J. PANDURANGARAO versus ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Citation: [1963] 1 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 11-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

l S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
707 
J. PANDURANGARAO 
v. 
ANDHRA PRADESH 1 U BLIC SERVICE 
COMMISSION 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. 
WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA. AYYANGAR, and 
T. L. VENKATARAMA_AIYER, JJ.) 
State Judicial Service -Appointment-Notification laying 
down conditio'M-Oonstitutionat 
validity-The High 
Court 
Meaning of-Andkta State Judicial Service Rules, r. 12(b)-
Oonstitution of India, Arts. 14, 16 (2). 
In January 1962, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service 
Commission invited applications for selection for the posts ~f 
District Munsifs in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The pet1· 
tioner applied but his application was rejected on the ground 
that he did not fulfil the first condition in para 4A( 1) of the 
Commission, notification which reads thuf·:-4-A( 1 )-"that 
at the time when the petitioner applies he is practising as 
an Advocate of the High Court". The question is whether 
the expression "The High Court" in the notification refers 
to the Andhra High Court alone or to all the High Courts 
in lndia. If the expres5ion means the Andhra High Court 
then the further question would be whether the R~le pr~­
scribing the said requirement is ultra vires as being d1scr1m1-
natory. The ~Clause in the notification is based on r. 12 (b) 
of the Andhra State Juducial Service Rules and reads that 
"no person shall be eligible for appointment to the post of 
District Munsiff by the method specified in column ( ~) of 
the table below unless he possess the qualifications specified in 
the corresponding entries in column (2) thereof" and among 
the qualifications specified is die same as in 4(A) (1) of 
the noti ication. 
Held, that the subject matter of the rules is the appoint· 
ment of subordinate judicial orficers who would work in 
courts subordinate to the Andhra ·High Court, and so, the 
use of the definite pronoun "The" in the expression "the 
High Court" clearly indicates that it is not any High Court 
that is intended but it is the particular High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh that is in view. Therefore the expreasion 
«The High Court" in the context means the Andhra High 
Court. 
1962 
April, Jl. 
• 
'4.ttdltrtJ Prad~sh 
Public Se11Jice 
Com nu ssion 
708 
SUPREM1£ COURT REPORTS (1963] 
Held, further, that though Art. 14 forbids class Legis-
lation, it docs not forbid reasonable classification for the 
purposes of legislation. When any impugned rules or statu-
tory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes 
Art. H, its v•lidity can be sustained if two tests arc satisfied. 
The first test is that the classification on which it is founded 
must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes 
persons or things grouped together from others left out of 
the gro'lp; and the second is that the differentia in question 
must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be 
achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. The 
classification on which the statutory provision may be founded 
may be referable to different considerations. It may be 
based on geographical considerations or it may have reference 
to objects < r occupations or the like. 
In every case, there 
must be some nexus between the basis of the classification 
and the object intended to be achieved by the statute. 
The plea that all the rules must be considered together 
is entirely misconceived. It is quite clear that in testing the 
validity of any one of these rules, the true scope and effect 
of the impugned rule itself will have to be considered and 
the decision of the question would have to be confined to 
the relevant considerations in respect of the said rule and 
no more. Just as the presence of one invalid rule cannot 
invalidate the other rules which may be valid, so the presence 
of a number of valid rules would not help to validate an 
impugned rule if it is otherwise invalid. 
There is no rational basis for differentiating the advo-
cates enrolled into the Andhra High Court from the rest 
as tne impugned rule purports to do. If the basis of the 
impugned rule is that a person who applies for appointment 
to the post of a District Munsiff, should have been enrolled 
as an Advocate of a High Court, that basis can be sati.fied 
even if the person is enrolled as an Advocate not of the 
Andhra High Court but of any other High Court. All the 
High Courts have the same stat.us; all of them stand for the 
same high traditions of the Bar and the administration of 
justice. 
The impugned ru

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