GOVT. OF A.P. AND ANR. versus G. JAYPRASAD RAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 256 · Decided: 21-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
GOVT. OF A.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
G. JAY A PRASAD RAO AND ORS. 
MARCH 21, 2007 
[A.K. MATHUR AND TAR UN CHA ITERJEE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998: 
Note 2 to Rule 3 and_ Proviso to Rule 6-Constitutional validity of-
Inspectors of police and Deputy Superintendents of Police-Method. of 
appointment-Accelerated promotion-By an amendment to the Rule a 
scheme was introduced for accelerated promotion for the outstanding work 
D in the field of anti-extremist operation as an incentive for these ofjicers-
Constitutional validity of amendment challenged before State Administrative 
Tribunal-Tribunal struck down the amendment being violative ~f Arts. 14, 
16 and 21-High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal and held that 
the amendment did not satisfo the test of reasonable classification and it 
farther observed that fortuitous circumstances cannot be made a basis for 
E creating a separate class within the class-c--Correctness of-Held: The 
F 
classification is apparent which can be differentiated from the class of persons 
who are prepared to sacrifice their lives as against the persons who want 
to do the routine policing duties-This cannot be said to be a fortuitous 
classification-The c/ass.ification is based on rational principle-Moreover; 
F guidelines have beenji-i1med to check against arbitra1y promotion by picking 
and choosing among the persons belonging to the same category-Hence, 
amendment to the Rules declared valid-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 
14, 16 and 21. 
G 
H 
Practice and Procedure: 
Validity of Rules-Challenge to-Impleadment of necessary parties-
Requirement of-Held: It is not necessary to imp/ead all persons who are 
likely to be affected as parties as it is not possible to identify who are likely 
to be affected-Hence, it is not necessary to implead necessary parties when 
the validity of Rules is challenged 
256 
" 
.... ,. 
+ .. 
t 
.> 
--....../. 
GOVT. OF A.P. v. G. JAY A PRASAD RAO 
257 
The respondents were all Inspectors of Police working at various places A 
and in various wings in the police Department in the State. Most of them were 
working as Inspectors of Police in the city of Hyderabad. The Andhra Pradesh 
Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998 were amended by insertion of Note 2 to 
Rule 3 and proviso to Rule 6. By this amendment a scheme was introduced 
for accelerated promotion for the outstanding work in the field of anti- B 
extremist operation as an incentive for the officers . 
The respondents challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment 
of the Rule before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal declared 
Note 2 to Rule 3 of the Rules and Proviso to Rule 6 being violative of Articles 
14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and struck it down. 
In appeal, the High Court, while affirming the decision of the Tribunal, 
held that the amendment did not satisfy the test of reasonable classification 
and it further observed that fortuitous circumstances cannot be made a basis 
for creating a separate class within the class. Hence the appeals. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that despite these incentives, 
few officers were prepared to accept the highly risky and challenging job; 
that after introduction of accelerated promotion scheme naxal activities had 
considerably decreased to the extent of I/3rd from 1997-2001 and that detailed 
guidelines were issued for screening by three-tier committees. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the present appeal 
as well as the original applications filed before the State Administrative 
Tribunal and the High Court should be dismissed on the question of non-
joinder of parties. 
The following question arose before the Court:-
Whether t_he amendment of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service 
Rules, 1998 and insertion of Note 2 in Rule 3 as well as proviso to Rule 6 
could be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.oflndia? 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It may be said at the outset that the Andhra Pradesh Police 
(Civil) Service Rules, 1998 were amended, looking to the dire need of the 
State, in order to give incentive to the Police Officers for voluntarily coming 
forward to meet the menace of extremist operations. The purpose is a laudable 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
---{._ 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A one and nobody can take exception to this. In order to provide this incentive 
service Rules had to

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