THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR versus B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 14-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
351
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 351
351
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.
v.
B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS
(Special Leave Peittion (C) Nos. 1565-66 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Service Law – Bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh –
Allocation of the respondent no.1 to the State of Telengana – By an
order dated 14.01.2016, the concerned Ministry, Government of
India allotted the respondent to the State of Andhra Pradesh – High
Court set aside the said order dated 14.01.2016 to allocate the
respondent to the State of Telangana with effect from 14.01.2016 –
On appeal, held: Admittedly, at the time of bifurcation of the State
of Andhra Pradesh, the respondent no.1 was posted in an area
which falls with Telangana – Respondent no.1 was required to
exercise an option, which he admittedly did and opted State of
Telangana – As per guidelines, allocable employees were to be
considered on the basis of seniority as on 01.06.2014 – Respondent
No.1 was senior most of the employees who opted for Telangana –
Spouse of respondent no.1 was also a local of Telangana – On a
possible interpretation of the Guidelines read with the Andhra
Pradesh Public Employment Order 1975 and, in particular,
paragraph 4 thereof, the High Court found that the Respondent
No.1 was local candidate of the State of Telangana – Admittedly,
respondent no.1 is a citizen of this country – As a citizen of India,
the respondent has a fundamental right u/Art. 19(1)(e) to reside
and settle in any part of the territory of India – The Andhra Pradesh
State Reorganisation Act, 2014 or any other guidelines framed
thereunder, including the guidelines circulated on 30.10.2014
cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any
part of the country – When a State is divided and the employees
and officers of the State Government have to be allotted to the two
states, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules and
Regulations and by guidelines – However, such rules, regulations
and guidelines have to be construed harmoniously with the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India –
On a liberal interpretation of the guidelines dated 30.10.2014 in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
the light of the philosophy of the Indian Constitution read with
Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order, 1975, which was in force
at the time of bifurcation is applicable to the respondent, the High
Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was a
local candidate of Telangana and was entitled to allocation as per
his seniority in terms of Paragraph 18(f) of the guidelines – Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 – Andhra Pradesh Public
Employment Order, 1975 – Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(e).
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The Respondent No.1 was however, allocated to
the State of Andhra Pradesh, ignoring his option for the State of
Telangana and in violation of the Guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms
No. 312 dated 30th October 2014. The allocation was also in
contravention of the requirement of Clause (f) of Paragraph 18
directing that allocation shall be done in order of seniority as
available. On behalf of the Respondent No.1, it was rightly
contended that the spouse of the Respondent No.1 who had been
born and educated in the State of Telangana had to be treated as
a local candidate of the State of Telangana. As a spouse, the
Respondent No.1 ought to have been allocated to the State of
Telangana. [Paras 49-50][371-B, D-E]
2. Admittedly, at the time of bifurcation of the State of
Andhra Pradesh, the Petitioner was posted in an area which falls
with Telangana. The Petitioner was required to exercise an option,
which he admittedly did. It is not in dispute that 9 posts out of
total 23 posts were allocated to the State of Telangana and 14 to
the State of Andhra Pradesh. As per guidelines, allocable
employees were to be considered on the basis of seniority as on
1st June 2014. [Para 56][377-C]
3. As found by the High Court, the Petitioner’s position
was 4th inseniority in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh as
on 1st June 2014. The 3 people, senior to him, were all local
candidate of Andhra Pradesh, who had opted for Andhra Pradesh.
The Respondent No.1 was senior most of the employees who
opted for Telangana. The High Court found that the Respondent
No.1 had denied allocation to Telangana on a “strange
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
353
interpretation o

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