistant Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary- Held: State, while providing two different sources as feeder posts for promotion to a higher post, is entitled to fix quota even at all levels of promotion, but it cannot D < be permitted to put a cap on promotion for the entire service ) -+ period - State cannot say that a few posts shall be identified only on the basis of original posts held by employee concerned - By a policy all promotional avenues in respect of a category of employees for all times to come cannot be E nullified, as the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution - Impugned G. Os. set aside - Constitution of India - Article 14 and 16 . Judicial review : F 4 Policy decision by State - Held: Superior Courts while t ~ exercising power of judicial review must determine the issue having regard to the effect of subordinate legislation - A statutory rule must be made in consonance with constitutional scheme - Administrative Law - Subordinate Legislation. G In the Secretariat of the Government of Andhra Pradesh the posts of Section Officers (SOs) and Private Secretaries (PSs) were the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary. The Assistant Secretaries 1055 H 1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. A were further promoted to the posts of Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary to Government. By G. 0. dated 21.10.1983, a quota of 1:19 for PSs and SOs was prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary. Later, on the recommendations made by the B Cabinet Sub-committee, noticing the permanent cadre strength of SOs as 365 and of PSs as 25, the ratio between SOs and PSs was worked out as 14:1. The total number } of posts of Assistant Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries, Joint Secretaries and Additional Secretaries was 151. By C G.O.Ms.No. 368 dated 18.8.1999, the Government directed that 10 posts would be earmarked for PSs in the promotional posts of Assistant Secretaries to Additional Secretaries and that the number of PSs on these promotional posts should not exceed at any given point 0 of time. Consequently, the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Service Rules, 1989 were amended by G.O.Ms No. 397dated 20.9.1999 and Note (3) to Rule 3 of the Rules was accordingly substituted. The PSs challenged validity of G.O.Ms. 368 and 397 by filing an original application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The E Tribunal held that G.O.Ms 368 and 397 limiting the number of promotional posts to PSs at 10 at any given point of time, were arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the writ petitions filed by the SOs, the High Court held that though the F impugned amendment was no doubt peculiar, but, instead of normal practice of prescribing a ratio or quota, limiting the total number of post for PSs to 10, by itself, would not render the impugned amendment to the Rules ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court G further observed that principles of judicial review did not permit the court to examine the policy choice of the rule making authority. Aggrieved, the PSs filed the instant appeals. Allowing the appeal3, the Court +1 A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. v. S. PURUSHOTHAM 1057 & ORS. >-'<- HELD: 1.1 Quota in ordinary parlance would mean A proportionate share. The State, indisputably, when provides for two different sources as feeder posts for · promotion to a higher post, is entitled to fix quota. Whereas the power of the State to fix the quota keeping in view the fact situation obtaining in a given case must B be conceded, but the same .cannot be violative of the -t constitutional scheme of equality as contemplated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A policy decision and, in particular, legislative policy, should not ordinarily be interfered with and the superior Courts, while exercising its power of judicial review, shall not consider c as to whether such policy de
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.