HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. versus V.V S. KRISHNAMURTHY AND ORS.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 26 · Decided: 12-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 17 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
26 
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
v. 
V. V. S. KRISHNAMURTHY AND ORS. 
August 4, 1978/September 12, 1978 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., R. S. SARKARJA, 
N. L. UNTWALTA, 
A. D. KosHAL AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Co11stit11tio1: of India 1950-Article 371-D and Andhra Pradesh Ad1ninistra-
tive Tribunal l~nh'r 1975-Scope and effect of-An officer of the Hir:)i Court and 
a S11hordi11a1e 
J11d~e compulsoril:v 
retired-Adn1i11fatratire Tribunal 
held the 
retiren1ent orders invalid-Administrati1'e Tribunal whether has 
;urisdiction to 
entertain, deal with or d.":cide the representation by a member of the staff of the 
Tligh Court or of subordinate j11diciary-Scope of Articles 229 and 235. 
A11iclc 371-D (3) inserted by the Constitution (Thirty-Second Amendn1ent) 
Act 1973, empO¥.'ers the President to constitute an Administrative Tribunal for 
the State of Andhra Pradesh to exercise such jurisdiction, powers a11d .1uthority 
which immediately before the amendment was exercisable by any Court, tribunal 
or authority in respect of a'Ppointment, allotment or promotion to posts in the 
Civil Services of the State, under the State or under the control of any !ocal 
authority within the state, Clause (10) 
provides that t:he 
provisions ot fhe 
Article and any order made by the President thereunder, .shall have effect not-
withstanding any other provision of the Constitution or in any other law for the 
time being in force. 
Parr~ 6 of the And.hra }lradesh Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975 issued 
by the President, -setting up the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, pro-
vides that the Tribunal shall have 'all the jurisdiction, powers and authority 
exercisable by all Courts \vith respect to appointment, allotment or promotion to 
any public post, seniority of persons appointed, allotted or promoted to 5uch 
post a·nd all other conditions of service of such persons'. 
The first Respondent in C.A. No. 2826 /77 was a former employee of tile 
High Court. 
He originally belonged to the High Court service. 
After being 
on deputation with the Central and State Governments for some year" he re-
joined the High Court service as Assistant Registrar and was later promoted as 
Deputy Registrar. 
The Chief Justice of the 
High Court in exercise ot his 
powers under Article 229· of the Constitution read with the relevant rules, passed 
an order, dated January 3, 1969, compulsorily retiring the respondent from ser-
vice. who by then had attained the age of 50 years. 
His writ petition assailing the orders of compulsory retirement, was dismissed 
by the High Court on the ground that the jurisdiction of the High Court \1.'hich 
was hitherto being exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution to correct 
orders of the Chief Justice on the administrative side with rega-rd to conditions 
of service of officers of the High Court, vested in the Adrµinistrative Tribunal 
by reason of clause 6(1) of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Order made by 
the President under Article 371-D of the Constitution. 
The respondent thereafter moved the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribu-
nal, which set aside the impugned order on the ground, that it was ~rbitrary, 
.... 
.. 
t 
) 
A. P. HIGH COURT V. KRISHNAMURTHY 
27 
.nnd amounted to a penalty of dism;ssJ\ or removal from service and. as such, 
A 
was hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 
The resrondent in C.A. No. 278/78 was a member of the Andhra Pradesh 
St:dc Judicial Service working as a Subordinate Judge. 
He 
was 
prenmturely 
retired in public interest by an order of the State Government on the recom-
mendation of the Hig-h Court. 
The respondent's contention. that in the case of Subordinate Judges, th~ I--ligh 
Court being the appointing <('uthority, the Governor had no power or jurisd1ciioi"l 
to p;iss an order of premature retirement of a
1 n1ember of the State Judicial Ser-
·v~ce, was accepted by the Tribunal, and the impugned order \Vtl.S. set aside. 
In the appeals against both the orders of the Administrative Tribunal. it waos 
contended before this Court by the- appellants that Article 371-D of the Consti-
tution should be construed harmoniously 
with the basic 
scheme unJ~rlytng 
·Chapters V and VI in Part VI of the Constitution; and so construed, the g;;ne-
ral expression, such as "class or classes of posts", "Civil Services of the State" 
etc. in Clause (3) of this Article will not include posts/members of the High 
Court staff and the Subordinate Judiciary, with

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