STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. versus V. SADANANDAM & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 16-05-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
V. SADANANDAM & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
MAY 16, 1989 
B 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ. AND S. NATARAfAN, J.] 
)
Civil Services: Services-Recruitment ta:--And method of-
Exclusively within the domain of Executive-Not for judicial bodies to 
judge the wisdom of the Executive. 
' 
c 
Andhra Pradesh Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service 
Rules 1963-Rule 3 and G.O. Ms. No. 196 dated 17.6.83-Head 
Accountants and Sub-Treasury Officers-Recruitment of-Amended 
Rule 3-Whether conforms to para 5(2) of Andhra Pradesh Public 
Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct 
Recruitment) Order 1975. 
D 
In these two appeals filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against 
the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the q.uestion 
that arises for consideration is whether amended Rule 3 of the Andhra 
Pradesh Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service Rules 1963 ls 
J
violative of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of 
E 
Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 197 5. The 
circumstances under which this question has arisen are stated herein-
below. 
Prior to the filing of Representative Petitions Nos. 1595 and 788 of 
1984 by the Respondents in·the Tribunal out of which these appeals 
F 
have arisen, seven persons belonging to category 5 of Branch Ii of the 
-1 
A11dhra Pradesh Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service had pre-
sented a Petition before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal 
challenging the vires of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Treasury and 
Accounts Subordinate Service Rules 1963, being violative of para 5(1) of 
Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order, issued by the President of 
Q 
India under clauses (1) & (2) of Article 371-D of the Constitution, inter 
alia on the ground that it made provision for promotion of clerks of the 
Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts and Assistants of the Finance 
Department of the Secretariat to the post of Head Accountants· and 
Sub-Treasury Officer which posts had become Zonal posts after the 
promulgation of Presidential order. According to them only the U.D. 
H 
Accountants of the feeder sources of the Zone were eligible for consi- . 
342 
r 
STATE OF A.P. v. V. SADANANDAM 
343 
deration in that particular Zone for promotion to the rank of Head 
A 
Accountant and Sub-Treasury Officer and not the personnel from the 
other Zones, including U.D. Accountants of the Directorate. 
The Tribunal held that by virtue of para 5(1) of the Presidential 
order, for purposes of promotion, Zonal Cadre had to be treated as a 
separate unit and consequently the posts of Head Accountants/Sub-
Treasury Officers, could he filled up by promotion only on Zonal basis 
and as such Rule 3 which specified various categories of posts without 
reference to Zone as feeder posts for the purpose of promotion to the 
posts in question were inconsistent with para 5(1) of the Presidential 
order. The Tribunal therefore declared that after the promulgation of 
Presidential order, the provisions of Rule 3 would have to be reviewed 
B 
c 
so as to make them consistent with the provisions of the President.la! 
order. The Tribunal further declared that various categories of feeder 
posts including the posts of Assistant· Section Officers of the Secretariat 
from which promotion to the posts of Head Accountants/Sub-Treasury 
Officer could be made, could not be made operative after the promul-
gation of the Presidential order. After the aforesaid decision of 'D 
the Tribunal, the State Government amended Rule 3 and gave it a 
retrospective operation w.e.f. 18.10.1975. 
The validity of the amended Rule was questioned by the Respon-
dents in the context of certain Assistant Section Officers in the Finance 
Department (Secretariat Service) borne on Zone VII being appointed to 
the post of Sub-Treasury Officers borne on the Subordinate Offices 
under the Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts borne on Zones I to 
IV, by filing the said Representation Petitions before the Andhra 
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. It was again contended before the 
Tribunal that the amended Rule 3 was violative of the Presidential 
order. According to the State the amended Rule had been issued by the 
Governor in exercise of the power conferred c:-n him by the Proviso to 
Article 309 of the Constitution and hence the validity of the Rule could 
not be questioned by the Petitioners. It was further contended by the 
State that the earlier G.0. was not viol

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