GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. versus SRI D. JANARDHANA RAO AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 23-09-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
702 
A 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
\!. 
SRI D. JANARDHANA RAO AND ANOTHER 
\ 
September 23, 1976 
B 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.J 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Civil service-Powers of relaxaton-W/ietiltr rules can be mtule retrospcc-
tfrely:__Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Servia Rules 1962-Rule 47-· 
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Cooperation Branch) 
Special Rules 1962-rule 4. 
The respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court questioning tile 
inclusion in the list of Deputy Tahsildars eligible for promotion to the post 
of Tahsildars of the names of 63 persons who were impleaded as respondents 4 
to 66, in the Writ Petition. The 63 persons were working as Upper Division 
Clerks in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. The State Government in consulta-
tion with the Government of India issued an order on 7-4-1960 stating that 
the first stage promotion of the employees of the erstwhile Government of 
Hyderabad should be governed by the Hyderabad Cadre and Recruitment Rules 
for promotion which were applicable to them before that date. 
The subsequent 
promotions after the first stage of promotion wonld be governed by the relevant 
rules in force in the newly formed State. 
By virtue of this order the aforesaid 
6 employees were promoted to the post of Deputy Talmildars which wa.; the 
first stag.e promotion for them. In 1962, Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Co-
operation Branch) Special1 Rules were framed, but were made effective retrospec-
tively from 1st November, 1956. Under rule 4(a) the State Government bas 
to prepare in consultation with the Public Service Commission a list of persons 
eligible for appointment as Tahsildars. The 63 erstwhile employees of the 
Government of Hyderabad did not have the opportunity to acquire the qualifica-
tions prescribed under rule 4(a) of the Special Rules on their promotion as 
Deputy Tahsildars. 
The Government felt that they should not be left out of 
consideration for appointment, as Tahsildars and asked the 
Public 
Service 
Commission to consider the names of such Deputy Tahsildars for inclusion in 
the list of eligible candidates assuring the Public Service Commission that the 
Government would relax the requirements as to qualification in favour of such 
Deputy Tabsildars provided they were otherwise found suitable by the Commi•-
sion. By order dated 30-6-1971 !he Governor rela.xed the provisions of rule 4(a) 
of the Special Rules in exercise of powers under s. 47 of the Andhra Pradesh 
State and Subordinate Services Rules 1962. The respondents filed a Writ Petition 
for quashing the order dated 30-6-1971 in the High Court. 
The respondents 
contended that as a result of the said order their claims for appointment to the 
posts of Tehsildar had been passed over in favour of unqualified persons. The 
High Court allowed the Writ Petition. The High Court held that rule 47 did 
not confer any power to relax a rule retrospectively. It was also held that 
under rule 47 power was given to Governor personally :rnd therefore the exercise 
of it by the Governor wa<S invalid. 
In an appeal by special leave the appellant contended : 
1. That rule 47 did not confer any power to relax a rule retrospectively. 
2. The power was given to the Governor personally to relax the rule• 
and since the impugned order was not passed by the Governor lint 
bv Hie Govt. of Andhra Pradesh it was invalid. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 
1. The view taken by the High Court that the power conferred by rule 47 
is exercisable by the Governor personally is based on the judgment 
• 
• 
-
' -<.\ 
I 
r 
ANDHRA PRADESH v. D. JANARDHANA RAO (Gupta, !.) 
7 03 
in Sardarilal v. Unio11 of India, (1971] 3 S.C.R. 461. The said decision 
stands overruled by the later decision of this Hon'ble Court in Sltam-
slier Singh v. Stare of Punjab, [1975] I S.CR. 814. (706 E-F] 
A 
2. Rule 47 empowers the Governor to relax the general rules in such 
manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable. It is clear that 
power under rule 47 is to be exercised in the interest of justice and 
equity. It is not difficult to see that the occasion for acting under 
rule 47 arises after the attention of the Government is drawn to a 
B 
case where there has been a failure of justice. In all these cases 
justice can be done only by exercising the power under rule 4 7 with 
retrospective effect otherwise the object and purpose of the rnle will 
be largely frustrated. 
Such a provision is not un

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.