M VENKATESWARLU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1996-3-8
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on March 12,1996

M. VENKATESWARLU Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PRADIP NANDY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1997-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
S.P. BHADOLA VS. A.I.I. M.S [LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-548] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ AHMED KHAN VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1999-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
A. SUBBA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-2-95] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANT SHESH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-1-56] [REFERRED]
RIJI G.NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-208] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA DAS VS. ASSAM CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-74] [REFERRED TO]
HEMSAT CHONGLOI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2003-5-15] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MADHAV S O GAJANAN CHAUBAL [LAWS(SC)-1996-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
ZONUNTHARA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
AB RASHID BHAT VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2008-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
S. MALAR VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-950] [REFERRED TO]
SHILLQNG BENCH M LAITPHLANG VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2004-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
TARIK DOKE VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2007-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
TUNGVIR SINGH ARYA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-92] [REFRRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA VIDYASAGAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1997-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BRIJLAL THAKUR [LAWS(SC)-1997-3-66] [REFERRED TO]
D.R.VERMA VS. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2001-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
NAWAB SINGH AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2005-8-124] [REFERRED TO]
VENNEIBERA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2015-10-38] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. C. VANLALCHHUANGI VS. THE STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-11-113] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SUKUMAR DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2015-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
DR. M. LAITPHLANG AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2004-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
VANLALHLUNA, S/O F ENGNGHAKA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
KRUPABEN B. TRIVEDI VS. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AND ANR. [LAWS(GJH)-2000-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
K S MATHEW VS. GOVT OF NCT DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2001-8-24] [REFERRED 2.]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Appellant was appointed as LDC on 21/1/1975 in the Revenue Establishment of Prakasam District in A. P. He was promoted as a UDC (Senior Assistant) in 1982 and as a Deputy Tehsildar on 20/6/1984. The panel effective from 1/7/1983 for regular promotion was to be drawn for the year 1983-84. At that time he was short of one year and three months for purpose of total service of eight years; and of five months for purpose of period of two years as Senior Assistant for regular promotion as a Deputy Tehsildar. His name was recommended for consideration of promotion for the year 1986-87. He made a representation in August 1990 to the government to relax Rule 8 (ii) of the A. P. Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, 1961 (for short, 'special Rules') to empanel him for the year 1983- 84. The District Collector and the Commissioner, Land Revenue recommended for the relaxation. The government exercising the power under Rule 47 of the A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (for short, 'general Rules') issued the orders in GOMs No. 792, Revenue (SER. III) Department, dated 28/7/1992 relaxing shortfall in the required serviceand by proceedings dated 1/12/1992, the government empanelled him for the year 1983-84 instead of 1987-88 and he was accordingly promoted on regular basis. The respondents came to challenge the relaxation given to him for the year 1983-84. When the OA had come up for final hearing, the division bench by its order dated 26/10/1993 had held that by operation of Rule 22 of the General Rules read with Rule 6 of the Special Rules, the appointment by transfer or promotion is available and that the appellant was entitled to promotion as Deputy Tehsildar since reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to a carry-forward vacancy is valid under Rule 22. However, since it was found that there were conflicting decisions on application of Rule 22 of the General Rules to the carry-forward vacancies, reference was made to the full bench. The full bench by majority in the impugned order dated 7/4/1994 has held that Rule 22 of the General Rules does not apply to carry-forward vacancies for appointment by promotion or transfer. Retrospective relaxation under Rule 47 of the General Rules is illegal as relaxation cannot retrospectively be given effect to. Accordingly, the tribunal dismissed the OA. Thus this appeal by special leave.
(3.)Shri A. Subba Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that Rule 22 of the General Rules read with Rule 6 of the Special Rules gives power to the State to appoint members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to a vacancy or a post in a service or classes of service by virtue of application of rule of reservation not only to initial recruitment but also for appointment by promotion or transfer. The question of carry-forward arises only when candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who were to get adequate representation in the service or class of posts are not available. Relaxation under Rule 47 would always be retrospective since the requisite conditions prescribed under the Rules cannot be complied with before action is taken. Consequently, the view of the full bench is not correct in law while the division bench had correctly interpreted the rule of reservation.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.