MALLIKARJUNA RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 418 · Decided: 10-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MALLIKARJUNA RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
APRIL 10, 1990 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Service-Special Rules, 
1977-Rule I. Constitution of India-Article 226-Can the High Court/ 
Administrative Tribunal direct the State Government to frame or amend 
the statutory rules affecting condition of service in terms of its directions. 
~ 
Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1961, gover- .. 
ned the conditions of service of the Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry 
Department and under those Rules Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were 
eligible for promotion to three categories of Class IV posts. Rule 6 of 
the said Rules provided special eligibility qualifications for those posts 
and only those Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were considered for 
--" 
promotion to Class IV posts who fulf"tlled the qualifications/specialised 
training prescribed under Rule 6 of the 1961 Rules. Some of the Veteri-
nary Assistant Surgeons challenged the vires of Rule 6 of 1961 Rules on 
the ground that it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution 
inasmuch as it conferred arbitrary powers on the Government to pick 
and choose any person for the specialised training and may deny such 
an opportunity to another person who may be equally or better suited 
/ 
for such training, there being no guidelines prescribed for selection of --' 
persons for specialised training. The main contention was that at the 
time of recruitment all the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons ,>ossessed 
Bachelor Degree in Veterinary Science and the special qualification and 
training prescribed under Rule 6 could only be acquired after joining as 
Veterinary Assistant Surgeon by only those Assistant Surgeons whom 
the Government selected for the purpose. 
The High Court held Rule 6 of the 196 l Rules as intra vires but ....( 
made certain observations advising the Animal Husbandry Department 
to frame a rule for the said Department and see that as far as possible 
the area of discretion on the part of the authorities concerned is reduced 
if not eliminated altogether, so far as the question of imparting 
specialised training as provided under Rule 6 was concerned. There-
upon the State Government amended Rule 6 of the 1961 Rules as a 
result whereof the 1961 Rules were superseded by the Andhra Pradesh .,.. 
Animal Husbandry Service-Special Rules, 1977, Rule 1 whereof pro-
418 
M. RAO v. STATE OF A.P. 
419 
vided for the constitution of the service. Class IV posts, which were 
re-designated as Assistant Directors, were divided into eight cat~ories 
-y and Rule 2 provided method of promotion from Class V to Class IV. 
U oder those Rules Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who were Class V 
were only eligible for promotion to Class IV in their respective 
categories. That is to say category 1 Class V was only eligible for promo-
tion to category 1 Class IV and similarly category 2 of Class V was 
eligible for category 2 of Class IV aud so on, and in this way common 
seniority of class V officers became irrelevant, promotion being 
~ category-wise. Being dissatisfied some officers belonging to Class IV 
filed Representation Petition before the Andhra Pradesh Administra-
4 
tive Tribunal seeking a direction that the special rules be amended or 
modified in terms of the observations made by the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Civil Writ No. 4532 of 1971, referred to above whereby 
the said High Court had declared Rule 6 of 1961 Rules as intra vires. 
The contention raised by the petitioner was that promotions from Class 
·"°'· 
V to Class IV be made on the basis of seniority alone irrespective of the 
categories contemplated by 1977 Rules. The Tribunal by its judgment 
allowed the petition and issued the directions asked for by the petition-
ers. The Tribunal observed that not to speak of direction, even an 
observation from the High Court was binding on the State Government 
when the State Government had not chosen to get the said observation 
set aside by the Supreme Court. Accordingly the Tribunal directed the 
State to evolve a proper and rational method of determination of senio-
\.._ rity among the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in the matter of promo-
tions to the next higher rank of Assistant Director of Veterinary 
Surgeons. 
Being aggrieved, the State of Andhra Pradesh and some of the 
officers who have been affected by the High Court's judgment and who 
were not parti

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