GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. versus MOHD. GHOUSE MONINUDDIN AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 27-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
v. 
MOHD. GHOUSE MONINUDDIN AND ORS. 
AUGUST 27, 2001 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 371-D-Object of 
Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and 
C Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 : Paras 3 (1), (3), (7), 5 and 
6-lnterpretation of 
State Government-Notifications issued by-Scheme for organisation of 
local cadres in Commercial Tax, Revenue and Police Departments-Scheme 
D providing for smaller units for appointment, promotion and seniority-Scheme 
operative for 15 years-Challenge after 15 years held not permissible-
Notifications held valid-Held: By organising local cadres no requirement of 
Presidential Order was contravened. 
Service Law-Procedure operative for a long time-Held need not be 
E interfered with unless repugnant to constitutional provision or contrary to 
Rule. 
In exercise of its power under Article 371 D of the Constitution, the 
President of India issued Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation 
of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975. In terms 
F of paragraph 3 (1) of the Presidential Order, the State of Andhra Pradesh 
issued G.O.Ms. No. 581 dated 24th May, 1976 providing thereunder scheme 
for organisation of local cadre in Commercial Tax Department. Two other 
similar G.O.Ms. No. 497 dated 30th April, 1976 and G.O.Ms. No. 795 dated 
30th June, 1976 were also issued in respect of Revenue Department and Police 
Department respectively. These smaller units, organised by the State 
G Government in discharge of its obligation under paragraph 3 of the 
Presidential Order remained operative for more than 15 years since 1976-
and the appointment, promotion and seniority continued to be dealt with, as 
the cadre. In 1992-93 applications were filed before Andhra Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal which directed re-determination of inter se seniority 
H zone-wise in different cadres for promotion to higher posts. The Tribunal held 
180 
-
GOVT. OF A.P. v. MOHD. GHOUSE MONINUDDIN 
181 
that (i) Division is a unit for the purpose of administration and zone is a unit A 
for the purpose of organisation of cadres for direct recruitment, appointment, 
seniority, promotion and transfer under the Presidential Order; (ii) 
organisation of various local cadres under the notification issued by the State 
Government, does not satisfy the requirement of the Presidential Order as 
provided in para 3 and such separate cadres in smaller units affect the 
conditions of service mentioned in para 5(1 ); (iii) para 3(7) of the Presidential B 
Order, only enables the State Government to have separate cadre for 
administrative convenience and that the principle on which Supreme Court 
struck down the subsequent G.O.Ms. in *Prakash Rao's case would equally 
, .. 
apply to G.O.Ms. No. 581. 
.. _, 
Interpreting Para 3(7), the Tribunal held that the State Government C 
cannot organise cadre in any other part of the State for the purpose of public 
employment. On an analysis ofG.O.Ms. No. 497, issued in respect of the posts 
in Revenue Department it was held that the units of appointment for the above 
categories of posts in the Revenue Department conform to the provision in 
the Presidential Order and hence no particular action was called for in respect D 
of the posts in the Revenue Department. The Tribunal also found that the 
Sales Tax Department, the Revenue Department and the Police Department 
have acted without reference to the Presidential Order. Interpreting the 
expression "such part of the State", it held that the State Government cannot 
organise cadres in any other part of the State for the purpose of public 
employment mentioned in para 5(1). It ultimately held that recruitment to E 
different posts, has to be made as per the units created under the Presidential 
Order and not in accordance with the reorganisation made by the State 
Government in exercise of powers conferred under para 3 of the Presidential 
Order. With these conclusions, the specific G.O.Ms. in the three departments 
having been annulled and further directions having been issued, these appeals p 
have been preferred. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that (i) the re-organised 
units having been created by the State Government, in exercise of power under 
paragraph 3(1) of the Presidential Order, since 1976 and having remained 
operative for more than 15 years, the Tribunal was not justifie

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