MD. USMAN & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 29-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MD. USMAN & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
Aprit 29, 1971. 
[K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
A.ndhra Pradesh Registration Subordinate Service Special Rules, r. 5-
U.D.Cs. and L.D.Cs. put together for recruitment to post of Grade-II Sub· 
registrars-If violative of Art. 14 of l'onstitution. 
Recruitment on seniority-cum-merit basis-Preferential qualifications 
considered-Validity of recruitment. 
The validity of the recruitment of the appellants as Grade-II Sub· 
Te&istrars as well as the vires of r. 5 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Registra-
tion Subordinate Service Special Rules under which the recruitment was 
made, were challenged by some of the respondents. The rule deals with 
the qualifications for being recruited as Grade II sub-registrars. 
It put 
in one class ·for the purpose of recruitment, both U.D.Cs. as well as 
L.D.Cs. It was therefore contended that the rule violated Art. 14 of the 
-Constitution by treating unequals as equals. The High Court held that 
the recruitment was in accordance with the rule, but struck down the 
rvle as violative of Art. 14. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (!) (a) U.D.Cs. and LO.Cs. belong to a districtwise cadre, 
that is, promotion from L.D.C. to U.D.C. is made districtwise. Since 
the chances of promotion from L.D.C. to U.D.C. in one district differ 
materially from that of another, a L.D.C. in one district may be promot-
.ed as a U.D.C. much earlier than a L.D.C. in another district who may 
be his senior, more efficient or may possess the same or better qualifica-
tions. 
But Grade-II sub-registrars are in a statewise cadre. 
Though 
the position of a U.D.C. is superior to a L.D.C, if the State treated 
U.D.Cs. as superior to L.D.Cs. while recruiting for a statewise cadre, it 
would result in great injustice to a large section of the clerks, because of 
the fortuitous circumstance of a L.D.C. in a particular district becom-
ing a. U.D.C. in that district. Therefore. the State "-'a.~ justified in not 
classifying the U.D.Cs. and L.D.Cs. separately. 
(b) Though there was an anomaly in the case of L.D.Cs. and U.D.Cs. 
serving in the same district, the anomaly could not have been 3.Voided. 
The validity of the rule has to be judged by assessing its overall effect 
and not by picking up exceptional cases~ Further, the rule provides for 
giving preference to the U.0.Cs. who had put in service of 5 years or 
more. [552H-553F] 
(2) The sel~ction in the present case was made on the basis of senio~ 
rity-cum-merit. 
A list of all the clerks, U.D.Cs. as well as L.D.Co., was 
prepared in the order of seniority as L.D.Cs. and ~tncss of eac~ person 
was considered. 
Also, those persons who were entitled to be given pre~ 
ference under the rules were considered separately and recruited in the 
first instance. The method adopted was the most reasonable one :ind was 
in accordance with the mle. [553H-554B] 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 153 of 
1971. 
549 
B 
c 
D 
E 
r 
G 
H 
650 
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS 
[1971) SUPP. s.c.a. 
A 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 21, 1970 
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appea.l No. 240 of 
1968. 
B. V. Subrahamanyam and G. 
Narayana Rao, for the 
appellants. 
B 
P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M. Natesan, Venkataramhiah and K. Jayaram, for respon-
dents Nos. 3 to 21. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J.-The principal question that arises for decision 
lin this appeal by certificate is as to the vires of Rule 5 of the 
Andhra Pradesh Registration Subordinate Service Special Rules. 
to be hereinafter referred as "the rules". The High Court has 
struck down this rule on the ground that it is violative of Art. 14 
of the Constitution. 
As a result of thait conclusion, it has also 
quashed the recruitment of some of the respondents made in 
March, 1965 for being J!OSted as Sub-Registrars Grade-II. 
The petitioners as well as respondents No. 3 onwards in the 
Writ Petition were serving as clerks, either in the upper division 
or in the lower division, in the Registration and Stamps Depart-
ment including the office of the Registrar Generail of Births, 
Deaths and Marriages and the Office of the Registrar of the Firms. 
Some of the respondents had been recruited by the Inspector 
General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh for being 
appointed as Sub-Registrars. 
The petitioners challenged the 
validity of their recruitment on various grounds, b

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