LexM. SURENDER REDDY versus GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 2 S.C.R. 617 M. SURENDER REDDY v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5099 of 2006 etc.) FEBRUARY 18, 2015 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND C V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Service Law- Selection - Procedure for selection to the posts - Amendment of- Retrospective or prospective in nature - On facts, process of selection started pursuant to the D advertisement issued to fill up certain posts - Subseq1Jently, G.0.Ms.No.124 dated 7th March, 2002 issued to amend the procedure prescribed for selection - Tribunal allowed the applications seeking implementation of G. 0. Ms. No. 124 - Direction issued to APPSC to re-caste the merit list by E implementing the G. 0. Ms. No. 124 - High Court held that the selection is to be made in accordance with G.0.Ms.No.124 and that the order passed by the Court would not affect the appointments already made to the executive post between 2001-2002- On appeal, held: State Government cannot pass F any order amending a procedural law regarding reservation in the matter of selection to posts, with retrospective effect, once the procedure of selection starts -A statutory provision is held to be retrospective either when it is so declared by G express terms, or the intention to make retrospective clearly follows from the relevant words and the context in which they occur- G.0.Ms.No.124 is prospective in nature and is not applicable to the process of selection started pursuant to Advertisement including the executive posts which were H ordered to be filled up by the High Court pursuant to the 617 M. SUREN DER REDDY v. GOVT. OF A. P. 618 advertisement- Thus, orders passed by the tribunal and the A High Court set aside - Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 371- D - Andhra Prade~h Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 -Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) B Amendment) Order, 2001 - G. O.Ms.124 dated 7th .March, 2002. Allowing the appeals, the Court c HELD: 1.1 In absence of any express or necessarily implied provision in the statute, normally statute affects the rights prospectively. A statutory provision is held to be retrospective either when it is so declared by express terms, or the intention to make D retrospective clearly follows from the relevant words and the context in whiC?h they occur. [Para 18] [647-C-D] 1.2 The Presidential Order, 1975 was issued in exercise of powers under clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371-D of E the Constitution empowering the State Government under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the said order to organize any class of posts in the civil services under the State into different local cadres in different parts of the State within 27 months from the commencement of F the said order. Under proviso to sub-paragraph (1) it is stated that notwithstanding the expiration of the said period, the President may by order, require the State Government whenever he considers it expedient to do c; so to organize any class of posts in civil services 'Jf and any class of civil posts under the State into different local cadres or different parts of the State. By Presidential order, 1975 the State Government has not been empowered to pass any order under sub-paragraph (1) H 619 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A of paragraph 3 or paragraph 8 with retrospective effect. Apart from the. fact that the State Government was not empowered by the Presidential Order, 1975 to pass any orders with retrospective date, in absence of any terms or the intention to make it retrospective date, the G.O.Ms. 8 No.124 dated 7th March, 2002 cannot be given effect from a retrospective date. In any case, the State Government cannot pass any order amending a procedural law regarding reservation in the matter of selection to posts, C with retrospective effect, once the procedure of selection starts. Thus, the G.O.Ms.No.124 is prospective and is not applicable to the process of selection started pursuant to Advertisement No.10 of 1999 including the 973 executive posts which were ordered to be filled up by o the High Court pursuant to the advertisement. The tribunal erred in directing the APPSC to re-caste the merit list pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.124. The High Court rightly held that the order passed by the Court would not affect the appointments already made to the executive post E be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.