C. Naresh Babu And Another vs. S. Mohan Rao And 7 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspectors, challenged an order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated February 27, 2004, in O.A.No.5931 of 1999, and consequential Government Order G.O.Ms.No.815 dated October 15, 2004, and proceedings of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated November 18, 2004. The petitioners sought to quash these orders and be continued as 'Incharge Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspectors' with consequential benefits. The core of the dispute revolved around promotion avenues and eligibility criteria. The High Court noted that the issue was squarely covered by a previous order dated April 26, 2005, in W.P.No.20159 of 2004.
Held
The High Court held that the proviso to the eligibility criteria for promotion was just and reasonable and did not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or discrimination, thus not violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court reasoned that while classification might produce some inequality, it would not be sufficient to attract Article 14 unless there was no reasonable basis for differentiation. The Court found that the Government's initial stand before the Tribunal and its subsequent change in stand, reflected in G.O.Ms.No.815, were noted. However, based on the settled principles of service jurisprudence and its own prior decisions, the Court upheld the validity of the proviso and consequently found the consequential action (G.O.Ms.No.815) to be bad in law. The Writ Petitioners were held to be bound to succeed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the proviso to the eligibility criteria for promotion, as interpreted by the Tribunal and implemented by the Government, is arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners contended that the proviso, which likely introduced a relaxation or specific condition for promotion, was arbitrary and discriminatory. They sought to quash the Tribunal's order and subsequent government actions, arguing for their continuation in their 'Incharge' positions with full benefits. Revenue/State's argument: The Government, in its counter-affidavit before the Tribunal, had taken a particular stand. However, in light of G.O.Ms.No.815, the Government's stand evidently changed. The judgment implies the Government defended the proviso, arguing it was just and reasonable and did not suffer from arbitrariness or discrimination, citing settled principles of service jurisprudence.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER I
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Writ Petition No.23472 of 2OO4 ORDER : {Per Hon'ble Si Justice Abhinand Kumar Shquiti) When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 26.O4.2OO5 passed by this Court in W.p.No.2Ot59 of 2OO4. Following the order dated 26.O4.2O05 in W.p.No.2O159 of 2OO4 and for reasons alike, this Writ petition is allowed. No costs. Pending miscelianeous petitions, if any, shall stand ciosed. That Rute Nisi has ben made absolute as above. Witness the Hon'ble the Chief Justice UJJAL BHUYAN, on The Wedne ay, The Twenty Eighth Day of December Two Thousand and Twenty Two . G. SIREEq4A ASSISTANT REGISTFAR ///' ,EcrtoN oirrcen To, 1 . The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue.(Excise -l) Department, Secretariai,Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.
The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.
Tlie Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad.
The Defuty Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warang-al. -
Two CCs t6 GP FOR PROHIBITIoN & EXCISE ,High Court for the state of Telangana,at Hyderabad [OUT]
One cC to SRt. J. R. MANOHAR RAO, Advocate IOPUC]
Two CD copies (Along with a copy of the order dated 26.04.2005 in W.P.No.20159 of 2004) BM GJP \\ k- AND \
{\ HIGH COURT DATED:2911212022 ORDER WP.No.23472 of 2004 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS k g ?W + .:aii o t) s o 01 F[8 .a lHE s14 Z..S" o?'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUBE, ANDHRA PBADESH AT HYDEBABAD (Special Originat Juri iction) TUE AY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA R P 1 58 .2 98 .23 473 of 04 AN 40AND OF D PETtTt N 01sgoj20qg O/o Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Nelloftr 5 S. Srinivasulu, I P. Vijaykumar, S/o Appaiah. Gudur. Nellore District. 2 ^ Ittld Ghouse Basham Sb Abdul Shukur, Sub Divisional prohibition & Excjse Office, Markapur, prakasam District 1 WRIT Between AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government oF Andhra pradesh, Rep by its principal Secretary, Revenue [EXcrse l) Department. Secrelaflat. Hyderabad. iroJ,X"o"to:"t'""ioner of Prohibition & Excise, covernmenr of Andhra pradesh, ;|.JT %"j;rt,J|.aommissroner of prohibirion & Excise, covernmenr of Andhra 4 S. Mohan Rao, 6 O/o,Prohibilion & [ xcise Superintendent. Atmahrrr. y . venKateswarlu, Oto prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Nellore.
.....R ES PON D ENTS WR IT PETITION No : 20209 al20_04 Between I S. Sirajuddin, Slo. Kaja Peer, R/o. Erraguntla. Kadapa D islricl. 2 P. Peeru Saheb. S/o. P. Hussain Saheb, R/o. Madakiasira, Ananthapur, Ananthapur DistriDt 3 C. Nagaraja Reddy, S/o. C. Narayana Reddy, R/o, Kadumuru, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 V. Sudhakar. S/o. Late Parusuramaiah, R/o. Sattenapalli, Guntur, Guntur District. .... PETITIONERS AND 7 T.B. Raiender Prasad. O/o Dy. Cornmissioner ol Prohibition & Excise, Guntur. Petition under A,licle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue wril order or direction more particutarly one in the nature oi Writ of "Certiorari" call for the records relating to the order dated 27 -2-2004 passed in O.A.No. 5931ot 1999 and order dated 7-9-2004 passed in M.A.No. 242312004 in Rev.M.A.No. 296912004 in O.A.No. 5931/1999 by he Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Adnrinistrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as unjust, without any basis and contrary io the principles of natural iustice furlher direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as l/c Prohibition and Excise Sub lnspectors with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioners: lviR.iri.fiATitA fiEDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 3: GP FOR REVENUE (ExClSE) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7: MB.P.V.RAMANA (CAVEATORS) 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secrelary, Revenue (Excise-l), Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur. 4 S. Mohan Rao
O/o. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent. Nellore, 5 S. Srinivasulu, O/o. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Atmakur. 6 Y. Venkateswarlu, O/o. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nellore. 7 LB. Ralender Prasad, O/o. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Guntur. 8 The Deputy Commassioner of prohibition and Excise Govt. ol A.p.. Kurnool (R8 is impleaded as per coud order dt. 23-1 1 _2004 in WPMP 28029 of 2004) .....RESPON DENTS Petition under Afiicre 226 0f the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aflidavit fired herein the High court may be preased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other approprjate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to quash the judgment or the 1st Respondent in o.A.No.593 i /r 999 dated 27 -2-2004 and also to sel aside the consequential G.O.t\,4s.No.815 dated 15_10- 2004 issued by the 2nd Respondent and to issue consequential directions to Respondents 2 and 3 to continue the petitioners as prohibition and Excise sub- inspeclors. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: cp FOR PROHIBITION & EXCTSE 1 K.S.C. Sekhar, S.o lale perer Prohibition & Excise Sub-tnspector, Sub-Divisional Task Force. Vjjayawada, Krishna District 2 A.V . Rama Rao S/o Sri Dharmaiah Sub-lnspector, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District 3 R.V.L Narasimha Rao S/o Srj Bapl Ralu Sub-lnspector, Tanuku West Godavari District 4 K. Tata Reddy S/o late Dana Reddy Sub-lnspector, Jangareddygudem, West codavari Dist.ict 5 P.N. Subrahmanyam S/o late Venkat Rao Prohibition & Excise Sub-lnspector, Vijayawada(East), Krishna District 6 Y. Eswara Rao S/o late Apparao Prohibition & Excise Enforcemenl wing Vijayawada, Krishna District 7 P .V . Satyanarayana S/o late Anjaneyulu Prohibition & Excise Sub lnspector, Sub_Divisional Task Force, cudavada, Krishna District 8 P. Satyanarayana Rao S/o Sri papa Rao Sub-lnspector, Amalapuram, EastGodavari District WRIT PETITION No:21244 or 2004 Between:
9 Bh. Bamakrishna ivlurthy S/o Sri Lakshmi Narasrfilham Sub-lnspector. Vijayawada (West), Krishna District 10 P. Nlahatama Raiu S/o Sri Samba lvlurthy, Apparao Prathipadu, East Godavari District 1 1 M. Siva Sankar S/o Ratnacharyulu Prohibition & Excise Sub-lnspector, Kakinada, Easl Godavari District 12 K. Bangaraiah S/o Late Bangaraiah Sub- lnspector, Ranasthalam, Srikakulam District. AND 1 The Government ol A'nCh!-a Peadesh, rep by Principal Secretary to Government. Revenue (Excise-1) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Commissioner ol Prohibition & Excise, Government ol Andhra Pradesh, Guntur. 4 S. lvlohan Rao, Junior Assistant, O/o Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nellore. 5 S. Srinivasulu, Junior Assistant, O/o Prohibition and Excise Superintenderll Atmakur. 6 Y. Venkateswarly, Junior Assistant, O/o Prohibition and Excisc Superintendent, Nellore- 7 f -8. Rajender Prasad, Junior Assistanl, O/o Dy. Commissioner oi Prohibition and Excise. Guntur. 8 Ch. Venkatakumar S/o. Sainarayatra O/o. Sub Divisional Prohibition & Excise Officer, Eluru' W.G. District 9 K. Narasimha Rao S/0. Laxmana Swamy O/o. Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 10 G.V. Narasinga Rao S/o. Suryanarayana A/^ Drnh .a- trv^i.a ar rnorintonrtont trlrrrrr W G Dislricl 11 Shaik Mahabub Subhani S/o. S.K. Subhani O/o.Dy. Commissioner of Proh. & Excise Kakinada, E.G. District l2 Shaik Hyde. Slo.Shaik fvlahabub Jani O/o.Dy. Commissioner of Proh. & Excise Kakinada' E.G. District. 13 K. Rambabu S/o. K, Sathr Raju O/o. Assistant Commissioner of Proh. & Excise Kakinada, E.G. lJlstrict 14 lvld. Jainulabdin S/o. tvlohiddin O/o. Proh. & Excise lnspector Bhimavaram, E.G. District 15 Shaik lMohammad Ali S/o. Sk. l'4astan Ali O/o. Proh. & Excise Superintendent, l\4achllipatllam, Krishna Districl 16 Palika Venkat Raman Slo. Palika Naga Raju O/o-Dy. Commissioner of Proh. & Excise Kakinada, E.G. District (RH 8to16 impleaded as per court order dt.2-2-2005 in WPI\/IP 33109 of 2004) ..... PETITIONERS
.....R ESPON DENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution ol lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavat fired herein the High coun may be preased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of l,4andamus decraring the orders dated 27-oz-20o4 passed in o.A. No. 5931 of 1999on the fire of the A.p Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad and consequential orders of the first respondent issued in G.O.Ms. No. 8'15 Revenue (Excise_l(2) Department dated 15- j 0_2004 as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and consequentially direct the first and second respondents to continue the petitioners as prohibition and Excise Sub-rnspectors on regular basis, after calling for the files. Counsel for the petitioners: MR.p.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel tor the Respondents: cp FOR EDUCATTON 2 P.Bikshapathy Rao, S/o Ralatah. lncharge Proh. & Excise Sub. tnspector, S.H.O. Suryapet, Nalgonda District Mohd. Samiullah, S/o Rahamatullah lncharge Proh. & Excise Sub.lnspector. S.H.O, Amanagal, Mahaboobnagar District 3 B.Sanjeevaiah, S/o Balalah, lncharge Proh. & Excise Sub. lnspector, SHO Andole, Medak District 4 Khaja Moizuddin, S/o Khaja Moinuddin, lncharge Proh. & Excise Sutr. lnspector, SHO Shadnagar, l\/ahaboobnagar District 5 M.A.Ghaffar, S/o euadeer, lncharge Proh. & Excjse Sub. Inspector, SHO Telkapally, t\,,lahaboobnagar WRIT PETITION No: 21689 of 2004 Between:
District 6 K.Ramulu, S/o Pentaiah, lncharge Proh. & Excise Sub. lnspector, S.T.F., Hyderabad 7 S.Mohan, S/o Bhomaiah, lncharge Proh. & Excise Sub. lnspector, Check Post, Yamcha, Nizamabad District, Division Nizamabad 8 M.Bhikshapathi, S/o Yellaiah, lncharge Proh. & Excise Sub. lnspector, S-H.O. Palvancha, Khammam District, Warangal Division 9 lrshad Mohd.Khan. S/o fi/l.A.Hameed l(han, Incharge Proh. & Excise Sub. lnspector, S.H.O., Jarnmikunta, Karimnagar District, Warangal Division 10 Md.Jeelani. S/o Shaik Meera, lncharge Proh. & Excise Sub. lnspector, S.H.O. Kodangal, Mahaboobnagar District 11 Mohammed Sadiq, S/o lt/ohd.John, lncharge Proh. & Excise Sub. lnspectcr. S-H.O., Vemulalvada. Karimnagar D istrict PETITIONEHS 1 S.Mohan Rao, S/o O/o Thc Proh. & Excisc Superintendent, Nellore. 2 S.Srinivasulu. S/o O/o The Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Athmakur :l Y.Venkateswarl,J,S/0 O/o The Proh & Excise Superintendent, Nellore 4 T.B.Rajender Prasad, S/o Deputy Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Guntur 5 The Government ot Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principai Secretary to Government, Revenue (Excise-1 ) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 6 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad 7 The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Government of A.P., Guntur I The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Hyderabad I The Deputy Commissioner o[ Proh. & Excise, Warangal 10 K. Krupakar Reddy, S/o. K. Janardhan Reddy, SHO, Shadnagar, N,4ahaboobnagar Division, A/ahaboobnagar District. 11 G. Narsinq Rao, S/o. Dasthanna, Nizamabad D lrision. Nizamabad Districl. '12 G. Bhaskar Rao. Sio. Ramulu, SHO Kodangal, Mahaboobnagar District. (RR 10 to 12 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 25-1 -05 rn WPMP 29141104\ AND Petiliorr under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the Afiidavit fired herein the High coun may be preased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of wr;t of certiorari caring ror the order of the Hon'bre A.p. Administrative Tribunar dated 27 -2-2004 in o.A.No.5931 of 1999 and the consequentiat G.O.Ms.No.B15 dated i5_i0 2004 and consequential proceedings of the commissioner of proh. and Excise in cr.No.6891/20 o4rcpErHl dated 18-1 1-2004 and quash the same by hotding them as illegat, bad and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to continue the petitionerJ as prohibition and Excise sub-lnspectors by regularizjng their services. Counsel for lhe Petitioners: MB.J.R.MANOHAR BAO Counsel for lhe Respondents: cp FOR pROHIBITION & EXCTSE ..,.RESPONDENTS WRIT PETIT|ON No: 21691 of 2004 Between 2 AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 M.Anjaneyulu s/o lvl.Nagappa. Station Kodad, Nalgonda District. S.Shakaraiah S/o Kistanna Station Kodad, Nalgonda District.
1 S.trilohan Rao S/o O/o the Proh &Excise Superintendent, Nellore 2 S.Srinivasulu S/o O/o the Proh &Excise Superintendent , Athmakur 3 Y.Venkateswarlu S/o Oio the Proh &Excise Superintendent, Nellore 4 T.B.Rajender Prasad s/o O/o Deputy Commissioner of Proh & Excise , Guntur. 5 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Excise-l) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 6 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Govt. of AP. Hyderabad. 7 The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise Government of AP. GLrntur B The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Hyderabad 9 The Deputy Commissioner of Proh & Excise, Mahaboobnagar. 10 Madhusudhan Rao S/o. Siddanna S.H.O., Ramannapet, Nalgonda District 11 G. Ramakrishnaiah S/o. G. Buchaiah S.H.O., Ramannapet, Nalgonda District 12 V. Gayaki Wo. Vikramjeet Singh Task Force, Hyderabad 13 l(. Krupakar Reddy S/o. K. Janardhan Reddy S.H.O., Shadnagar, I\,,lahabubnagar Dlstrict 14 G. Narsing Rao S/o. Dasthanna. Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad !5 G. Bhaskar Rao S/o RanrulLr S.H.O., Kodangal, Mahabubnagar Districr (RR l0 io 15 impleaded as per court order di. 25.1.2005 in WPIMP 29142 ol 2004) ,..-,R ESPON D ENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying lhat in th? circumstances slatecl in the Atfidavlt filed herein the High Court may be pleased io rsSrts <l \rv t utucl ut ulluuLlu tutg t tltc dtutg ur wllt ur uruv! ur (lllj I r\Jrrurs h.r Administrative Tribunal dt.27.2.2004 in O.A.No,5931 of 1999 and the consequential G.O.iv'Is.No. 815 dt. 15.1 0.2004 and consequential proceedings of the Commissioner oi Proh. and Excise in Cr.No. 6891/2004/C PE/H 1 dl. 18.11.2004 and quash the same by holding them as illegal, bad and arlcitrary and further direct the responder]ts to continue the petitioners as Proh. & Excise Sub. lnspectors by regularizing their servrces- Counsel tor the Petitioners: MFI.J.R.MANOHAR BAO Counsel tor the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MFI"P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.s to 9: GP FOR PROHIBITICN & EXCISE WRIT PETITION No:21791 oI 2004
1 M. Yesudas, S/o. M. paul Subbaiah. ^ Prlh q Excise Station, Satyavedu, Chittoor Djstrict. z p.Khaza Khan, Sro. p. Nawaz Khan, O/o. of the Asst. Commissioner of proh & Excise, - Enforcement Wing, Anantapur. 3 K. Hanumanthu, S/o. K. Naganna, Proh & Excise Station, Tadipatri, Anantapur District. Between AND ..... PETITIONEBS 1 The Government olA.p.. reo_ by its principle Secretary to Government, Revenue (Excise-l(2) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad/S00 00.1 _ ;01-lhe Commissioner of prohibition anO Excise, n_p. M.J. Road, Hyderabad_S0O 3 The Deputy Commissioner of proh & Excjse, Kurnool Range, Kurnool_5 j 8 001 . 4 S. Mohan Rao, O/o. Superintendent of prohibition and Excise, Guntur. 5 S. Srinivasulu, - O/o. Superintendent, proh and Excise, Atmakur. 6 Y. Venkateswarlu, Superintendenl, proh and Excise. Nellore. 7 T.B. Rajender prasad, O/o. ol the Deputy Commissioner of proh and Excise. Guntur .....R ESPOND ENTS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances srated in the Affidavit filed t er"i" tnu nigh ;;; .r, be pleased ro lssue a writ of Mandamus, or any other approprrate writ,irolei o-r direction, decraring tl: grders dt. 2t .z.2oo4 passed in O.A.No. 593 j ,i , rw oy the Hon,ble A.p. Administrative Tribunar, Hyderabad "onr"qruntiut C.d.rr",r" u.t, Revenue (Excise I (2) Department, dt. 15.10.2004. issued by th" 1"i ;;;;";;it and consesuenflar proceedings dt. 18. j .t .2004 . of if,n * --?rp""O"rr issued in Cr.N0.6891/2004/CpEiH 1 as i egat, arbikary una ,nrr"rui,iJie and consequenfly direct the respondents 1 to 3rd respond"ni n"r"i" to "JrO"r" *" petitioners as prohibition and Excise Sub_lnspectors. Counsel lor lhe petitioners: MR.T.p.ACHARyA counsel for the Respondents: cp FoB pRoHtBlTtoN & EXCISE
WBIT PET ITION o 22124 l2 004 Between T. Vittal Singh, S/o. T. Ram Singh, Tungatu(hi, Nalgonda District. ...., PETITIONER AND 6 Y. Venkateswarlu, O/o. Proh & Excise Superintendent, Nellore. 7 T. B. Ralcnder Prasad, O/o. Dy. Comnrissioner for Proh & Excise, Gunlur .....8 ESPON DENI'S Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution ol lndia praying that in the circumstances slated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courl nray be pleased lo issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling lor lhe records relating to the order of the Hon'ble A.p. Administrative Tribunal dt. 27.02-2004 in O.A.No.5931 ot 1999 and the consequential G.O.Ms.No.81 5, Dt. 15.10.2004 and consequential proceedings of the Cornmissioner of Proh & Excise in Cr.No.689 1/2004/C PElH 1 , dt. '18.11.2004 and quash the same by holding them as illegal, bad and arbitrary and turther direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Proh & Excise Sub-lnspector by regularizing his services and to pass such other order. Counsel for lhe Pelitioner: MR.M.RAMALINGESWARA REDDY Counsel lor the Flespondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PBOHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel lor the Flespondent Nos.4 to 7: MR.P.V. RAMANA (CAVEATORS) 1 The Government of A.P,, rep. by its Special Chiel Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Hyd. 2 The Commissioner of Proh& Exice, Government of A.p., Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Proh & Excise, Hyderabad Division. Nampally. Hyderabad. 4 S. Mohan Bao. O/o. Proh & Excise Superintendent. Nellore. 5 S. Srinivasulu. O/o. Proh & Excise Superintendent, Atmakur. l{ilr PrrrtOX tlo : ZZzl
Between G.Ravj Varma S/o. Late Ramachandra Raju Sub lnspector Somepta, Srikakulam District. AND .... PETITIONER 1 The Government oI Andhra pradesh, rep. by its principal Secretary to Government Revenue (Excise-l) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra pradeh, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Government of A.p. Guntur. 4 S.lVlohan Rao, Junior Assistant, O/o. prohibition and Excise Superinlendent, Nellore. 5 S.Srinivasulu, Junior Assistant, O/o. prohibition and Excise Superintendenl, Atmakur. 6 Y.Venkateswarlu, Junior Assistant, O/o. prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nellore. 7 T.B.,Rajender Prasad, Junior Assistant, O/o Deputy Commissioner of Prohibrtion and Excise, Gunrur. ....FI ESPON DENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit ljled herein the High Court may be pleased to assue a writ or order or direction more in the naiure of writ of r\,4andamus decraring the orders dated 27.2.2004 passed in o.A. No.5931 of 1999 on the fire of the A.p. Administrative Tribunar, Hyderabad and consequentiar orders of the first respondent issued in G.O.Ms.No.815 Revenue (Excise_l(2) Department dated 1 5.10.2004 as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and consequentially direct the first and second respondents to continue the petitioner as prohibition and Excise Sub rnspectors on regular basis, after calling for the files and pass such other order deem fit. Counsel for Ihe Petitioner: MR.p.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FOR PBOHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for the Bespondent Nos.4 to 7: MR.p.V.RAMANA (CAVEATORS) 1 C. Krishna N,4urthy. lncharge proh. & Excise S.1., WRIT PETITION No;22580 of 2004 Between:
Tumukunla Check Post. Ananthapur Districl ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government Bevenue (Excise-1 (2) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibilion and Excise Andhra Pradesh, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Andhra Pradesh, Kurnool Ranga, Kurnool. 4 S.Mohan Rao S/o.Now known to the petitioners, working as Junior Assistant, Otfice of the Superintendent ol Prohibition and Excise, Guntur. 5 S.Srinivasulu S/o.Now known to the pelitioners, working as Junior Assistant, Office of the Superintendent of Prohibition and E xcise, Almakrrr. 6 Y.Venkateswadu S/o.Now knou.,n to the pelitioners. working as Junior Assistant, Office of the Superinlendent of Prohibition and Excise, I'Jellore. 7 T.B.Ra.jender Prasad Sio.Now known to the pelitioners, working as Junior Assistant, Office o{ the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Guntur. ...,.R ESPON D ENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thc circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased lo issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropnate writ, order or direction, declaring llle or.le.q .latnd 27 2 2On4 nrc(od in .) A hln 6q?1 ^l lqoo hw lho H^n'l\16 A p Administrative Tribunal. Hyderabad consequential G.O.Ms.No.8l5 Revenue (Excise l(2i Department dated.15.10.2004 issued by the lst respondent and consequential proceedings dt.18.1 1 .2004 of the znd respondent issued in Cr.No.6891/2004/CPE/H1 as illegal, arbitrary and unsuslainabte and consequently direct the respondents '1 to 3 herein to continue the petitioners as prohibition and excise Sub lnspeclors. Counsel Ior the Petitioners: MR.T.P.ACHARYA Counsel lor the Respondent Nos.l to 3: GP FOB PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for lhe Respondent Nos.4 to 7: MR.P.V.BAMAI,IA 2 S Narasimha l\,4u rthy S/o. Late Gopalachar Sub lnspeclor, Palamaneer, Chittoor District. 3 C.Shankar Reddy S/o. C.Sunki Reddy Sub lnspector, Sreekalahasthi. Chittoor District.
Between - B.lt4adhusudana Rao. S/o.Late Sreeramulu Proh. & Excise S.1., Bobbili, Vizianagaram District 1 The Government of Andhra pradesh, rep byitsprincipal Secretary Government (Excrse-l) Departmenr, Secretariat, Hyderabad. iroJ["ol;'*'t"ioner ol Pr,hjbition and Excise Government of Andhra pradesh, 3 I'he Deputy Commissioner of prohibition and Excise Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur. iu,,j#"nr" Rao, Junior Assistant, O/o prohibirron and Excise Superinrendenr, i.,ruanillr,,"".r,r, Junior Assistant, O/o prohibition and Excise Superintendenr, i,*,,J;J"rnu,u"*artu, Junior Assisrant. O/o prohibition and Excise Superintendent, 7 T.B.Raiender prasad, Junior Assistant, O/o prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Guntur. .... PETITIONER ....R ESPOND ENTS petition under Article 226 of tre Constitution of lndia prayjng that in the circumstances stated rn the Affidavit rifeO fr"rein'tfre H;; ffi may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more ln the nature ot "writ of tr4andamus declaring the orders ,cated27.2.2oo4 oassed in o.n.No sgst;,;;;;;; rhe fite of the A.p. Administrative Tribunar, Hyderabad ,no "rnr"qr"ntiui oro"# Ir tr_," first respondent isslred in G.O.N4s.No.815 Revenue (Excjse_t(2) O"pr,,r"ri lateO 1S.tO.2OC4 as itlegal, arbitrary and unsusrainabl" ,n,i "onruqr"-nttli; ffi;*" first and second respondents to continue the pefirioner as prohi;irio; ;;d;irf." "ro Inspectors on regular basis, after calfing for the files and pass ,r.f, otf,* ]rO"r'o, orOoo. Counset for the petitioner: MB.p.V.S.S.S.BAMA RAO Counset forthe Respondent Nos.I to 3: cp FOR PROHIBITION & EXCTSE WRIT PET|T|ON No: 22986 of 2004 AND Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7: MR.p.V.RAMANA ..... PETITIONER AND i The Government of Andhra pradesh, rep by its principal Secrerary to Gcvernrnent, Revenue (Excise-l) Department, Secretariat, I,lyclerabacj. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition anci Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretari at, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government o{ A.p GLrntur. 4 S. Mohan Rao. Junior Assistant, O/o. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nellore. 5 S. Srinivasulu, Junior Assistant, Olo. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Atmakur. 6 Y- Venkateswarlu, Junior Assistant, O/o. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nellore. 7 T.B. Rajender Prasad,.Junior Assistant, C'Vo. Deputv Commissioner of Frohibition and Excise. Gulltur. .....4 ESPON D ENTS Petition under Art,cle 226 of the Constitution of india praying that in the circumstances st;ted in'the Affidavit filed herejn fl.le High Court may be pleased io issue a Writ or Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of mandamus declarinq the order daled 27 -2-2004 passed in O.A.No. 5931 of 1999 on the file of the A.p. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and consequential orders of the first responclent issued in G.O.Ms.No. 815 Bevenue (Excise-l(2) Department dated 15-10-2004 as illegal. arbitrary and unsustainable and consequentially direct the lirst and second resporrdents to continue the petiltoner as Prohibition and Excise Sub-lnspector on regular basis, atter calling for the file and pass such other orcier or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.RAO Counsel tor lhe Respondent Nos.1 to3: Gp FOR PBOHIBtTtON & EXCISE Counsel for lhe Respondent Nos.4 to 7: MR.A.GIRIDHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No: 23473 of 2004 Bctween S. Appa Rao, S/o. Late Veer Raju, R/o.32-6-3, Pralasakthi Nagar, Visatandhra fioad, Vijayawada, Krishna District. lryj1T-PE ILT]O N !\ !j40 ot28 05
1 The Government of A.p., rep by principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise_l) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Commissioner (p&E) Warangal 4 S. IVIohan Rao Junior Assistant, O/o prohibition and Excise Superintendent. N ellore 5 S. Srinivasulu Junior Assistant, O/o prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Neilore 6 Y. Venkateswarly Junior Assistant, O/o prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nellore 7 T.B. Rajender prasad, Junior Assistant O/o Deputy Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Guntur Between .... PETITIONEBS AND .....R ESPON D ENTS WR PE ON No: 3083 of 2005 K.Venkateshwarlu, S/o lstari, 1 P. Karunakar, S/o p. Ailaiah ^ in the O /o Deputy Commissioner (p&E), karimnagar, Karimnagar Ilistrict 2 S. Roopchand John Robert, S/o Kantha Rao O/o Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Karimngar, Karimnager District 3 P. Ftajender Reddy S/o p. Sudershan Beddy O/o Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Karimngar, Karimnager District Petition urrder Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying lhai in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit fired herein the High court may be preased to issue a Writ order or direction more padicularly one in tne nature of writ of Ai'landamus by declaring the Judgment of the Hon,tlle A.p. Administrative Tribunal at 27-2-2004 in O.A. No. 5931/t 999 and consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in G.O.lVs. No.815 dt .15_10_2004 as arbitrary, un]ust and violative of Articre 16 0f the constitution of rndia and consequenry set a side the same and pass such other and further orders are deemed tit and proper by the Hon,ble Court. Counsel for lhe petitioners: MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDy counsel for the Respondents: Gp FoR pBot.llBIT|ON & EXCtsE Between: in the office of the prohibjExcise, superintendent, warangar, warangar District.
..... PETITIONER AND I The Govt. of AP. Rep. by its principal Secretary to Government Revenue (Excise-l) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Govt. of Ap., Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner ol proh. & Excise, Warangal Division, Warangal 4 S.Nilohan Rao, S/o and aged no known O/o The Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Athmakur. 5 S.Srinivasulu, S/o and aged no known O/o The Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Athamakur, 6 Y.Venkateswarlu. S/o and aged no known. O/o The Proh. & Excise Su0erintendent. Nellore. 7 l-.B.Rajender Prasad, S/o and age nol knowfl, O/o Deputy Commissioner of prohibition & Excise. Guntur ....R ESPON DENTS Petition under Ailicle 226 of the Constitution ol India praying that in the circumstances staled irt the Affidavit liled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one rrature ot writ of certiorarj calling for the records relating to the order ot the Hon'ble Ap., Administrative Tiibunal dt. 27 !O2120O4 in OA.No.5931/1999 and the consequential G.O.[is.No.815, dl. 15110/2004 and quash tho same by holding them as i egal, bad and arbilrary and lufther direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as prohibition and Excise Sub-lnspector fft)m the category of Junior Assistant: and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Courl may deem fit and proper in the circumstances oF the Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.HAMALINGESWARA REDDy Counsel for the Respondents: cP FOR pROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY AND rHE HON'BLE SP! JUSTICE P.S, !'!ARAYAT'JA WRIT PETITION Nos.20 [ 59-20209.21244. 21689.21691 . Z.l7gt.22124.22212. 22580. 22986. 23473 of 2004 AND 40 ANp 3083 OF 2005
ORAL COM MON ORDER i (PEP PSN,J.) Heard at length 2 Learned counser on record in this batch of writ petitions made submissions in elaboration and certain decisions also were cited.
Mr. S. Mohan Rao and others _ R4 to R7 in W.p.No.20.159 of 2004 _ applicants in O.A.No.5931 of 1999 on the tile of the A P. Administrative Tribunal irr short hereinafler relerred to as Tribunal, impleaded only Rl to R3 in the Writ petition, the Governrnent, and challenged fhe validity ol Rure 7, second proviso of the A.p. prohibition and Excise subordinate seruices Rules in short hereinafter referred to as Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.9S0. Revenue (Excise-t) Department, dated 28.1 1 .1998. 4' The Tribunar aflowed the o A. hording that the second proviso to Rure-7 0f the Rules is u n-constitutionar. The writ petitioners in w.p.No.20i 59 of 2004 moved M.A. No.2423 of 2004 to implead them as parties in the aloresaid O.A. and Review tul.A. No.2969 of 2004, bul the same was rejected by the Tribunal on 07.09.2004. The other non-parties to the O.A. aforesaid as affected parties, with leave of the Coufi, rnoved this batch ol Writ petjtions. The question involved being common and in view of the common counter affidavit fired in aI these tryrit petitions, these writ Peiilions are being disposed ol by a common order. 5 This court issued interirn directions in these writ petitions to continue the petitioners as Excise Sub-lnspectors pending further orders. W.V.M.P.N o.470 ol 2005 is moved to vacale the interim order passed in W.p.t\,,1.p.No.27 984 ot 2004 in W.P.No,20i59 of 2004, dated 23.11.2004.|n these Writ petitions c.O.Ms.No.Bi5, dateci 15.10.2004, a conseqLlential order also had been questioned. The said
.GOVERNI,IENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT Public Services - The Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and Excise Sub- ordinate Service Rules - Cerlain amendment to rule 7 relating lo Physical requirements - Orders - lssued. REVENUE (Excise l(2)) DEPARTI\,IENT C.O.[/s.No.8 l5 Dated: I 5-10-2004. Read the foilowing
G.O.t\4s.No.950 Revenue (Excise. I (2)) Department dated 28.11.98_ From lhe llon'ble APA1 order rn O.A.No.5931 of 1999 dated 27 .02.2004. @@@ "We are of the view that, the second proviso to the Rule 7 is unconstitutional and is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside".
Atter careful exarnination of the above order. Government have taken a decision to issue an amendment to lhe Andhra Pradesh Prohibition & Excise Sub-ordinate Service Rules issLred in G.O.l./s.No.950 Revenue (Excise l) Departmenl 28.11 1998. 3. Accordjngly, the following notification will be published in lhe Exlra ordinary issue of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated : 1B-1 0-2004. I _N_otll.earlQ_LL consequential Government Order reads as hereunder: ORDER: The Andhra Pi-adesh Administrative Tribuial in its order dated; 27.02.2OO4 in O.A.No.5931 of 1999 freld as follows:
ln exercise oF lhe powers conferred by the proviso to Arlicle 309 of the Constitution of llrdia, the Governor ol Andhra pradesh hereby makes the tollowing amendment to Special Rules for the Andhra Pradesh Prohibilion & Excise Sub-ordinate Service Rules issued in G-O.Ms-No.950 Bevenue (Excise l) Department 28_11..1998 and as amended from time lo time. Amendment ln the said rules, in rule 7, in the sub-rule (a) the,,second proviso,, shall be omitted (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOH OF ANDHBA PRADESH) N.S.HARi I]ABAN, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVEBNEI\,4NT To The Commissioner of Printing, Stationery & Stores purchase, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad. (lvith a request to supply IOO copies 01 Gazette) Cooy lo: The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad SF/Sc. // Forwarded :: By Ordet ll SECTION OFFICEB.' 6 Thus, it is clear that second proviso under Sub-Rule (a) Clause (a) of Rule-7 of the Rules had been omitted in the aforesaid Government Order. Rule_7 of the Rules dealing with physical requirements reads as hereunder: ''
Physical requirements:- (a) Every candidate for appointment by direct recruitment or by lransler or by promotion to the posts of prohibition and Excise Sub,
lnspectors and Prohibition and Excise Constables shall possess the followino ohvsical ctan.l2rdc For Men (i) lVLrst not be less than 165 cms. ln height (ii) lVust not be less than 81 cms. round the Chesl on full expiration with a mrnrmum expansion of 5 cms; Provided further that members of candidates belonging to Sls. where the required quota cannol be fully utilized for waril of sulficient candrdales possessing the requisite heighl, it may be relaxed by 5 cms, so that it shall not be less than 60 cms: Provided further thal members ol the Andhra pradesh L4inisterial Servrce worl(ing in the Proh. & Excise Department, Drivers and Attenders sflall possess a minimUnr heighl ol 163 cms. if they are otherwise quaiif;ed to be appointed as Prohibition and Excise Sub-lnspectors or Prohibition and Excise Head Constables respectively For \ /oflren (i) l\,4ust nor be less tharr 152.2 crns. in heiglrl (ii) t\4ust not weigh less than 45.5 kgs. All candidates, including women for direct recruitrnent and appointment by transfer or by promclion as Prohibition and Excise Sub-lnspectors, Prohibition and Excise Constables nrust be cerlified by an Opthalmic Surgeon (of the rank of Civil Surgeon in Govi. Servrce) to possess the following visual slandards: ta) li) Rioht Fva No?r visinn n q rRna:lon\ D:stant 6/6 (b) (ii) Left Eye: Near vision 0.5 (Snellen) Distant 6/6 c (b) Each eye musl have a full filed o{ vision (ii) Visual standards:
(c) Colour blindness, squint or any bordlid condition of the eyes of lids of either eye, knock, knees, pigeon chest, flat foot, vericos velns, hammberloes, fractured limbs or decayed teeth shall be deemed to be disqualification."
The second proviso which had been questioned specifies that provided further that members of the A.P. Ministerial Service working in the Prohibition and Excise Department, drivers and attenders shall possess a minimum height of 163 centimeters, if they are otherwise qualified to be appointed as Prohibition and Excise Sub-lnspectors or Prohibition or Excise Head Constables respectively. The Government appears to have taken inconsistent stands before the Tribunal and betore this Court. [ilore or less, the pleadings of the parties in this batch of Writ Petitions are virtually same. The main ground of attack is that the proviso aforesaid is arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 otthe Constitution ol lndia. It would be appropriate to have a look at the relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal in O,A.No.5139 of 1999 in this regard, the impugned order in this batch of Writ Petitions. al Para Nos.6 and 7. The Tribunal had observed as under: "After hearing both the counsel and after going through the material on record, we perused the impugned G.O.Ms.No.950. Rule 7 prescribed the physical requiremenl for the post of Excise Sub- lnspectors which comes under category ll. ln this rule, it was specilically stipulaled that for all l\ilen, the minimum requirement of height is 165 Cms. ln respect of Schedule Tribe candidates, it was relaxed by 5 Cms making the minimum requirement of height as 160 Cms only. Even here a condition was stipulated that where the required quota for S.Ts cannot be fully filled for want of sufficient eligible candidates possessing the required height only then this relaxation has to be issued- lt is also seen frorn this Rule that similarly in respect of Women candidates, the minimum height prescribed is 152.5 Cms.The applicanls are not questioning the lesser heighl slipulated in respecl of S.T. candidates and women. The second proviso relating to the l\,4inisterial Service Employees is in lhe question. lt is seen that in the second proviso, no such stipulation was made that only in case of non-availability of required number of candidates with 165 Cms as height relaxation be considered in respect of the Attenders, Drivers and Ministerial Service emptoyees. ThJS, it rs a blankel relaxation qiven in resoect of these three categories 1or appointment by transfer as Sub-
lnspectors. lt is also to be borrre in mind that this post of S l' which :- ^w6-,''i,,6 in n2l ,re .lernands ohvsiCal Stamlna and unlesS there are very strong grounds to establish lhat persons with adequate number are not available in the Drivers, Attenders and Min;sterial Service employees, such relaxation does not seem to be iustified or warranted. lt is also to be further seen that in the counter liled by the department, lhe only stand taken is that the A'P Excise Ministerial Employees Association in their letter requested the Government to relax the rules relating to the height to the extent of 2 Cms in lhe interest of lhe employees working in the department' No other reason was mentioned to estabtish any nexus or cogent relationship beiween the exemption provided in the rule and the objective sought ior- In fact' nolhing was menlioned about the objectrve sought for by giving such relaxation in respect ol Attenders, Drivers and Ministerial Service Employees' ln addition to the above, it is also to be observed that the second proviso lo this Rulc 7 in respect of S T categories of empioyees .rna^cs 3 4st ncl on oclwecl lhosc Allneders' Dr,vc s ano Minislerial employees with 165 Cms ol height' thus crealing a class within the class of same category of employees Thus' il is making a classilication between the two lt may also so happen that employees with 163 Crns., by virtue of this proviso to Bule 7 would be eligiblc for pronrotion, steating a march over others wilh 165 Cm., thus. creating a heart burning among the employees Thus' virtually in this G.O., Government creaied tlvo classes of employees in the satne categories of Attenders' Drivers and Nlinisterial Service employees and such a discrimination creating the two classes is not lor any justifiable reasons' Thls relaxation otlends the Article 14 ol the Constitution of India as we find that as held in the case ot R K.George Vs Union ol lndia 198'1 ' SC 675' does not stand for any legal scrutiny of Class tV of Article 16' Also' there was no basis laicl or mentioned in the G O establishing the said nexus betweer] the redLlction in the heighl in respect ot a particular class ol ernployees and objective sought to be achieved ln fact, this relaxation goes against the very spirit with which a minimum height in respect of Men was prescribed as 165 Cms "
An aiiempi was aiso made to convince thls Courl that G O IUs No 815 dated 15.10.2004. cannot be questioned before this Court straight away without approaching the Tribunal in the Iirst instance The said Government Order is only consequentiai. When the principal conlroversy is belore the Writ Coun' parties shall also question the consequential actions since the resuh would depend on the main controversy and il woutd be a futite exercise to drive the pa(ies to the Tribunal on ihat ground, hence the objection taken in this regard is liable to be rejected forthwith "The issues raised in the lli rit petitions are as follows 1 . The orders issued in c.O.Ms.No_8l5 dated 15.10.2004 are egairlst law and are liable lo be set_aside. 9 Promotee rncharge prohibition and Excise lnspectors are the writ petitioners. The applicants in the O.A., certaln Junior Assistants questioned the second proviso to Rule-7 of the Bules. Several of the details relating to Rule position had been narrated in the affidavits filed in support of the respective Writ petitions. Specjfic stand was taken that as per the Rules, the gualification for appointment to the post of Junior Assistants in the ofFice of the Head ol the Departments and Directorates is Ihat one must hold a bachelor,s degree of any university and for appointment in the offices other than the Heads or Depanment and Directorates is that one must have passed inteimediate examination, Hence, there are no physical standards provided for appo,ntment to the post of Junior Assistants Further, specific stanci was taken rhat the A.p. Excise [/inisteriai Employees Association made representation to the Government during the year 1997 anci requested the Government ro relax the Rule relating to the hejght to the extent of 2 centimeters in the tnteresi of the employees working in the department. Following the said representation, the Government atter thoroughly examining the mailer and l..eeping in view the larger interest of the employees who are eligible for appointment to the post oI prohibition and Excise Sub-rnspectors from the rower categories i.e., Attenders, Junior Assistanls etc., reduced the height required to the post to cerlain categories lor their beneftt and in view of the same the Rules were re- issued vide G.O.lr/s.No.950, dateci 28.1 1.1998, and the second provlso to Rule-7 prescribed the height as j63 centimeters for the staff under I\4inisterial Service Rures. This has been made the ground of attack in the e.A. aForesaid. The respondents had filed a common counter affidavit in detail wherein surprisingly they had taken a different stand 10 .ne, which the Governmenr had initiary taken before the Tribunal. Afler narrating the details and also the inierim directions, which had been issued by this Court in the counter allidavit, the issues raised in this batch of Wrjt Petitions had been specified as hereunder:
The Wril petitioners were already appointed as ln charge prohibitron r Fy.LSe Srrb-lnspectors well betole the orders issued in O.A.No.593l/99 dated. 27 .o2 2oO4 and as such they are entitled to be continued as ln-charge Prohibition & Excise Sub-lnspectors' 3 - The Writ petitioners were nol impleacied as respondents in O.A.No.5931/99 wherein orders were issued to the effect that the relaxation given in heighl is againsl Law and the same set aside' 4, The Writ Petitioners were admitted to duty only atter satisfied as reqards to the physical fitness and consideration ol the height once against while appointing as in charge Prohibition & Excise Sub lnspectors is unwarranted.
The directions issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise vide Cr-No.6891/2004/H 1 dated 1B'11.2004 deserves to be set-aside.' 10 Further, the olher details also were narrated justlfying the stand taken by the respondenls in this regard on ihe ground that the deletion or the ornission Illade in GO.NIS.No.8l5 is also itrstified. ln SIAfE OF MAHARASHTRA v JAGANNAI'H ACHYItT KARAND/KAE the Apex Court held as under: ''We arc noi coiicerned hcrelrl about the seniorily of persons in vr'hose favour lhe governmenl hac made individual oide's extending tlle period for passing Ihe examination \4/e will consrder such cases a little later' For the present we may examine lhe rights ol those "Late Passing" where the governmenl lras not made any specitic o'der relaxlng ttle condilions ior passing the e aminatroa. undel rne 1951 Flules' lhe candrdate couid appea' ro' ihe examination after lwo years of his entering inlo the cadre He has three chances and he musl pass wilhin six years of his ioining seNice Under the 1962 Rules the scheme provided was slightly dillerent Under ihat schen'e' c;indidate was allowed to take the examinatiorl only a{ter conlpleti g live years service in the cadre. He had three chances lor taking lhe examination and '.hat must be availed ol within four years That means he must pass the c<ali'Irtatto,.] w'lhin lhc nrng ycalS' seNice' Under bolh llc Hules' Ihc governmenl was required to hold the examinalion evcry year' but no examrnation was held in 1968, 1969 and 1970 This is not in dispule- For ?' proper app.eciation oi the qilesllon raised we must I Isl lry to tl,rdcrslano lh"' tr.ndsl ip resullcd b, noi holdin0 lhe cxarrifatiorl io 1968' 1969 and 1970' l! i! ali iallows: lhe car,didntes lecrLriled ln 1960 have losl ono chance in 1966 llrose rccruiled irl 1961 are deprive'J of lwo chances in 1968' 1969 and 1970
and lhose ot the year 1963 have lost two chances in 1969 and 1970 The tasl balch lo lose one chance tn 1970 is ol the vear 1964 The aforesaid Rules expressly provided power lo thc governmenl to grant more chances for passing lhe examination in any individual case or in ciass of cases. under the 1955 Rujes, the government preserved power to djspense wilh, or retax the reqLrirements of any rule regulaling ,.the condilions of seNice ol governmenl servanls: or ol any class lhereof... ln the exercise of this power, the government could dispense with or relax the operation oI any rule. il it causes undue hardships in any particurar case. it is needress to state lhat lhis power includes the power to relax the conditions prescribed for promotion since promotion is a condition of servlce- There is no restriction as to the exercise of the power or discrgtioi]. The High Courl, however, has observed lhal Ihe scope ol this power has been constratned by the circular dated January 15, 1962. The circular states that the 19S5 Rules permrttjng relaxalion cannot be utilized to retax the rules which regulate conditions ot service. lt fu(her states that the scope of ihe Rules shoud be limited only to nralters relaltng lo traveling allowance, leave, elc Bul this appears lo be arr exercrse in vain. The circular is an executive instruclion whereas the lg55 F{uk)s arc slalulory since lramed undcr the proviso lo Arliclc 309 of Iho Conslitulion. The qovernment could not have restricted lhe operalion oi the slalutory rules by issujng the executive instruction. The executive inslruction nray supplenent bu! not supptanl the statutory rules The High Court was in error rn tgnoflng ,h,s wel: accppied plnctple.. 11 ln K. NARAYANAN A OTHERS v STATE OF KABNATAKA & OTHERSthe Apex Courl held as under 'Dernarcation of cadres or gradalion in the same cadre on higher and lower qualification is a common phenomenon lor fixjng hierarchy in services. 11 rs a vatid basis ot classification as hetd by this Cowl in State of Mysote v_ P.Narzlsing Aao (1968) 1 SCC 407: AtR 1969 SC 349j (t968) 2 LLJ 120, Uoton ot lndia v. Dr. S.B.Kohti (Mts) j973) 3 SCC 592: 1973 SCC (L&S) 136. State of J & K v. Tritoki Nath Khosa (1914) 1 SCC 19: 1974 SCC (L&S) 49, P.Murugesan v. State of r.N. (1993) 2 SCC 340: 19g3 SCC (L&S) a45: (1993) 24 AIC 149 JI (1993) 2 SC tls Engineering services ihroughout the coirntry, normatly, mainlarn distinction between Junior and Assistant Engrneer on dipioma and degree. lt existed ill the Stafe of Karnataka righl from the day rhe rutes were tr,.tmed. lr,!as been done away witl o assu.nDlion oy the Cabinel rhal $ome of r1e Julies perlorrned by lhe two were comr.lon. The Iribunal did not agree with rt. and in our opinion rjghly. But that alone is not suflicient to strike down the rule. A policy decision taken by the Government is not lable to inteierence, unjess the Court is satislied that the rule_making authority has acted atuitrarily or in violalion ol the lundamental rights
guaranteed under Aiticles 14 and 16' Appoinlmenl by lransfer rn lhe same scrvice or lrorn lho drflerenr cadre or service bdt equal in 'ank and slalus is well known. Bul lransler lrom Iower to higher cadre nol by promotion but dr.eat appointment orrly because the incumberl became eliglble wilnoul any selectrofl, tesl or crrteria may not be in consonance wilh service discipline What lhe ru{es contemplate is that once a Junior E'gineer acqL'ires a degree qualilication then he automatically should be deemed lo heve become an Assistant Engineer. An employee occupying a higher post in ditterent cadre nray on reqularizatlon be entilled to claim his seniority lrom the dale he u/as holding the post but gr\'lng a higher post in dilierem cad'e in $/hich the employee has never worked eilher as olficiatlng or temporary or even ad lloc because the employee tlecame eligible earlier wollld be violative ol the righl of equalily The melhodology adopted in lhe rules by lranstefling such a per-con and placinq him in lhe categlly of direct recruils from the dare oi acquiang lhc degrce thc Goverimt)rlt in ollr opition '/icllaled lhe basic no(n3 oi ilpporntfirenl ano recruilmenl lo any parlioLrlar service The Go'/ernmelll $ray appoint ali the Junior Engineers en bloc ailer framing of the 'ule and place tf,cm below all those who werc wcrking as Assislanl Engireers ot: thal datc bul they cailnot be so appoinled ari lo gel precedence over lhose who are \r.,orkroq lrom be(ore ll would resull in artifi'ialiy making uneqllai9 as equals. Any person entering the setvice can iustly leel secure o' equalily in oonlinuance. oronrolion elc. Any execulive actron violating il cannol be upheld. Senionty is an incident of service r'/hlch cannol be elrroded or cunailed by a rule \,!hich operates discriminately The purpose of cpenin0 evening classes atnC pgrmitting diplcma holders lo study "as to imprcve eiliciency in service and provide betler seruice condilions' When flrles welc frarned ano provrsiorrs lor appoinllncnl by lransic' was madc both tjresc obiectives wcre achieved. Bilt operation oi the rule wiih retrospective et{ect has no nexus wiih elther excepl thal il may resuit in undue betlelil to one class ol employees ov.r lhe other' The impugned rules having been framed in 1985 with ef{ecl lroor 1976 result irl entry of diplorna holders as Assislanl Engine'er only because lhey became qualified as against lhose who entered in s€i,/i.e belcr. oi 3fier 1-q76 by competitive process. Devi Pasad(2)was upheld by this Courl because it was lound, '3s reasonable and in the cfcumstances fair. The drspute was between non{raduate diploma holders workiag as supervisors etc. and graduates worliing as Junior Engineers' Since the Colrt found that lhere !'vas lunctional parit:r belween supervrsors a.id.lunior Engineers the rule framed by the Government giving weightage ol four years to supervisors to make them eligible for appointment as Assistar'l -^r iav,lir'l a,'r thpre can he no lunctional parity between; employees of two di{{erent cadres. lt would de tco dangeroLls 1o acccpl strch assr.rmpliof h R.N BaDhybdaooa v Tgirnnliah 1.1972) 2 SCC 409 lhis Colrd slruck dowir a ruie ior vrolation ol Adicle 14 as ii had atleinpted lo bypass the regillar methoal of recrultmenl by competitive examination or by selectlon or by promotion and prcvide.l lor reguladzation of a govemment servant v"or!irlE o: (iepulation as deemed lo have been appoinled' I t' Slale of A'P v' K S.Muralidhar (19921 2 SCC 241: 1992 SCC (L&S) 539: (i992) 20 ATC 226
the temporary supervisor who had succeeded before this CouI in Devi Prasad case (2) claii:FJd seniorily from the dale Of acquiri.g academrc qualification. lt was repelted and it was neld that it coutd be trom the date of appointment only. After 309 of the constitulion empowers the appropriate Legislature to frame rules to regulate recruitmenl to public services and the post. ,.Recruilment, acco.ding to the dictionary means .enlist,. It is a comprehensive term and includes any rnethod provided for inducting a person in public setuice. Appointment, selection, promotion, depulation are all well known melhods of .ecruitment. Even appoinlment by lransfer is not unknown. Bul any rule framed is subject to other provisions of the Constilution. Thereio.e. it has to be tested on rule ol equalily. Transfer is normally resorted jn same cadre. But when it is made in a different and higher cadre it must nol be violative of constitulional euarantee and lhe rule of lajrnesS. providing lor appointmenl ol a drplonra holder frolrr the cadre of JUniof Engineer to ASsrslant Engineer lrom back date without any test or seleclion on eligibility only does not sound reasoiabje and fair. Why was it done is apparent from the lollowing nolings by the Secrelary: "The most lmpo.tant issue was regarding the date ol transfer ol the Junior Engineer acquiring graduate qualifications. lhe weighlage of pasl service had to be laken into consideralion ln tire proposals subrnitted to the cabinel lhis crucial aspect was not or/rhned specifically and the impression that was created was thal the transfer would take place with prospective eijecl. ln such an event the weighlaqe of previols scrvice \^/ould nave to be confined o ly uplo date ol graduation and lhis would not have been ol any advanlage to rnost of lhe Junior Engineers who have acquired the degree qualiiication several years ago, Even if the weightage of past service after gradualion and upto the date ol appointment as Junior Engineers was gjven the transterees would not have garned any signrlcant advantage an the nrater ol notional seniority. The Karnataka Grad{rale Engineers have stronqly represented on this issue and have urged thal their transfer lo tlre Assistant Engineer,s cadre should be with ret.ospective eifect j.e., from lhe date they have acquired graduale qualrfrcatjon. ln suppo( ol their arguments they have pointcd out thal even in Andhra pradesh a similar step was taken in thal the transler was allowed wilh retrospective effecl. The poinls raised by the Graduate Engineers Assoclal,on have beel e),amined and rl ts ielt lhat lhetr
E--a_- ," ,- - ' demand lo have the transfer ef(ecled wilh retrospective -,-r!1,-.ii^n i. \riow 6f the lono vears ol service rendered by the Junior Engineers belore ano attcr acqL rrng graduale quallflcaLlon. ll lhls benetll is nol g ven' the amendment to the C&R Rules allowing lor their transier wolrld be of little use lor many oi the senior members of the G.aduate Engineers Association who have been fighting lor this change for many years. Therelo'e iaking an overall sympathetic view it is proposed that we may allow lor the transler ot Junior Engineers who acquired graduate qualitications with relrospective effecl {rom the date of acquisilion oi such qualiJication subiect to the availabillty of vacancies al thal lme in the Assistant Engineers cadre lt is secxr lhat thc lrrst batch of the in-servrcc Junlor Engineers look tneir graduale degree in 1976 and hence the notificalion arnendinq tlte rules would have to be eifeclive from JaniJary 1. 1976." Rlles were thus bent and madc retrcspecti'/e as a sympathetic considelation as many iunior EngineeB who were working since long would nol have derived any benelil othe./vise. [,ay be true but iI the extension o{ sr]ch benelrt inrpinges Lrpon lhe constilLllronal quarantee of equality then it cannot be upheld. Anci ihat does sland distube'l Nothing furlher need be said Nor it is necessary to pronotrnce on the vafidily oi a rLlle which in the class of appointment by direct recruitmenl includcs apponrlmenl by transler resulting in enlry 01 onc class by competition or selection and other by acquisit'on ol nrtnrmum qualilicaiion as the appella ls dld not 'hallenge lhe rulo ol appoinlment by lriins{cr but conlrnc-d ihcrr Llalrn to ils operation relrospectively ' '
Likewise ia P' MURI)GESAN & OTHERS v STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS the APex Court held as under: It rs lrue lnai lileory oi aiass;i;aaiion should 'ol be c3'red too lar lesl il may sLrbvert. perhaps subm,lrge, the preciol's guaranlec of cqllallty as poinled olrt by Chandrachud, .J. rn Slale of J & K \t' Triloki Na t Khosa (1974) 1 SCC l9; l9/.1 SCC (L&S) 49: rl9/4) 1SCR 771)' [/!nute a10 mrcrocosmic classrfica{ton should nol be permilted nor should the Courl counlenance 'minl_ classrlicalro. baseli lrl nlrcro_distlnclr,ns ', as poinleo oLll I)y hr'shnl lycr' J' Ir lrte satne c:lse. lookeo al lrom lh's broad angle rt nlay acpea' Irere rs some force in whal the respondenls contend viz ' that once tne graduale
engineers and dip,onta holder enginec.s constitLrte one class. perform same duties and discharge saftie rcsponsiblities, placing a restriclion on the diplonla holders alone (Jjmtling lheir chances ol promolion to one oul ol lour promotions, as has been done by the impugned Amendment) is nol jusllfied but this may be a ioo simpl,stic way ol looking al the issue. We cannot fait to take note of the fact lhat right lrom 1974 i.e., since the decjsion of the Constitution Bench in Triloki Nath Khosa this Court has been holding uniiormly that even where direct recruits and promotees are integrated into a common class, they could for purposes of promotion to the higher cadre be classified on the basis of educatior.talquatiljcations. The learned Judge held thal judged ,rom the above standpoint it was impossibJe to acccpt the propositiorr lhat the classification of assistant engineers rnto degree hoiders and diploma holders resis on any irnreal or unreasonabie basrs they accepted the plea that lhe said classitication was brought about wlh a view to achjevjng admjnislrallve effictcncy in the engineering services. The higher academic quatiljcations, the lea.ned Judge held, is at least presumptive evidence of a higher mental equipment The Iearned Judgc said, "Whal is relevanl is that the oblecl to be achieved here is not a mere prelence for an indiscriminate jmposition of inequalities and the classifrcatton cannot be characterized as adcitrary or absurd. That ,s lhe fa,lhesl that iudicial scruliny can extend,.The learned Judge reierred lo the earlier decision oj lhis Coud in State of Mysore v. p_Natasiog Rao (1968) I SCR 407; AIR 1968 SC 34gi (1968) 2 LLJ tZO) and Union ot tndia v. Dr (A,trs) S B. t<ohti (1973) 3 SCC 592; 1973 SCC (L&S) 136; AtR i973 SC 81t) lo demonslrate that a distinction made on the basis of academic eualifications was always upheld by lhis Court. lndeed, ln the latter case. the relevant nrte reqllirod that a professor of orlhopaedics rnust have a postgradilate degree in the pa.licular speclalily 11 was upheld as a relevanl requirement. The tearned Judge lhen exptainc.l the decision ln Roshan Lat Tandco v Llnioo of India (1968) 1 SCR 185r AIB j967 SC js8g; (1968) r LLJ 576) (upon which substantial reliance was placed by lhe respondenls in that case) as an authority ce(ainly for lhe proposition that,.no discrimination could be made between promotees and direcl recruits by reference to the source rrom which lhey were drawn" but academic qualilications brr a classilication based upon aodrachu, J.: thal il does not ln the words of Ch "Roshan Lai Tandon Case is thus no authority for the proposition that if djrect recruits and promotees are inlegrated into one class, they cannot be classified Ior purposes o, promotion on a basis olfrer than the one that they werc drawn from different sources., "We are therelore oI lhe opjnion ihat though persons appointed direc y and by promolion y/ere iqleg.ated into a common class ol Assislant Engineers, they couid, for purposes of promotion to the cadre ol Executive Enoincers be Havinq thus drstlncuished Boshan Lal Tandon case aid Men/yn Continl;o ./ Colieciot of Custom' lhe learned Judge concluded:
classilied on lhc basig oi educational qualifications The illle providing lhat graduates shall be eligible lor sLlch promotion to lhe exclusion ol diploma holders does not violate Arlicles 14 and 16 of the Constitulion and must be upheld."
Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench ol this Court TEPOTIEd iN B.ANANDA RAMA RAO & OTHERS V STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHEBS wherein the Division Bench held as under: 'Sorne ol lhe Wril petitions are tiled agarnst lhe o'der ol Lhe Tribunal as well as G.O.tvls.No.325, datcd 15.06 1999 ano somc ol tlre writ petitlons arc irlccj by lhe Clvil Assistant Surgeons and PlolPssors by ta(rng ieaue cl the CoJi against G.O-tv4s.No 325. dated 15 06'1999' ln view ol lhe changecj circurnslances, whereunder the Govetnnlenl acted upon ihe impugned iudgment of the T'ibunal and issued GO t',1s'No'325' daled 30.06.1999, tnough we are however inclined to consider the conlroversy, nevenheless wish lo lay down that thls Court or lhe Triburral ln mallers ol senio.ily sL,ouid not ordinarily irlterlere wrth tne cxeculivc lunction eiihcr belore the preparalicn oi seniority list 'Jr al the slage oi provisronal eenicrily hst, and il is only the tinai seniority lisl thal can be said to give rise lo any grievance lo lhe p'lolic setvant A.P- Lledical and Healih Servrce Rules' 1982 were amended in 1988 vide G-O.Ms,No.182, dated 23.3.193B Alter amenCmenl' the rules enatlle to appoint a Civil Assistant Surgeon as Assislant Professor by seleclioo on regLllaibasisbyadulyCcnstilutedConlnlittee.Thelnlerprelaliorrpiaoed.oy the Tribunal in the earlier O A , v/hich 'rtas lollowed in O A No 4762 oi 1994' and the interpretatio.l placed on lhe rules by this Court i'r W-P No 11Cr2 ol 1998, in our considered opinion, is mainly based on the amendment introduced to the Specia! Rules by GOMs'No'1B2 dated 2931988' and cannot be Lreated as an aulhority (or the proposition that the seruice as Civil Assistant Surlleon. both qualrtied and unqualifued p(or to lhe appointrnenl as AssislanlProlessorshouldbeignorediorlheposloireckonin!]sclli.iiiiol Crvil Assistanl Surgeons 1o be considered Icr the posl oi Prolessors' Therelorc. we have to necessarily see whelher the Civil Assislant Surgeons ''ld to lose lheir selvicc rendered prior 10 appoinlco betwccn 1964 and 1982 sta lhelr appointment as Assrsiant Piolessors A similar issue came up beiore thc Supreme Coun in Dr.N. Ra,'nachardra Hao's case (supra) RLrlo 2 ol lhe Special Rules after amendmenl by GO['4s'No l82' fell for consideration
belore the Apex C,ourt. The said rule provided that lhe post of Additronal Dircclor of l\redical and Heallh Servaces, Principals oi Medical Colleges, Superintendents ol Teaching General hospitals etc.. shall be lilled up by promotion from among lhe holders of posts of Professors in category ll and lll with not less thao lhree years of service, ol which at least two years shall be in one ol the said calegories of the year in which lhe panel is prepared. A conlention was raised thal seniority lor zone of consideralion should be of the teeder cadre. and not any other cadre. So to say, il was contended that the service rendered prior to the appointment as Professor in category ll and lll should be ignored, and only the serv,ce rendered after lhe appointment to the said leeder cadre should be considered lor promotion to the post of Additional Director of Medical and Health Services etc. The Supreme Court reiected the same and held thus' "Rule 2 does not expressly exclude the service in Class Il Cadre lor preparing panel for consade.alion lor promotion to the posls with which we are concerned. We also consider that il would be unreasonable and unjust to exclude the setu ce and overlook the veriical seniorily in lhe substantive cadre lo which everyone lvas selected by the Public Service Commission. ln medical prolession lhere are specialilies and specialities, bul it is generally accepted that lhey a.e not ol equal importance or utility. However, the promotions are allowed on the basis of lhe respective specialities and the avarlabilily of promoliooal vacancies in SUch Specialities. A iUnior with relalively less Lmpodafit speoality may be tortunate enough lo get quicl( promotion lhan his senior wilh a datferenl soeciality. We are ol the opinion thal the junrors who gcl accelerated p.omotion on account of lorturtous circumstances depending upon their speciality and availability ol vacancies in such specrality should not be allowed to march over their seniors for appoinlmenl to adminislrative posts. Any advanlage gained by juniors on srrch lorlurlous circumslances of havtng some specaality and promotion should nol impair the rights of lheir seniors lor promotion lo posls where speciality or teaching experience is not calld lor. The seniority determined in order of specialily should not therelore be the basis for promotioo to administ.ative posls. Any rule p.ovjding ,or lhe contrary may be vulnerable to allack on lhe ground of arblranness. ln lhe result, lor lhe reasons aforementioned. we allow W.P.l.lo_13923 of 1999, and set asidc lhe irnpugned order dated 10.03.1999 in O.A.No.3599 ol 1999 and balch. Consequently. c.O.[,4s.No. 325, dated 15.06.1999. also sland set aside."
Funher, reliance was placed on the under noted decisions reported in F'K' GABG V. UNION OF INO,A & OTHEFS' fuiAi.iGEJ STGH & OTHERS V- T}NION OF tNDtA & OTHERS; DR'P'NALLA THAMPY TERAH v' UNTONOF 1NDIA & OTHERS., THE COMMISSIONER, CORPOBATIONOF MADRAS V. MADBAS CORPOBATION TEACHERS' MANDRAM & OTHERS ANdV.K. SOOD V. SECRETARY, C'V|L A{'AT(ON & OTHERS Relaxation ol eliqibility criteria lor Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes' in {act had been discussed in S'S' Sharma Vs l)nion ot tndia \1g8o (3) SLR 519)' wherein the Apex Court while dealing with this aspect placed reliance on 1976 (1 ) SRC 906 and also 1963 Supp.1 SCR 439 Atter thoroughly discussing the aspect relating to the relaxation of the eligibility criteria' the Apex Court ultimately held that such relaxation ot eligibility criteria would be iustilied'
The power o{ the Government as rule makinq authority lo qive cert3in rslaxalrons had been well upheld in a calena of decisions by the Apex Coud and di{lerent High Courts as well' No doubt' it should be just and reasonable but not arbitrary or discriminatory' The ground ol altack is that relaxation ol 2 centimeters by second proviso to Rule'7 would affect the efficient {unctioning ol the executive posls- Except making this bald statement, the respondents in these Writ Petitions were unable to substantiate how the administrative efficiency would be atfected by this !'etaxalion' lt is needless to say that relaxation ol eligibility criteria is being given in the case of wome n and it is needless to say that as already observed supra such relaxation ot eligibility criteria . , -:-- ^'i^^.la.l in lhe case of Scheduled castes' Scheduled Tribes and ,J;"]a;;l as *"u tn. presumprion is in favour or rhe constitutionaiiiv ol the Bure and the parties afiacking the sarne may have to estabtish and shcw how the said proviso is unconstitutional' The reasons recortfed by the Tribunal have already been referred to supra The Government having taken a particular stand belore the Tribunal now' as rellected in the counter aflidavit' changed the stand evidently in the light o{ G'O Ms Nc Sl5 which is a consequeniiai action .Jf Government
Be that as it may, to liberalize the promotion avenue on the representation rnade by the employees association' Government thought il lit to grant 2 centimeters
relaxation.This proviso in the considered opinion of this Court is just and reasonable and does not suffer from the vice Of arbitrariness or the vice Of discrimination so as lo strike down the same in view of the Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia. The classification by some degree may produce some inequarity and that by itse, wourd not be sufFicient to attract Articre 14 0f the constitution of rndia. Different treatme nt per se wourd not conslitute vioration of Article 14, unless there is no reasonable basis for differentiation, tn ordinary sense, the expression "reasonable', may have lo be understood as just, tair and proper. This is the area where the Writ Courts are expected lo iudge in a grven case on the touchstone of the Articre 14 0f the constitution of rndra and the vroration thereof, if any. This view of ours ls in consonance with the settled principles of service jurisprudence in this regard. 17 rn the right of the decisions referred ro supra and arso in the righl of the views expressed by this court, this court is reft with no other option except to uphord the validity of the proviso aForesaid and consequenlial action to be bad in law fur-ther hold that c.O.Ms.No.Bi S a 18 The Writ Petitioners are bound to succeed and the same are accordingly allowed
Before parting with the case, it is observed that to be an ideal administrator, Government is expected lo take consistent stand in such matters. However. in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the batch of cases. this Court makes no order as to costs G. BIKSHAPATHY, J
Date:26.04.2005 Note:- LR coPY to be marked (B/o) ES One lair copy 1o the Hon'ble Mr'Justice G' Bikshapathy (For his LordshiP's kind Perusal) One tair copy to thc llon'ble Mr'Justice P S Narayana (l-or his lordship s kind perusal) P"S. NARAYANA. J To I The Principal Secretary' Government ot Andhra Pradesh' Revenue (EXcise'l) ?*ilH-t":,::i11,1';iJl""i'"li3naExcise'GovernmentorAndhraPradesh' Hvderabad- 3 The Deputy Commissroner of Prohibition & Excise' Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur' ;fi;i;;;"tmissioner' Proh & Excise' Hvderabad' 5 The Deputy Commissioner' Proh & Excise' Warangal' 6 The Depuly Commissioner' Proh & Excise Mahaboobnagar 7 The Deputy Commissioner' Proh & Excise' Kurnool' 8 2 CCs to the GP tor Proh & Excise' Hiqh Court buildings' Hyderabad (Ot'T)
9 8 LR copies 1O 1 CC to MR.P,V.S.S.S.RAf\/IA RAo 1 i 1 CC to MR.ACHARYA 12 1 CC to MR.RAMALTNGESWARA REDDy 13 The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, fvlinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 14 The Secretary, A.p. Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, l5 Two C.D. Copies. AND .THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY
%Dated 26-04-2005 # P. Viiaykumar & another " Petitioners in WP 20159/04 S. Siraiuddin & others wP.20209/04 .. ...Petitioners in K.S.C. Shekar & others . Petitioners ln wP.21244104 P. Bikshapathy Rao & others wP.21698/04 . ...Petitioners in M. Anlaneyulu & another " Petitioners ln \A/P.21691/04 M. Yesudas & others . ' Pelltioners ln wP-21791/04 T. Vittal Singh .. . Petitioner in w? .22124t04 G Ravi Verma Petitioner in w?.22212104 S. Narsimha tvturthy & others ' Petilioners lrr wP.22580/04 IHEI]!I]BESB].J!S]]CE-P'9 N ARAY AN A rwBiIfEr@
B. Madhusudan Rao . ....petitioner in wP.22986t04 S. Appa Rao .. ...Petitioner in wP.23473t04 P. Karunakar & others .....petilioners in wP.40/2005 K. Venkaleshwarlu .....petitioner in wP.3083/05 VERSUS $ The Govt. oI A.P., rep., by its ..... Respondents Principal Secrelary & others. in Wp.2O t59/04 l'he Govt. of A.P., rep., by its ..... Respondents Prirrcipal Secretary & others. in Wp.ZOZO)/04 The Govt. of A.p., rep., by its ..... Respondents Principal Secretary & others. in Wp.21244/04 S. Mohan Rao & others ..... Respondents in lVP.21689/04 S. Mohan Rao & others .__.. Respondents in WP.21691iC.1
The Govt. of A P rep.' by its " " Respoi.rdenis Principal Secretary & others in WP 2179'll04 The Govt- of A.P-, rep., by its ' Bespondents Spl. Chief Secretary & others' in WP 22124104 The Govt. ol A P , rep ' by ils . Respondents Principal Secretary & others in WP 222'1204 The Govr. ol A.P., rep., by its ." Respondents Principal Secretary & others. in WP'22580/04 T!'re Gcvt' ol A'P' rep'' by its " Respondents Prirrcipal Secretary & others in WP.22986' 23473/04' 40 & 3083/05 ! Counsellor the Petitioners iin wP 20159/04):MR'M RATNA REDDY Cori!!sel lor lhe Petitroners (in wP'z02osiort:MR V SINIVAS' Counsel ior thc Petitioners: MR P V S S S RAtulA ftAO' trn vvP.Nos 212'4 it2212 & 22986104) Counseltor the Petitioners: MB J R MANOHAR RAO' iin wPNos.2l689 and 21691 o12004) Counsel lor the Petitioners 0nwP2l79l & 22s80/04): MB T'P ACHARYA Counsel lor the Petitioners: MR M 'RAMALINGESHWAR REDDY' (in WP.Nos.22124104 znd 3083 ol 2005) Cdinse! lor the Pe'tilioners (in wP'2347310t): MR P-V RAO' Counsel for the Petitioners (tn wP 40/2005): i/TR B VUAYSEN REDDY ' ^Counsel ior Bespondents (i,., alr writ Peliiions): GP FoR PRoHIBITION & EXCISE
> HEAD NOTE ? Cases referred 1. 1989 SUPP. (1)SCC 393 2. 1994 SUPP. (1) SCC 44
(1993) 2 SCC 3,10 4. 2001 (4) ALD 289 (DB) (r981)4 SCC 675 (1998) 9 SCC 471 1985 (SUPP) SCC 189 AIR 1997 SC 2131 5 6 7 8 <G IST:
9 AiR 1993 sc 2285
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.