{"id":7014,"date":"2001-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001"},"modified":"2018-06-19T18:15:19","modified_gmt":"2018-06-19T12:45:19","slug":"v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001","title":{"rendered":"V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: G.P. Pattanaik, Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 9643-9644  of  1995\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nV. JAGANNADHA RAO & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF A.P. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/11\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nG.P. PAttanaik, Ruma Pal & Arijit Pasayat\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G\t M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT,\t J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tDoubting correctness of the view expressed in two decisions rendered
\nby  two Honble Judges in State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.  vs. V.
\nSadanandam & Ors.<\/a> (1989 Supp. (1) SCC 574) and Govt. of A.P. & Anr.
\nvs. B. Satyanarayana Rao (Dead)by Lrs. & Ors.<\/a> (2000 (4) SCC 262)
\nregarding scope and ambit of para 5(2) of the Presidential Order issued
\nunder Article 371-D of the Constitution of India 1950 (in short the
\nConstitution) a reference has been made to a three Judges Bench, and that
\nis how the matter was listed before us.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question for consideration in these appeals is whether the
\njudgment of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short Tribunal)
\nstriking down certain provisions of the Special Rules framed under Article
\n309 of the Constitution holding them to be violative of the Presidential
\nOrder issued under Article 371D of the Constitution is correct.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as under:-
\nPrior to the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh on 1.11.1956
\nand thereafter, the Labour and Factories Department consisted of 3 units,
\nnamely, Labour, Factories and Boilers. The employees belonging to the
\nministerial cadres in all the 3 units had a channel of promotion to higher
\nnon-technical executive posts like Assistant Inspector of Labour, District
\nInspector of Labour etc. Further promotional avenues led to the posts of
\nAssistant Commissioner of Labour, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Joint
\nCommissioner of Labour and Additional Commissioner of Labour. On
\n16.9.1963 Factories Unit in the department was bifurcated and subjects
\nrelating to Shops and Establishment Act, Minimum Wages Act, Motor
\nTransport Workers  Act and Payment of Wages Act in respect of non-factory
\nestablishments were transferred to the Labour unit. On 8.12.1965 one more
\nunit, namely, Establishment Unit was created in the Labour Department by
\ntransferring non-technical posts of District Inspector of Labour (re-
\ndesignated as Labour Officer) and Assistant Inspector of Labour (re-
\ndesignated as Assistant Labour Officer) from the Factories Wing. Prior to
\nthis arrangement the aforesaid non-technical posts were under the control of
\nthe Factories Wing.  On 15.9.1966 Government issued Rules under the
\nproviso to Article 309 making Superintendents in the Factories and Boilers
\nWings and Assistant Inspectors of Labour retained in that Wing (re-
\ndesignated as Assistant Inspector of Factories) eligible for appointment by
\ntransfer as District Inspector of Labour (now Labour Officer). On 28.1.1971
\nGovernment ordered that the ministerial staff in all the 4 units, namely,
\nLabour, Factories, Boilers and Establishment at the headquarters were to be
\ntreated as one unit.  On 6.8.1974 Government ordered that the Factories and
\nBoilers units were to function with Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers
\nas the head of the department, and the Labour and Establishment units were
\nto function under the control of Commissioner of Labour.  It was clarified
\nthat the ministerial staff in all the 4 units were eligible for appointment by
\ntransfer to the post of Assistant Inspector of Labour (re-designated as
\nAssistant Labour Officer) and District Inspector of Labour (re-designated as
\nLabour Officer).  On 18.10.1975 the Presidential Order was issued under
\nArticle 371-D of the Constitution to provide for equitable opportunities and
\nfacilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State in the matter
\nof public employment, education etc.  On 20.5.1976 ministerial posts of
\nFactories and Boilers Department were organized into Local cadres pursuant
\nto the Presidential Order.  Similarly, the posts in the Labour Department
\nwere also organised into local cadres.\tOn 11.5.1977 posts of Labour
\nEnforcement Officer (previously designated as Deputy Inspector of Labour
\nand subsequently re-designated as Labour Officer) were organized into
\nmulti-zone cadre posts. On 2.9.1977 by the Rules made under proviso to
\nArticle 309, UDCs of the Labour Department and Factories and Boilers
\nDepartment were made eligible for recruitment by transfer to the posts of
\nAssistant Inspector of Labour\/Assistant Inspector of  Factories. On
\n20.7.1982 in G.O.503 the Government directed that the concessions given in
\nG.O.607 dated 6.8.1974 to the effect that the ministerial staff in the Factories
\nand Boilers Department shall be eligible for appointment by transfer to the
\npost of Assistant Inspector of Labour (Assistant Labour Officer) and District
\nInspector of Labour (Labour Officer) shall continue to the last person in the
\ndepartment as on 20.7.1982 and the concession will be withdrawn in respect
\nof persons appointed thereafter in the Factories and Boilers department. The
\nsaid concession was extended to the last person in the department by a
\nmemorandum dated 19.5.1983.  By G.O.Ms.No.72 Government issued
\nRules under proviso to Article 309 making Senior Assistant belonging to the
\nFactories and Boilers departments as well as Labour department eligible for
\nappointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Labour Officer\/Assistant
\nInspector of Factories.\t These were treated to be zonal non-gazetted posts,
\nunit of appointment being the zone.  In G.O. Ms 170 Rules under proviso to
\nArticle 309 were issued constituting the posts of Labour Officer into multi-
\nzonal cadre posts.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tMinisterial employees of the Labour department challenged the Rules
\nissued in G.O.Ms 72 dated 25.2.1986 and G.O.Ms.117 dated 28.5.1986
\nbefore the Tribunal.  A Full Bench of the Tribunal allowed the petitions and
\ndeclared that the impugned Rules to the extent they enable the ministerial
\nemployees of the Factories and Boilers department or any other department
\nto be considered for appointment to the posts in Labour department are
\nviolative of paras 3 and 5 of the Presidential Order and, therefore, were void.
\nHowever, liberty was given to the Government to create posts in the
\nFactories and Boilers Departments for persons who were regularly appointed
\nmore than 3 years prior to the filing of the petitions before the Tribunal in
\nthe Executive posts in Labour Department, without affecting the rights of the
\nemployees of the Labour Department in the respective zones.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tTribunals conclusions essentially are as follows:-
\nThe Presidential Order was enforced on 18.10.1975.  The post of
\nSenior Assistant is required to be organised in a zonal cadre and for the
\nLabour Department there has to be an  additional city cadre.  Organising
\ncadre in each department under para 3 includes determination of cadre
\nstrengths both in respect of permanent and temporary posts.  In accordance
\nwith definition of cadre in the fundamental rules the first step which was
\nrequired to be taken for implementation of the Presidential Order was
\nlocalization of cadres by determining cadre strength of each post required to
\nbe organised in local cadre.  In Schedule Two of the Presidential Order, the
\nrequirements indicated include geographical spread of the zone and the ratio
\nand also the administrative needs of the department.  The local cadre is the
\nunit under para 5(1) of the Presidential Order for recruitment, appointment,
\nseniority, promotion and transfer.  Therefore, the zone is the unit for the
\norganised cadre of the zone. Para 9 speaks of the carry forward of a post and
\nnot a vacancy.\tAccording to para 5(1) the essential cadre of the department
\nwill be unit for the purpose of recruitment, appointment, seniority,
\npromotion, transfer etc. Even a transfer to an equivalent post is required to
\nbe restricted within the zone.\tPara 5(2) enables to the State Government to
\nmake provisions for transfer of a person from and to a post in a category and
\na post in the same category outside the zonal cadre. It is to be noted that the
\nessential cadre of each department is the unit not only for direct recruitment
\nbut also for recruitment by transfer, seniority and promotion in the
\ndepartment.   An additional feeder category of ministerial employees
\norganised in six separate cadres of another department will violate the
\nrequirements of para 3(3) and 5(1), as the seniority in the departmental cadre
\nshould be the criteria for the purposes of promotion and appointment to
\nhigher posts in the department. Accordingly, the Rules were held to be
\nviolative of Article 371-D.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tWhen the matter was placed for hearing after grant of leave reliance
\nwas placed by learned counsel for  the appellants on the decisions in V.
\nSadanandam (supra) and B. Satyanarayana Rao (supra) to contend that this
\nCourt has upheld similar provisions which have been struck down by the
\nTribunal as void.  However, the Bench hearing the appeals expressed doubt
\nabout the correctness of the view expressed in these cases and as noted
\nabove the appeals were directed to be placed before a 3 Judges Bench.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tMr. P.N. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
\nsubmitted that the two decisions referred to above were squarely applicable
\nto the facts of this case. In any event the Rules have been made in
\nconsonance with the Presidential Order and there is no inconsistency.  Para
\n5(2) of the Presidential Order authorises the State Government to pass
\nnecessary orders in the circumstances indicated in the said paragraph.
\nAccording to him, public interest is paramount in the case and taking into
\naccount the background facts it was felt by the Government that in order to
\nprovide for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to
\ndifferent parts of the State in the matter of public employment, impugned
\nRules were formulated. If the interpretation by the Tribunal is accepted it
\nwould mean the denial of opportunities and would be against the very spirit
\nof the Presidential Order. It was also submitted that the expression transfer
\nused in para 5(2) has to be given a wider meaning, and promotional
\nprospects are clearly inter-linked and cannot be divested from a transfer.  If
\nnecessary, according to him, a purposive interpretation has to be made.\n<\/p>\n
\tPer contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents who were
\nthe petitioners before the Tribunal submitted that the very object of the
\nPresidential Order is to provide better employment facilities to persons of
\nneglected areas and the scope for a departure is rather limited and if the State
\nwanted to make a departure it is authorized to do so within the four corners
\nof the prescriptions in the Presidential Order.\t Transfer according to him, is
\npermissible in respect of similar posts, and by no stretch of imagination this
\nis permissible to include a promotional prospect or avenue.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tLearned counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that
\nthough it is contended by appellant about States stand before the Tribunal
\nbeing correctness of the impugned Rules, yet on a closer reading of the
\nprovisions it has been noticed that the Tribunals Judgment does not suffer
\nfrom any infirmity and, therefore, appeals were not filed by the State.\t It is
\nalso pointed out that supernumerary posts  have been created to effectuate
\nthe Tribunals judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be necessary to
\nnote a few statutory provisions which have reliance so far as the dispute is
\nconcerned. Article 371-D so far as relevant reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
371D.(1) The President may by order made with respect
\nto the State of Andhra Pradesh provide, having regard to
\nthe requirements of the State as a whole, for equitable
\nopportunities and facilities for the people belonging to
\ndifferent parts of the State, in the matter of public
\nemployment and in the matter of education, and different
\nprovisions may be made for various parts of the State.\n<\/p>\n
(2) An order made under clause (1) may, in particular .\n<\/p>\n
(a)\trequire the State Government to organize any class
\nor classes of posts in a civil service of, or any class or
\nclasses of civil posts under, the State into different local
\ncadres for different parts of the State and allot in
\naccordance with such principles and procedure as may be
\nspecified in the order the persons holding such posts to
\nthe local cadres so organized;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tspecify any part or parts of the State which shall be
\nregarded as the local area –\n<\/p>\n
(i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre
\n(whether organised in pursuance of an order under
\nthis Article or constituted otherwise) under the
\nState Government;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under
\nany local authority within the State; and<\/p>\n
(iii) for the purposes of admission to any University
\nwithin the State or to any other educational
\ninstitution which is subject to the control of the
\nState Government;\n<\/p>\n
\tspecify the extent to which, the manner in which
\nand the conditions subject to which, preference or
\nreservation shall be given or made<\/p>\n
(i) in the matter of direct recruitment to posts in any
\nsuch cadre referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be
\nspecified in this behalf in the order;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) in the matter of admission to any such University
\nor other educational institution referred to in sub-
\nclause (b) as may be specified in this behalf in the
\norder, to or in favour of candidates who have
\nresided or studied for any period specified in the
\norder in the local area in respect of such cadre,
\nUniversity or other educational institution, as the
\ncase may be.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The President may, by order, provide for the
\nconstitution of an Administrative Tribunal for the State
\nof Andhra Pradesh to exercise such jurisdiction, powers
\nand authority [including any jurisdiction, power and
\nauthority which immediately before the commencement
\nof the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act,
\n1973, was exercisable by any court (other than the
\nSupreme Court) or by any tribunal or other authority] as
\nmay be specified in the order with respect to the
\nfollowing maters, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tappointment, allotment or promotion to such class
\nor classes of posts in any civil service of the State,
\nor to such class or classes of civil posts under the
\nState, or to such class or classes of posts under the
\ncontrol of any local authority within the State, as
\nmay be specified in the order;\n<\/p>\n
(b) seniority of person appointed, allotted or promoted
\nto such; class or classes of posts in any civil
\nservice of the State, or to such class or classes of
\ncivil posts under the State, or to such class or
\nclasses of posts under the control of any local
\nauthority within the State, as may be specified in
\nthe order;\n<\/p>\n
\tsuch other conditions of service of persons
\nappointed, allotted or promoted to such class or
\nclasses of posts in any civil service of the State or
\nto such class or classes of civil posts under the
\nState or to such class or classes of posts under the
\ncontrol of any local authority within the State, as
\nmay be specified in the order.\n<\/p>\n
(4) ..\n<\/p>\n
(5) ..\n<\/p>\n
(6) ..\n<\/p>\n
(7) ..\n<\/p>\n
(8) ..\n<\/p>\n
(9) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of
\nany court, tribunal or other authority<\/p>\n
(a) no appointment, posting, promotion or transfer of
\nany person<\/p>\n
(i) made before the 1st day of November, 1956, to any
\npost under the Government of, or any local
\nauthority within, the State of Hyderabad as it
\nexisted before that date; or<\/p>\n
(ii) made before the commencement of the
\nConstitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act,
\n1973, to any post under the Government of, or any
\nlocal or other authority within the State of Andhra
\nPradesh; and<\/p>\n
(b)\tno action taken or thing done by or before any
\nperson referred to in sub-clause (a), shall be deemed to be
\nillegal or void or ever to have become illegal or void
\nmerely on the ground that the appointment, posting,
\npromotion or transfer or such person was not made in
\naccordance with any law, then in force, providing for any
\nrecquirement as to residence within the State of
\nHyderabad or, as the case may be, within any part of the
\nState of Andhra Pradesh, in respect of such appointment,
\nposting, promotion or transfer.\n<\/p>\n
(10) The provisions of this Article and of any order
\nmade by the President thereunder shall have effect
\nnotwithstanding anything in any other provision of this
\nConstitution or in any other law for the time being in
\nforce.\n<\/p>\n
Impugned Rules: (so far as relevant read as follows).\n<\/p>\n
O R D E R<\/p>\n
\tThe following notification shall be published in the
\nAndhra Pradesh Gazette:-\n<\/p>\n
NOTIFICATION<\/p>\n
\tIn exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso
\nto Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor
\nof Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following Special
\nRules for the posts of Assistant labour Officers in the
\nAndhra Pradesh Labour Subordinate Services:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe rules hereby made shall be deemed to have
\ncome into force with effect from the 2nd September,
\n1985;\n<\/p>\n
RULES<\/p>\n
1.\tCONSTITUTION: this category shall consist of
\nAssistant Labour Officers including Labour Inspectors of
\nfactories in the Andhra Pradesh Labour Subordinate
\nService.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAPPOINTMENT: Appointment to the category
\nshall be made :\n<\/p>\n
(i) by direct recruitment;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) by recruitment by transfer from the
\ncategories of senior assistants and senior
\nstenographers of the Labour Department and
\nFactories and Boilers Department in the
\nAndhra Pradesh Ministerial Services
\nrestricted to those working in the zones in
\nwhich the vacancies arise;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) by recruitment by transfer from among the
\npersonnel working in the Labour Welfare
\nCentres of the Labour Department under the
\nAndhra Pradesh General Subordinate
\nService, restricted to those working in the
\nzones in which the vacancies arise.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that all appointments by transfer to the
\ncategory shall be made on grounds of seniority cum
\nefficiency.\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that among the senior assistants,
\nsenior stenographers and the personnel working in the
\nLabour Welfare Centres, in the Labour Department, the
\nappointment to the post of Assistant Labour Officers
\nshall be made in the ratio of  8:1:1 respectively in the
\nfollowing rotation:-\n<\/p>\n
1. Senior Assistant\n<\/p>\n
2. Senior Assistant\n<\/p>\n
3. Senior Assistant\n<\/p>\n
4. Labour Welfare Centre Staff\n<\/p>\n
5. Senior Assistant\n<\/p>\n
6. Senior Assistant\n<\/p>\n
7. Senior Assistant\n<\/p>\n
8. Senior Stenographer\n<\/p>\n
9. Senior Assistant\n<\/p>\n
10. Senior Assistant;\n<\/p>\n
Provided also that in a unit of 10 vacancies other
\nthan leave vacancies, the 1st, 4th, 7th and 10th vacancies
\nshall be filled in by direct recruitment and the remaining
\nsix vacancies shall be filled in the appointment by
\ntransfer.\n<\/p>\n
Provided also that among the Senior Assistants and
\nsenior Stenographers of the Directorate and the senior
\nassistants and senior stenographers of the subordinate
\noffices, the appointment shall be in the ratio of 2:3
\nrespectively in the following rotations:\n<\/p>\n
1st vacancy –\t Subordinate Office
\n2nd vacancy – Directorate Office
\n3rd vacancy – Subordinate Office
\n4th vacancy –\t Directorate Office
\n5th vacancy –\t Subordinate Office<\/p>\n
Provided also that if an eligible candidate
\nbelonging to Directorate Office or Subordinate Office
\nincluding Labour Welfare Centre Staff, is not available
\nfor appointment in the turn allotted for them in the order
\nof rotation, the turn allotted for them in the order of
\nrotation, the turn shall lapse and the vacancy shall be
\nfilled in by candidate of next turn in the order of rotation.\n<\/p>\n
3. APPOINTING AUTHORITY: the Deputy
\nCommissioner of Labour in the respective zones
\nconcerned shall be the appointing authority for the posts
\nof Assistant Labour Officers.\n<\/p>\n
4. UNIT OF APPOINTMENT: For the purposes of
\nrecruitment, appointment, discharge for want of
\nvacancy, seniority, promotion, transfer and
\nappointment as full member, there shall be seven
\nseparate units as detailed below:\n<\/p>\n
ZONE  I :\tComprising the districts of
\nSrikakulam, Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam.\n<\/p>\n
ZONE – II\t:\tComprising the districts of East
\nGodavari, West Godavari and Krishna.\n<\/p>\n
ZONE  III\t:\tComprising the districts of
\nGuntur, Prakasam and Nellore.\n<\/p>\n
ZONE  IV\t:\tComprising the districts of
\nKurnool, Cuddapah, Anantapur and Chittor.\n<\/p>\n
ZONE  V :\tComprising the districts of
\nAdilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal and Khammam.\n<\/p>\n
ZONE  VI\t:\tComprising the districts of
\nRagareddy, Nalgonda, Mahaboobnagar, Medak
\nand Nizamabad.\n<\/p>\n
ZONE  VII\t:\tTwin cities of\tHyderabad and
\nSecundrabad.\n<\/p>\n
PRESIDENTIAL ORDER : (so far as relevant) reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe following Order of\tPresident of India,
\nG.S.R. 524 (E), dated the 18th October, 1975 is
\nrepublished :-\n<\/p>\n
THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
\n(ORGANISATION OF LOCAL CADRES AND
\nREGULATION OF DIRECT RECRUITMENT)
\nORDER, 1975.\n<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
\tG.S.R. 524(e): – In exercise of the powers
\nconferred by clauses (1) and (2) of articles 371-D of the
\nConstitution, the President hereby makes, with respect to
\nthe State of Andhra Pradesh, the following Order,
\nnamely:-\n<\/p>\n
1. Short title, extent and commencement\t (i) This
\nOrder may be called the Andhra Pradesh Public
\nEmployment (Organisation of Local Cadres and
\nRegulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975.
\n(2)\tIt extends to the whole of the State of
\nAndhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3)\tIt shall come into force at once.\n<\/p>\n
2. Interpretation  (1) In this Order, unless the
\ncontext otherwise requires<\/p>\n
(a).\n<\/p>\n
(b)<\/p>\n
  local area, in relation to any local cadre, means
\nthe local area specified in paragraph 6 for direct
\nrecruitment to posts in such local cadre, and
\nincludes, in respect of posts belonging to the
\ncategory of Civil Assistant Surgeons, the local
\nareas specified in sub-paragraph (5),of paragraph 8
\nof this Order;\n<\/p>\n
(d) local authority; does not include any local
\nauthority which is not subject to the control of the
\nState Government;\n<\/p>\n
(e) local cadre means any local cadre of posts
\nunder the State Government organised in
\npursuance of paragraph 3, or constituted otherwise,
\nfor any part of the State;\n<\/p>\n
(f) local candidate in relation to any local area,
\nmeans a candidate who qualifies under paragraph 7
\nas a local candidate in relation to such local area;\n<\/p>\n
(g)..\n<\/p>\n
(h) Schedule means a Schedule appended to this
\nOrder;\n<\/p>\n
(i)..\n<\/p>\n
(j)..\n<\/p>\n
(k)State Government means the Government of
\nAndhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
(l).\n<\/p>\n
(m)Zone means a zone specified in the Second
\nSchedule comprising the territories mentioned
\ntherein;\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897)
\napplies for the interpretation of this Order as it
\napplies for the interpretation of a Central Act.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tOrganisation of local cadre<\/p>\n
(1) The State Government shall, within a
\nperiod of twelve months from the
\ncommencement of this Order, organize
\nclasses of posts in the civil services of, and
\nclasses of civil posts under, the State into
\ndifferent local cadres for different parts of
\nthe State to the extent, and in the manner,
\nhereinafter provided.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The posts belonging to the category of
\nlower division clerk, and to each of the other
\ncategories equivalent to, or lower than that
\nof a lower division clerk, in each department
\nin each district shall be organised into a
\nseparate cadre.\n<\/p>\n
\tExplanation  For the purposes of this
\nsub-paragraph, sub-paragraph (1) of
\nparagraph 6, and sub-paragraph (1) of
\nparagraph 8, a category shall be deemed to
\nbe equivalent to or lower than that of lower
\ndivision clerk if the minimum of the scale of
\npay of a post belonging to that category or,
\nwhere the post carries a fixed pay, such
\nfixed pay, is equal to or lower than the
\nminimum of the scale of pay of a lower
\ndivision clerk.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The posts belonging to each non-\n<\/p>\n
gazetted category, other than those referred
\nto in sub-paragraph (2), in each department
\nin each zone shall be organised into a
\nseparate cadre.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tThe posts belonging to each specified
\ngazetted category in each department in each
\nzone shall be organised into a separate
\ncadre.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tNotwithstanding anything contained
\nin sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), the State
\nGovernment may, where it considers it
\nexpedient so to do and with approval of the
\nCentral Government, organize the posts
\nbelonging to any of the categories referred
\nto therein, in any department, or any
\nestablishment thereof, in two or more
\ncontinuous zones into a single cadre.\n<\/p>\n
(6)..\n<\/p>\n
(7) In organizing a separate cadre in
\nrespect of any category of posts in any
\ndepartment for any part of the State, nothing
\nin this Order shall be deemed to prevent the
\nState Government from organizing or
\ncontinuing more than one cadre in respect of
\nsuch category in such department for such
\npart of the State.\n<\/p>\n
(8)   Where the Central Government is
\nsatisfied that it is not practicable or
\nexpedient to organize local cadres under this
\nparagraph in respect of any non-gazetted
\ncategory of posts in any department, it may,
\nby notification, make a declaration to that
\neffect and on such declaration the provisions
\nof this paragraph shall not apply to such
\ncategory of posts.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t..\n<\/p>\n
5. Local cadres and transfer of persons:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tEach part of the State, for which a local
\ncadre has been organised in respect of any
\ncategory of posts, shall be a separate unit for
\npurposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge,
\nseniority, promotion and transfer, and such other
\nmatters as may be specified by the State
\nGovernment, in respect of that category of post.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tNothing in this Order shall prevent the State
\nGovernment from making provisions for :\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tthe transfer of a person from any local
\ncadre to any Office or Establishment to
\nwhich this Order does not apply, or vice-\n<\/p>\n
versa;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tthe transfer of a person from a local
\ncadre comprising posts in any Office or
\nEstablishment exercising territorial
\njurisdiction over a part of the State to any
\nother local cadre comprising posts in such
\npart, or vice-versa; and<\/p>\n
\tthe transfer of a person from one local
\ncadre to another local cadre where no
\nqualified or suitable person is available in
\nthe latter cadre or where such transfer is
\notherwise considered necessary in the public
\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n
6. Local areas:\n<\/p>\n
(1) Each district shall be regarded as a local area<\/p>\n
(i)\tfor direct recruitment to posts in any
\nlocal cadre under the State Government
\ncomprising all or any of the posts in any
\ndepartment in that district belonging to the
\ncategory of a lower division clerk or to any
\nother category equivalent to or lower than
\nthat of a lower division clerk;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tfor direct recruitment to posts in any
\ncadre under any local authority within that
\ndistrict, carrying a scale of pay, the
\nminimum of which does not exceed the
\nminimum of the scale of pay of a lower
\ndivision clerk or a fixed pay not exceeding
\nthat amount.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tEach Zone shall be regarded as a local area;\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tfor direct recruitment to posts in any
\nlocal cadre under the State Government
\ncomprising all or any of the posts in any
\ndepartment in that zone belonging to any
\nnon-gazetted category other than those
\nreferred to in such paragraph (1);\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tfor direct recruitment to posts in any
\nlocal cadre comprising all or any of the posts
\nin any department in that zone belonging to
\nthe categories of Tahsildars and Junior
\nEngineers;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tfor direct recruitment to posts in any
\ncadre under any local authority within that
\nzone, carrying a scale of pay, the minimum
\nof which exceeds the minimum of the scale
\nof pay of a lower division clerk but does not
\nexceed Rs.480\/- per mensem; or a fixed pay
\nwhich exceeds the minimum of the scale of
\npay of a lower division clerk but does not
\nexceed Rs.480\/- per mensem;\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe object of enacting Article 371-D appears to be two-fold:-\n<\/p>\n
(1) To promote equal development of the backward  areas of the
\nState of Andhra Pradesh, so far as to secure balanced
\ndevelopment of the State as a whole.\n<\/p>\n
(2) To provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the State
\nin the matter of education, employment and career prospects in
\npublic service.\n<\/p>\n
This was observed to be so in Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh vs.
\nL.V.A. Dikshitulu (AIR<\/a> 1979 SC 193).\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIt is to be noted that para 5(1) of the Presidential Order is in terms of
\npara 3(3) thereof.  Para 3(3) postulates that each department in each zone
\nshall be organised into a separate cadre.  Para 5(1) speaks of separate unit for
\npurposes  of recruitment, appointment, discharge, seniority, promotion and
\ntransfer and such other matters as may be specified by the State Government
\nin respect of the category of posts and each part of the State for which local
\ncadre has been organised in respect of any category of posts is required to
\nhave a separate unit for the aforesaid purposes.  Para 5(2) is in the nature of
\nan enabling provision which authorizes the State Government to make
\nprovisions for transfer in certain specified circumstances. The present
\ndispute relates to para 5(2) \u00a9.\t It speaks of a transfer.  Attempt of the
\nappellants is to give enlarged meaning to the expression to include
\npromotional aspects.  It has been contended in that context that though para
\n5(1) treats promotion and transfer separately, yet that distinction would not
\nbe applicable to cases covered by para 5(2). The contention is clearly
\nuntenable.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tTransfer in relation to service reduced to simple terms means a change
\nof place of employment within an organization, as stated in New Oxford
\nEnglish Dictionary , 1993 Edition, Vol.2, p.3367. It is an incidence of public
\nservice and generally does not require the consent of the employee. In most
\nservice rules, there are express provisions relating to transfer. For example,
\nFundamental Rule 15 provides:\n<\/p>\n
F.R.15(a) The President may transfer a Government
\nservant from one post to another; provided that except<\/p>\n
(1) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, or
\n(2) on his written request,<\/p>\n
a Government servant shall not be transferred
\nsubstantively to, or, except in a case covered by Rule 49,
\nappointed to officiate in a post carrying less pay than the
\npay of the permanent post on which he holds a lien, or
\nwould hold a lien had his lien not been suspended under
\nRule 14.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Nothing contained in clause (a) of this Rule or in
\nclause (13) of Rule 9 shall operate to prevent\tthe re-
\ntransfer of a Government servant to the post on which he
\nwould hold a lien, had it not been suspended in
\naccordance with the provisions of clause (a) of Rule 14.\n<\/p>\n
\tService rules sometimes define transfer. For example, supplementary
\nRule 2(18) of the Fundamental Rules governing Central Government
\nservants defines transfer in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
Rule 2(18): Transfer means the movement of a
\nGovernment servant from one headquarter station in
\nwhich he is employed to another such station, either<\/p>\n
(a) to take up the duties of a new post, or\n<\/p>\n
(b) in consequence of change of his headquarter.\n<\/p>\n
Though, definitions may differ and in many cases transfer is conceived in
\nwider terms as a movement to any other place or branch of the organization,
\ntransfer essentially is to a similar post in the same cadre as observed by this
\nCourt in B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka (AIR<\/a> 1987 SC 287). It is
\nnow well settled that a government servant is liable to be transferred to a
\nsimilar post in the same cadre which is a normal feature and incidence of
\ngovernment service and no government servant can claim to remain in a
\nparticular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment
\nitself is to a specified non-transferable post. No transfer is made to a post
\nhigher than what a Government servant is holding. In other words, it is
\ngenerally a lateral and not vertical movement within the employers
\norganization.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tStrong reliance has been placed in para 15 of  Sadanandams case
\n(supra)\t for contending that transfer also includes promotion.\tThe para reads
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
In the first place, we must point out that the Tribunal
\nhas failed to construe\tpara 5(2) of the Presidential Order
\nin its proper perspective and give full effect to the powers
\nconferred thereunder on the State Government to make
\nprovisions contrary to the scheme of local cadres
\nprescribed under para 5(1). The words of sub-para (2) of
\npara 5 viz. nothing in this order shall prevent the State
\nGovernment from making provision for sets out the
\noverriding powers given to the State Government under
\nthe sub-para. Such overriding  powers have been given to
\nthe State Government in express terms in recognition of
\nthe principle that public interest and administrative
\nexigencies have precedence over the promotional
\ninterests of the members belonging to local cadres and
\nzones. Since para 5(2) also forms a part of the
\nPresidential Order, it forms part of the scheme envisaged
\nfor creating local cadres and zones. The Tribunal was,
\ntherefore, in error in taking the view that if the State
\nGovernment was to exercise its powers under para 5(2)
\nand make provision for promotion of U.D. Assistants in
\nthe Directorate and Assistant Section Officers in the
\nSecretariat to be transferred to posts in zones I to IV, it
\nwill be the very negation of the creation of cadres and
\nzones under para 5(1) and it will be destructive of the
\nscheme underlying the Presidential Order. In fact the
\nTribunal has realized  the operative force of para 5(2) to
\nsome extent but it has failed to give full effect to its
\nrealization of the scope of Section 5(2). In para 12 of its
\njudgment in R.P.No. 1595 of 1983 the Tribunal  has
\nstated that since the amended rule refers to para 5(2) of
\nthe Presidential Order it will no longer be open to the
\npetitioners to attack the amendment as was done in
\nrespect of the earlier amendment in the previous R.P.
\nThe Tribunal has thus noticed that the amended rule has
\nbeen brought about by the government in exercise of its
\npowers under para 5(2) but it has failed to draw the
\nlogical inference following therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
It is to be noted that in the second case relied upon by the learned
\ncounsel for the appellants reference was made to Sadanandam case (supra)
\nand there was no independent analysis of the legal provisions.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tWe find that para 5(2) of the Presidential Order speaks of transfer and
\nnot of promotion.  It would be hazardous to accept the contention of the
\nappellants that promotion is included in the expression transfer and no
\nassistance can be availed from the distinction made in para 5(1) of the Order.
\nNo provisions or word in a statute has to be read  in isolation. In fact, the
\nstatute has to be read as a whole.  A statute is an edict of the legislature. It
\ncannot be said that without any purpose the distinction was made in para
\n5(1) between transfer and promotion and such distinction was not intended
\nto be operative in para 5(2).  The intention of the legislature is primarily to
\nbe gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be
\npaid as to what has been said as also to what has not been said.  See  Mohd.
\nAli Khan vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, New Delhi (AIR<\/a> 1997 SC 1165)
\nand Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. M\/s. Price Water House
\n(AIR<\/a> 1998 SC 74).   As a consequence a construction which requires for its
\nsupport addition or substitution of words or which resorts for rejection of
\nwords as meaningless has to be avoided.\t As stated by the Privy Council in
\nRobert Wigram Crawford vs. Richard Spooner (1846 (6) Moore PC 1) We
\ncannot aid the Legislatures defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or
\nmend and, by construction make deficiencies which are left there.  The
\naforesaid decision was referred to by this Court in State of Gujarat and Ors.
\nvs. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel & Anr. (JT<\/a> 1998 (2) SC 253).  It is contrary to
\nall rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely
\nnecessary to do so.  (See Stock vs. Frank Jones (Tiptan) Ltd. (1978 [1]
\nAll.ER 948 (HL).  Similarly, it is wrong and dangerous to proceed by
\nsubstituting some other words for words of the statute.\t (See Pinner Vs.
\nEverett (1969 [3] All.ER 257).\tIn other words, there should be no attempt to
\nsubstitute or paraphrase of general application.  Attention should be confined
\nto what is necessary for deciding a particular case. Much trouble is made by
\nsubstituting other phrases assumed to be equivalent, which then are reasoned
\nfrom as if they were in the Act.  In Union of India vs. Deoki Nandan
\nAggarwal  (AIR<\/a> 1992 SC 96), it was observed that the Court cannot refrain
\nthe legislature for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate.  It is
\nincumbent on the Court to avoid the construction if reasonably permissible
\non the language which would render a part of the statute devoid of any
\nmeaning or application. In the interpretation of statutes, the Courts always
\npresume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the
\nlegislative intention is that every part of the statute should have an effect.
\nWe, therefore, find no reasons to accept this stand of the appellant that
\nthe expression transfer takes within its scope a promotion.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tWe may note here that learned counsel for the State of Andhra
\nPradesh submitted  with reference to the counter affidavit filed in this Court
\nthat the impugned Rules were not intended to carve out a class of employees
\nin terms of para 5(2)for public interest. That being the position, we need
\nnot go into the question whether a consideration on a case to case basis is
\ncalled for in terms of para 5(2).\n<\/p>\n
13. 14. In Sadanandams case (supra), while considering the legality of
\namended provisions of the Rules framed by the State Government and in
\nsustaining the same, this Court was of the opinion that as the aforesaid rules
\nhad been framed under Section (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance 5 of
\n1983 read with paragraph 5(2)(a) of the Presidential Order, the conclusion of
\nthe Tribunal  in striking down the rule is erroneous. The Court was of the
\nopinion that  mode of recruitment and category\tfrom which the recruitment
\nto a service should be made are policy matters exclusively within the
\npurview and domain of the executive and it would not be appropriate for
\njudicial bodies to sit in judgment over the wisdom of the executive in
\nchoosing the mode of recruitment or the categories from which the
\nrecruitment should be made. In our considered opinion, both the aforesaid
\nreasons do not constitute a true interpretation of the provisions of the
\nPresidential Order. At the outset, it may be noticed that Article 371-D (10)
\nof the Constitution unequivocally indicates that the said Article and any
\norder made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding
\nanything in any other provision of the Constitution or in any other law for
\nthe time being in force. Necessarily, therefore, if it is construed and held that
\nthe Presidential Order prohibits consideration of the employees from the
\nfeeder category from other units then such a rule made by the Governor
\nunder the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution will have to be struck
\ndown. Then again in exercise of powers under paragraph 5(2) of the
\nPresidential Order if the State Government makes any provision, which is
\noutside the purview of the authority of the Government under para 5(2) of
\nthe Order itself, then said provision also has to be struck down. Having
\nconstrued the rules framed by the Governor under proviso to Article 309 of
\nthe Constitution from the aforesaid stand point, the conclusion is irresistible
\nthat the said rule to the extent indicated by the Tribunal is constitutionally
\ninvalid and its conclusion is unassailable. In the case in hand, the impugned
\nprovisions do not appear to have been framed in exercise of powers under
\nparagraph 5(2) of the Presidential Order and as such the same being a rule
\nmade under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Presidential Order
\nwould prevail, as provided under Article 371-D (10) of the Constitution.
\nEven if it is construed to be an order made under Paragraph 5(2) of the
\nPresidential Order, then also the same would be invalid being beyond the
\npermissible limits provided under said paragraph. In this view of the matter,
\nthe Tribunal rightly held the provision to the extent it provides for
\nconsideration of employees of the Factories and Boilers units to be invalid,
\nfor the purpose of promotion to the higher post in the Labour unit and as
\nsuch we see no justification for our interference with the said conclusion of
\nthe Tribunal and the  earlier judgment of this Court  in Sadanandams  case
\n(supra) must be held to have not been correctly decided. As a consequence,
\nso would be the case with Satyanarayana Raos  case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
15.\tNotwithstanding our aforesaid conclusion, it would be in the interest
\nof the Administration  to have a channel of promotion  for every service, so
\nas to avoid stagnation\tat a particular level, subject however to the condition
\nthat the incumbents of a service are otherwise qualified to shoulder the
\nresponsibilities of the higher promotional post. The appropriate authority of
\nthe Government, therefore, should bear this in mind and consider the
\nfeasibility and desirability of continuing the supernumerary posts already
\ncreated in the Boilers and Factories  Department on a permanent basis, so
\nthat the employees from the lower echelon in the said Department have a
\npromotional channel or, to make suitable promotional avenue at least upto
\nsome level, so that there would not be any discontentment amongst the
\nemployees in the concerned Department.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appeals are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(G.B. PATTANAIK)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(RUMA PAL)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t.J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(ARIJIT PASAYAT)
\nNovember 7, 2001<\/p>\n
31<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001 Author: A Pasayat Bench: G.P. Pattanaik, Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 9643-9644 of 1995 PETITIONER: V. JAGANNADHA RAO & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF A.P. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/11\/2001 BENCH: G.P. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nV. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-19T12:45:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-19T12:45:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001\"},\"wordCount\":6625,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001\",\"name\":\"V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-19T12:45:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-19T12:45:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-19T12:45:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001"},"wordCount":6625,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001","name":"V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-19T12:45:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jagannadha-rao-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-ors-on-7-november-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7014","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}