G.O. Ms. 124 dated March 2002 held prospective only, cannot apply to 1999 advertisement selections

SC held that G.O. Ms. 124 dated 7th March, 2002 is prospective and not applicable to selection processes started pursuant to 1999 advertisement. State Government lacked power under Presidential Order 1975 to pass retrospective orders regarding reservation in selection procedures. Once selection procedure commences, procedural law amendments cannot be applied retrospectively. HC correctly ruled that existing appointments between 2001-2002 remain unaffected but erred in directing application of 2002 G.O. to pending selections. Remaining vacant posts must be filled per Presidential Order 1975 and prevailing government orders from 1999. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March, 2002.
2. Retrospective application of G.O. Ms. No. 124 to ongoing selection processes.
3. Inter se seniority between first-round appointees and second-round selectees.
4. Reservation for PHC category under Special Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March, 2002:
The Supreme Court examined whether G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March, 2002 was valid under the Presidential Order, 1975. The Appellants argued that the G.O. was null and void since it was issued after the period of limitation prescribed in sub-para(1) of Paragraph 3 of the Presidential Order, 1975. The Court noted that the Presidential Order empowered the State Government to organize local cadres within 27 months from the commencement of the Order and did not explicitly empower the State to issue orders with retrospective effect. The Court concluded that the G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 7th March, 2002 could not be given retrospective effect.

2. Retrospective application of G.O. Ms. No. 124 to ongoing selection processes:
The Supreme Court addressed whether G.O. Ms. No. 124 could be applied retrospectively to the selection process initiated by Advertisement No. 10 of 1999. The Court referred to the principles of statutory interpretation and the absence of explicit retrospective application in the G.O. The Court held that the G.O. was prospective and could not affect the selection process that had already started. Thus, the Tribunal's direction to re-caste the merit list based on G.O. Ms. No. 124 was erroneous.

3. Inter se seniority between first-round appointees and second-round selectees:
The Court considered the issue of seniority between candidates appointed in the first round and those selected in the second round. The High Court had directed that the inter se seniority should be decided by the appropriate authority based on merit ranking. The Supreme Court upheld this direction, stating that the appropriate authority should determine seniority according to the rules and merit ranking obtained by the candidates.

4. Reservation for PHC category under Special Rules:
The Court addressed the issue of reservation for the PHC category. It held that reservation to the PHC category could not be claimed where it was not provided under the Special Rules. The Tribunal's findings on this issue were upheld, and no interference was deemed necessary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the impugned judgments of the High Court. The Court directed that the remaining posts, including Municipal Commissioners Grade-III, Asstt. Commercial Tax Officers, Asstt. Labour Officers, and Asstt. Section Officers, be filled as per the Presidential Order, 1975, and the prevailing Government orders in 1999. The inter se seniority between first-round appointees and later inductees should be decided by the appropriate authority based on merit ranking. The process of selection was directed to be completed expeditiously within three months. The appeals were allowed with the specified observations and directions.

---