1990 (2) TMI 307 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Supreme Court upholds decision on seniority list, emphasizes zonal seniority for promotions

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, declaring the divisional seniority list invalid and emphasizing the maintenance of zonal seniority for ... - Issues Involved1. Validity of the divisional seniority list prepared by the department.2. Interpretation and application of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India.3. Powers of the State Government under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975.4. Validity of G.O.Ms. No. 1648 dated November 20, 1982, and G.O.Ms. No. 1900 dated December 22, 1981.5. The role and authority of the President under the Presidential Order.Detailed Analysis1. Validity of the Divisional Seniority List Prepared by the DepartmentThe respondents contended that the divisional seniority list prepared by the department was invalid as the Adilabad division, comprising Adilabad and Karimnagar Districts, should not be treated as a separate zone. The Tribunal held that zonal seniority should be the criterion and not divisional seniority. The Supreme Court upheld this view, reiterating that for the purpose of promotion, zonal seniority must be maintained.2. Interpretation and Application of Article 371-D of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 371-D was introduced through the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973, to ensure equitable opportunities for people from different parts of Andhra Pradesh in public employment and education. The President, under this Article, can require the State Government to organize posts into local cadres for different parts of the State. The Supreme Court emphasized that any reorganization of local cadres must comply with the provisions of Article 371-D and the Presidential Order issued under it.3. Powers of the State Government under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975The State Government is empowered to organize local cadres within twelve months from the commencement of the Order. However, the Supreme Court clarified that once the State Government has organized the local cadres, it ceases to have the power to bifurcate or reorganize zones within those cadres. Any further reorganization must be done by the President under the proviso to Paragraph 3(1) of the Order.4. Validity of G.O.Ms. No. 1648 dated November 20, 1982, and G.O.Ms. No. 1900 dated December 22, 1981The Supreme Court found that the State Government's actions in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 1648 and G.O.Ms. No. 1900, which reorganized the zones and created separate divisions, were illegal and invalid. These orders contravened the Presidential Order and were not issued with the approval of the President as required. The Court held that the State Government had no inherent power to reorganize local cadres after the initial organization period had expired.5. The Role and Authority of the President under the Presidential OrderThe Supreme Court highlighted that the President alone has the authority to require the State Government to reorganize local cadres under the proviso to Paragraph 3(1) of the Order. The State Government must place necessary material before the President, who will then consider whether it is expedient to reorganize the cadres. The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the State Government had inherent power to organize local cadres, emphasizing that such power is exclusively vested in the President.ConclusionThe Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, declaring the divisional seniority list invalid and emphasizing that zonal seniority must be maintained for promotions. The Court reiterated that any reorganization of local cadres must comply with Article 371-D and the Presidential Order, and the State Government had no inherent power to reorganize local cadres after the initial period. The appeal was dismissed without costs.