LexT. NARASIMHULU & ORS. versus STATE OF A. P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 6 S.C.R. 1028 T. NARASIMHULU & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8116 of 2003) MAY 11, 2010 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 309 - Rule relating to appointment of Forest Rangers as Assistant Conservators C - Amendments to the rule, in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 - Mode of publication of rules made under the proviso to Article 309 - Held A rule made under the proviso to Article 309 has the same effect as an Act of appropriate Legislature regulating the recruitment and O conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State - Hence, even if Article 309 does not say that the rules made under the proviso thereto are required to be published, these rules are required to be published just as any other Act E passed by the appropriate Legislature is required to be published so that the persons affected by the rules or the Act are aware of the rule or the Act - Where the Jaw prescribes the mode of publication of the Jaw to become operative, the law must be published in that mode only, but where the mode F of publication of the law is not prescribed by the law, such law should be published in some usual or recognized mode to bring it to the knowledge of all persons concerned - Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act - s. 21 - Service Law - Recruitment - Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1965 G -r.2. Service Law - Seniority - Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1965 - r.2 - Amendments made to r.2 with retrospective effect - Validity of -Challenged on ground that it adversely affected inter-se seniority and thus took away the H 1028 - \ T. NARASIMHULU & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. & ORS.1029 vested or accrued rights of employees - Held: Challenge not A tenable - Seniority of a Government servant is not a vested right - An Act of the State Legislature or a rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution can retrospectively affect the seniority of a Government servant - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 309. B On 29.05.1995, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.0.Ms. No. 35 adding a proviso to Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1965 that Forest Range Officers who secured first and second ranks in C their batches for Honours in Ranger's Training Course shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant Conservators and this G.O.Ms. No. 35 was published in the Gaz~tte of the Andhra Pradesh on 01.06.1995. On 03.07.1995, the Andhra Pradesh Government issued G.O.Ms. No.51 amending this proviso to Rule 2 of the D Forest Service Rules so as to provide that Forest Range Officers who secured Honours in their batches in the Rangers Training Course shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant Conservators and this G.O.Ms. No.51 was published in the Gazette of Andhra Pradesh E on 12.09.1996. The appellants who were working as Assistant Conservators of Forests challenged the amendments to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules by G.O.Ms. No.35 am! F G.0.Ms. No.51. It was submitted by the appellants that a bare perusal of the G.0.Ms. 35 dated 2~ JS.1995 and G.O.Ms. No.51 dated 03.07.1995 would show that the Government Orders directing that the amendments shall be deemed G to have come into force from 08.04.1986 was not part of the Notification which was published in the Gazette; that the amendments by G.0.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 are amendments to Rule 2 made under the proviso to Article H 1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 6 S.C.R. A 309 of the Constitution and although the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution does not prescribe any specific m()de of publication of the Rules made thereunder, the amendments are required to be published in the same manner in which the Rules made under an Act are B published. The appellants submitted that although the amendments made to Rule 2 by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 were published by a notification in the Official Gazette, the portion of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. NOs. 35 and 51 directing that the amendments would have c retrospective effect from 08.04.1986 was not published in the notifications in the Official Gazette and the legal consequence thereof is that the amendments to Rule 2 made by G.0.Ms. NOs. 35 and 51 would have only prospective effect, or in other words, will not have 0 retrospective effect from 08.04.1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.