{"id":80757,"date":"2001-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001"},"modified":"2019-02-01T02:13:30","modified_gmt":"2019-01-31T20:43:30","slug":"govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001","title":{"rendered":"Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n
Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, Ruma Pal<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 1651-1652  of  1997\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nGOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOHD. GHOUSE MOHINUDDIN & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/08\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. Pattanaik & Ruma Pal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
With Civil Appeal No. 1653\/1997.\n<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
PATTANAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals are directed against the order of the
\nAndhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.\t By the impugned
\norder, the Tribunal directs the re-determination of inter se
\nseniority zone-wise basis in different cadres for promotion to
\nthe higher posts.   The tribunal deals with three different
\ndepartments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh,
\nCommercial Tax Department,  Revenue Department and
\nPolice Department.\n<\/p>\n
After insertion of Article 371-D of the Constitution, by
\nthe Constitution (32nd Amendment) Act, 1973,  the President
\nof India, issued Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
\n(Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct
\nRecruitment) Order, 1975 [hereinafter referred to as the
\nPresidential Order].  The aforesaid Presidential Order was
\nintended for providing equitable opportunities and facilities
\nfor the people belonging to different parts of the State of
\nAndhra Pradesh, in the matter of public employment and in
\nthe matter of education. The object of the aforesaid Article
\nwas to promote accelerated development of the backward
\nareas of the State of Andhra Pradesh, so as to secure the
\nbalanced development of the State as  a whole and to provide
\nequitable opportunities to different areas of the State in the
\nmatter of education, employment and career prospects in
\npublic service.\t The expression Public employment in
\nArticle 371-D has been interpreted by this Court in the case
\nof  Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.  vs. A.
\nSuryanarayanarao and Ors.,<\/a> 1991 Supp.(2) S.C.C. 367, to
\nmean both direct recruitment as well as promotion.
\nParagraph 3 of the Presidential Order casts an obligation on
\nthe State Government to organise classes of posts in the Civil
\nServices and the classes of Civil posts under the State, into
\ndifferent local cadres for different parts of the State to the
\nextent and in the manner provided in the Presidential Order,
\nwithin a period of 18 months from the commencement of the
\nPresidential Order.   Proviso to the aforesaid paragraph
\nenables the President to require the State Government, at any
\ntime, even after the expiry of the period of 18 months,
\nwhenever the President considers it expedient so to do,\t  to
\norganise any classes of posts in the Civil Services of, and
\nclasses of civil posts\tunder the State into different local
\ncadres for different parts of the State.  The aforesaid enabling
\nprovision for organisation of different local cadres is
\nobviously intended to achieve the main objective of Article
\n371-D, namely to provide equitable opportunities to different
\nareas of the State, in the matter of education,\t employment
\nand career prospects in public services as well as to promote
\naccelerated development of the backward areas of the State
\nof Andhra Pradesh, so as to secure the balanced development
\nof the State as a whole.    Sub-para (3) of Paragraph 3 of the
\nPresidential Order reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tPara 3(3). The posts belonging to each non-
\ngazetted category, other than those referred to in
\nsub-paragraph (2), in each department in each
\nzone shall be organised into a separate cadre.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-para (7) of Paragraph 3 reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
Para 3(7)  In organising a separate cadre in
\nrespect of any category of posts in any department
\nfor any part of the State, nothing in this order shall
\nbe deemed to prevent the State Government from
\norganising or continuing more than one cadre in
\nrespect of such category in such department for
\nsuch part of the State.\n<\/p>\n
Paragraph 6 of the Presidential Order deals with the local
\nareas, which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
Para 6. Local Areas: -(1) Each district shall
\nbe regarded as a local area-\n<\/p>\n
(i)for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre
\nunder the State Government comprising all or any
\nof the posts in any department in that district
\nbelonging to the category of a Junior Assistant or
\nto any other category equivalent to or lower than
\nthat of a Junior Assistant;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre
\nunder any local authority within that district,
\ncarrying a scale of pay the minimum of which
\ndoes not exceed the minimum of the scale of pay
\nof Junior Assistant or a fixed pay not exceeding
\nthat amount.\n<\/p>\n
(2)Each zone shall be regarded as a local area-\n<\/p>\n
(i)for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre
\nunder the State Government comprising all or any
\nof the posts in any department in that zone
\nbelonging to any non-gazetted category other than
\nthose referred to in sub-paragraph (1);\n<\/p>\n
(ii)for direct recruitment to posts in any local
\ncadre comprising all or any of the posts in any
\ndepartment in that zone belonging to the
\ncategories of Tahsildars and Junior Engineers;
\nAssistant Agricultural Officers, Inspectors of
\nPolice and Motor Vehicles Inspectors. [G.O.Ms.
\nNo.498, G.A.D.(SPF), Dt. 16.7.1977]<\/p>\n
(iii)for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre
\nunder any local authority within that zone,
\ncarrying a scale of pay, the minimum of which
\nexceeds the minimum of the scale of pay of a
\nJunior Assistant but does not exceed Rs.480 per
\nmensem; or a fixed pay which exceeds the
\nminimum of the scale of pay of a Junior Assistant
\nbut does not exceed Rs.480 per mensem;\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that where a single cadre has been
\norganised for two or more zones under sub-\n<\/p>\n
paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 of posts belonging to
\nany of the categories referred to in clause (i) or
\nclause (ii) each of such zones shall be regarded as
\na separate local area in respect of such cadre.
\n(3).Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
\nparagraph (1) and (2):–\n<\/p>\n
(i)the City of Hyderabad shall be regarded as a
\nlocal area for direct recruitment to posts in any
\nlocal cadre under the State Government
\ncomprising all or any of the posts in the said City
\nin the departments and belonging to the categories
\nnotified under sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 3,
\nand said City shall be excluded from the local area
\nrelatable to any other local cadre comprising posts
\nin the departments and belonging to the categories
\nso notified; and<\/p>\n
(4).Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
\nparagraphs (1), (2) and (3):-\n<\/p>\n
(i)the districts of Medak, Rangareddy and
\nHyderabad shall be regarded as a local area for
\ndirect recruitment to posts in any cadre under the
\nHyderabad Urban Development Authority
\nComprising posts, carrying a scale of pay, the
\nminimum of which does not exceed the minimum
\nof the scale of pay of a Junior Assistant or a fixed
\npay not exceeding that amount;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Zone VI shall be regarded as a local area for
\ndirect recruitment to posts in any cadre under the
\nHyderabad Urban Development Authority
\ncomprising posts, carrying a scale of pay, the
\nminimum of which exceeds the scale of pay of
\nJunior Assistant but does not exceed Rs.480 per
\nmensem or a fixed pay which excess the
\nminimum of the scale of the pay of Junior
\nAssistant but does not exceed Rs.480 per mensem.
\n[Sub-para (4) is added by G.O.Ms. No. 498,
\nG.A.D., (SPF-A) Dept., Dt. 16.7.1977].\n<\/p>\n
(iii)the city of Hyderabad shall be regarded as a
\nlocal area for direct recruitment to posts in any
\ncadre under a local authority within the said city
\ncomprising posts  carrying a scale of pay, the
\nminimum of which does not exceed Rs.480 per
\nmensem or a fixed pay not exceeding that amount,
\nand the said City shall be excluded from the local
\narea relatable to any cadre under any local
\nauthority not within the said City.\n<\/p>\n
In exercise of powers conferred upon the State Government
\nunder paragraph 3(1) of the Presidential Order, the State of
\nAndhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 581, organising the
\nCommercial Tax Department by constituting different local
\ncadres.\t The aforesaid Government Order, providing scheme
\nfor organisation of local cadre in Commercial Tax
\nDepartment, was issued on 24th of May, 1976, and Appendix
\nto the aforesaid scheme, indicates that while posts of Deputy
\nCommissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Commercial
\nTax Officers, continue to be state level posts and as such,
\nthere was no necessity to organise any local cadre, but the
\nposts of Deputy Commercial Tax Officers were organised
\ninto six zonal cadres and the cadre strength of different zones
\nwas also indicated in the aforesaid schedule.  So far as the
\nNon-Gazetted posts are\tconcerned, they were organised into
\nnine different smaller units by the State Government,  for the
\npurpose of recruitment and promotion.  Necessarily,
\ntherefore, by way of an\t annexure, the revised jurisdiction of
\nthe Deputy Commissioners Division, after reorganisation,
\nwas indicated, indicating nine different smaller units, and
\nthese smaller units,  became the area for the purpose of
\nrecruitment and promotion and seniority as well.
\nCorresponding to G.O.Ms. No. 581 issued for the
\nCommercial Tax Department, G.O.Ms.No. 497 dated 30th of
\nApril, 1976 deals with Revenue Department and under the
\naforesaid G.O.Ms, while paragraph 5 deals with gazetted
\nposts of Tahsildars, which are required to be organised into
\nzonal cadres and in fact six zonal cadres had been organised,
\nbut so far as non-gazetted posts are concerned, the same was
\norganised into district-wise basis as the unit and  nine such
\nunits were organised, in respect of the posts of Deputy
\nTahsildars, Head Clerks, Upper Division Clerks, Lower
\nDivision Clerks, Typists, Shroffs,  Jeep Drivers, Record
\nAssistants and Last Grade Servants.    In an identical manner,
\nreorganisation of posts\t in the local cadre in Police
\nDepartment was issued under G.O.Ms. No. 795 dated 30th
\nJune, 1976.  It is undisputed that in this batch of appeals, we
\nare concerned with the question of seniority as well as
\npromotion in respect of such non-gazetted posts in the
\nCommercial Tax Department,  in the Revenue Department
\nand Police Department.\tThese smaller units, organised by
\nthe State Government in discharge of its obligation under
\nparagraph 3 of the Presidential Order, remained operative and
\nthe appointment, promotion and seniority continued to be
\ndealt with the smaller units as the cadre,  until the impugned
\njudgment of the tribunal.  It may be necessary at this stage to
\nmention that in the Commercial Tax Department, subsequent
\nto the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 581, the Government of
\nAndhra Pradesh had issued two further G.O.Ms. being
\nG.O.Ms Nos. 1648 and 1900.  The validity of the aforesaid
\ntwo G.O.Ms. was the subject matter of consideration in the
\ncase of S. Prakasha Rao and anr. vs. Commissioner of
\nCommercial Taxes and Ors., 1990(2) S.C.C. 259.\tA Three
\nJudge Bench of this Court, analysed  different paragraphs of
\nthe Presidential Order\tas well as the Order issued by the
\nState Government, organising different classes of posts into
\nthe local cadres, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the
\nPresidential Order and ultimately, came to the conclusion that
\nafter expiry of 18 months from the date of the issuance of the
\nPresidential Order, there is no power with the State
\nGovernment for creation of any further local cadre and,
\ntherefore, the seniority has to be prepared pursuant to the
\ninitial organisation, and the question of seniority and
\npromotion has to be determined, within the local cadre,
\ncreated by the State Government in issuing the order of
\norganisation, as required under paragraph 3 of the
\nPresidential Order.\t      In S.Prakasha Raos case, this
\nCourt came to the conclusion that the post of Junior Assistant
\nis the District Cadre post and the posts of Senior Assistants
\nand Assistant Commercial Tax Officers are the zonal posts.
\nThe Court also further came to the conclusion that under
\nparagraph 3(1) of the Presidential Order, the State
\nGovernment, through issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 581 had
\norganised the Commercial Taxes Department by constituting
\ndifferent local cadres and having done so, the State ceases to
\nhave any power to bifurcate or reorganise a zone within a
\nzone, cadre or cadres therein and, therefore, any such
\nsubsequent reorganisation could be only for administrative
\nnecessity and not for the purpose of recruitment, seniority
\nand promotion etc.   The Court held that for the purpose of
\nrecruitment, seniority, promotion, discharge etc., the local
\ncadre once organised under paragraph 3(1) shall be final and
\ncontinue to be operative until action is taken under proviso to
\nsub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 3 of the Presidential Order.
\nWith these conclusions, the action of the State Government,
\nin issuing subsequent G.O.Ms. was held to be invalid.\n<\/p>\n
A batch of cases relating to the Commercial Tax
\ndepartment, Revenue Department and Police Department
\nwere heard together by the Administrative Tribunal  and were
\ndisposed of by the common judgment which is the subject
\nmatter of challenge in these appeals.  The tribunal in the
\nimpugned order came to the conclusion that validity of
\nG.O.Ms. No. 581, dealing with Sales tax department did not
\nfall for consideration in the earlier round of litigation in
\nPrakash Raos case.  It further held that Division is a unit for
\nthe purpose of administration and zone is a unit for the
\npurpose of organisation of cadres for direct  recruitment,
\nappointment, seniority, promotion and transfer under the
\nPresidential Order.  It\t also held that organisation of various
\nlocal cadres under the notification issued by the State
\nGovernment, does not satisfy the requirement of the
\nPresidential Order as provided in para 3 and such separate
\ncadres in smaller units affect the conditions of service
\nmentioned in para 5(1).\t The tribunal held that Para 3(7) of
\nthe Presidential Order,\t only enables the State Government to
\nhave separate cadre for administrative convenience and\tthat
\nthe principle on which Supreme Court struck down the
\nsubsequent G.O.Ms. in Prakash Raos case,   would equally
\napply to G.O.Ms. No. 581.  Interpreting Para 3(7), the
\ntribunal  held that the State Government cannot organise
\ncadre in any other part of the state for the purpose of public
\nemployment.   On an analysis of the G.O.Ms. No. 497, issued
\nin respect of the posts in the Revenue Department, the
\ntribunal held that the units of appointment for the above
\ncategories  of posts in the Revenue Department, conform to
\nthe provision in the Presidential Order and hence no
\nparticular action is called for in respect of  the posts in the
\nRevenue Department.  The tribunal found that the Sales Tax
\nDepartment, the Revenue Department and the Police
\nDepartment have acted without reference to the Presidential
\nOrder.\tInterpreting the expression such part of the State, it
\nheld  that the State Government cannot organise cadres in
\nany other part of the State for the purpose of public
\nemployment, mentioned in para 5(1).  The tribunal ultimately
\nheld that recruitment to different posts,  has to be made as per
\nthe units created under the Presidential Order and not in
\naccordance with the reorganisation made by the State
\nGovernment in exercise of powers conferred under para 3 of
\nthe Presidential Order.\t With these conclusions, the specific
\nG.O.Ms in the three departments having been annulled  and
\nfurther directions having been issued, these appeals have
\nbeen preferred.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. L. Nageswara Rao, appearing for the appellant in
\nCivil Appeal No. 1653\/1997 and Mr. G. Prabhakar,
\nappearing for the appellant-State of Andhra Pradesh in the
\nother appeals, contended that the reorganised units having
\nbeen created by the State Government, in exercise of power
\nunder paragraph 3(1) of the Presidential Order, since 1976
\nand having remained operative for more than 15 years, the
\ntribunal was not justified in entertaining applications in the
\nyears 1992 and 1993 and then interfering with the said
\norganisational scheme and directing reconsideration of the
\nseniority and  consequential promotional  avenues,  which
\nwould unsettle the settled position and would create chaos in
\nadministration.\t  It was further contended that in Prakash
\nRaos case, this Court has examined a relevant G.O.Ms,
\nissued by the State Government in exercise of powers under
\nParagraph 3(1) and has held that the units, created by the
\nState Government under the scheme of organisation, would
\nbe the unit, for the purpose of recruitment, promotion,
\ndischarge etc., the tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere
\nwith that conclusion and on an erroneous analysis of the
\nprovisions, the tribunal has interfered with the same and as
\nsuch, the impugned order of the tribunal cannot be sustained.
\nThe counsel also urged that paragraph 3(1) of the Presidential
\nOrder, enables the State Government to organise classes of
\nposts in the civil services, into different local cadres for
\ndifferent parts of the State and paragraph 3(7) of the
\nPresidential Order makes it explicitly clear that nothing in the
\nPresidential Order would prevent the State Government  from
\norganising separate cadre in respect of any category of posts
\nin any department for any part of the State.  A combined
\nreading of paragraphs 3(1) and\t 3(7), therefore makes it clear
\nthat within 18 months from the commencement of the
\nPresidential Order,  the State Government could organise
\nclasses of posts in the civil services of the State into different
\nlocal cadres for the purpose of achieving the main objective
\nof the Presidential Order, and such organised local cadre,
\nwould be the area of operation for considering the question of
\nrecruitment, promotion etc.  This being the position, the
\ntribunal committed error by holding that paragraph 3(3) of
\nthe Presidential Order would have an over-riding effect.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. P.S. Narasimha,  appearing for the respondents in
\nthe appeal relating to Revenue Department, on the other hand
\ncontended that the Presidential Order, more particularly,
\nparagraph 3(3) of the same, indicates the zone and zone
\nshould be the area of consideration and the State Government
\ncannot be held to have any jurisdiction to constitute any
\nsmaller units for the purpose of recruitment, promotion etc.,
\nwhich would contravene the Presidential Order and,
\ntherefore, the tribunal was justified in issuing the impugned
\ndirection.  So far as the delay in approaching the tribunal is
\nconcerned, Mr. Narasimha contends,  that if the
\nreorganisation of the cadre by the State Government is
\ncontrary to the Presidential Order and consequently,  invalid
\nand inoperative, the mere delay in approaching the tribunal,
\nwould not take away the rights of the employees and,
\ntherefore, the tribunal was justified in interfering with the
\nG.O.Ms. issued by the State Government under paragraph
\n3(1) of the Presidential Order.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have considered the rival submissions and we find
\nconsiderable force in the submission of Mr. Nageswara Rao
\nand Mr. Prabhakar, appearing for the appellants, both on the
\nquestion of delay as well as on the interpretation of the
\nPresidential Order as well as the order issued by the State
\nGovernment,  in exercise of powers under paragraph 3(1) of
\nthe Presidential Order.\t From the impugned order of the
\ntribunal  as well as the materials on record, it is crystal clear
\nthat the notifications issued by the State Government in the
\nyear 1976, organising smaller units of cadre in respect of
\nnon-gazetted posts, remained operative till the tribunal was
\napproached in 1992-93.\tThe recruitment, promotion and
\nother service conditions of these employees, in respect of
\nposts enumerated in the order of the State Government was
\nmade within the organised cadre, issued by the State
\nGovernment, which was essentially meant for equitable
\nopportunities and facilities  in the matter of public
\nemployment.\tIt is a cardinal principle in Service
\nJurisprudence, that a particular method\t or procedure adopted
\nfor a long time, need not be ordinarily interfered with,  unless
\nsuch method is repugnant to any constitutional provision or is
\ncontrary to any statutory rule.\t That apart, under the
\nAdministrative Tribunal Act, a period of limitation is
\nprovided for, in Section 21.  In this view of the matter, when
\nthe units formed the cadre, pursuant to notifications issued by
\nthe State Government, in the year 1976, in respect of non-
\ngazetted posts and on that basis, appointment to and
\npromotion within the cadre was being considered, in respect
\nof non-gazetted posts, applications filed before the tribunal in
\n1992-93, after expiry of more than 15 years, could not have
\nbeen entertained and the settled position could not have been
\nunsettled, as has been done by the tribunal in its final order.
\nOn this ground alone, the impugned order cannot be
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
\tLet us now examine the provisions of the Presidential
\nOrder as well as the notifications issued by the State
\nGovernment in exercise of powers conferred upon it under
\nthe Presidential Order, to find out whether by such
\nnotifications, there has been any infraction of the
\nconstitutional provision or the provision contained in the
\nPresidential Order itself.\t When one speaks of public
\nemployment, immediately Article 16 comes into focus.
\nClauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 guarantee equality of
\nopportunity  to all citizens, in the matter of appointment to
\nany office or any employment under the State.  Clauses (3)
\nto (5) lay down exception to the above rule and Clause (4)
\npermits reservation for backward classes of citizens, who are
\nnot in the opinion of the State, adequately represented in the
\nservices of the State.\tIn view of the mandate of Article 16,
\nbut for the Presidential Order issued under Article 371-D, it
\nwould not have been possible to consider the question of
\nemployment within the narrower units of cadre, created by
\nthe State Government, in exercise of powers conferred upon
\nit under paragraph 3(1) of the Presidential Order.  Article
\n371D, however was inserted in the Constitution by  the
\nConstitution (32nd Amendment) Act, 1973,   authorising the
\nPresident to pass special order in respect of the State of
\nAndhra Pradesh.\t The history behind insertion of the
\naforesaid Article has been elaborately dealt with in the
\nimpugned order of the tribunal.\t Suffice it to say  that,  as
\nthere was lot of disparity in the matter of opportunities,
\navailable in public employment between the inhabitants of
\nTelengana region and   the Andhra region,  there was a
\npolitical turmoil and ultimately, the political will culminated
\nin a six point formula and it is in implementation of the
\naforesaid formula,  Article 371-D was inserted, conferring
\npower on the President of India\t to pass appropriate order for
\nequitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging
\nto different parts of the State, in the matter of public
\nemployment.    Clause (2) of Article 371D enables the
\nPresident of India,  to provide in the order, requiring the State
\nGovernment to organise any class or classes of posts in a
\ncivil service of the State, into different local cadres for
\ndifferent parts of the State and allot, in accordance with such
\nprinciples and procedure, as may be specified in the order,
\nthe persons holding such posts to the local cadre, so
\norganised.  The State Government, which is supposed to be
\naware of the representation of the people from different areas
\nof the State in any class or classes of civil posts, has thus
\nbeen conferred with power to organise smaller units, as cadre
\nfor the purpose of recruitment, promotion and other
\nconditions of service in public employment, so that people
\nfrom different parts can share responsibility, which in turn
\nwould ensure all round development of the State.   The
\nPresidential Order, that has been issued in exercise of powers
\nunder Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371-D, unequivocally
\nauthorises the State Government in paragraph 3 of the Order
\nfor organisation of local cadres for different parts of the
\nState.\tSub-para (7) of Paragraph 3,  itself stipulates that in
\nthe matter of organising a separate cadre in respect of any
\ncategory of posts, in any department for any part of the State,
\nnothing stated in the Presidential Order can be deemed to
\nprevent the State Government from such act.\n<\/p>\n
\tA combined reading of sub-para (1) of Paragraph 3 and
\nsub-para (7) of Paragraph 3, unequivocally indicates that any
\norder issued by the State Government in the matter of
\norganising a separate cadre, in respect of any category of
\nposts, will have an over-riding effect and no part of the
\nPresidential Order, including sub-para(3) of Paragraph 3, on
\nwhich Mr. Narasimha, strongly relied upon be a fetter on the
\nsaid power of the State Government.  Such power has been
\ndesignedly conferred upon the State Government to achieve
\nthe main objective for which Article 371-D was engrafted,
\nviz. to provide equitable opportunities to different areas of
\nthe State, in the matter of employment and career prospects
\nin public services, and for achieving the aforesaid objective,
\nundoubtedly,  the State Government  would be in possession
\nof all datas and materials, enabling it to organise different
\nlocal cadres.  We have no hesitation to come to the
\nconclusion that paragraph 3(1) read with para 3(7) is not
\nsubject to Paragraph 3(3), as was held by the tribunal and as
\nwas contended by Mr. Narasimha.\t On the other hand,
\nparagraph 3(7) of the Presidential Order, would have an over-
\nriding effect over paragraph 3(3)  and,\t therefore, any order
\nissued by the State Government under Paragraph 3(1),
\nconstituting different local cadres for different parts of the
\nState would be the area of operation for the purpose of
\nrecruitment, promotion and other service conditions, so far as
\nthe non-gazetted posts are concerned.\tIn the aforesaid
\npremises, we are of the considered opinion that the tribunal
\ncommitted serious error in interpreting different provisions of
\nthe Presidential Order and the notifications of the State
\nGovernment,  issued in exercise of powers conferred upon it
\nunder paragraph 3(1) of the Presidential Order, and
\naccordingly, the said order  of the tribunal is set aside.  The
\nconclusions of the tribunal,  on interpreting the provisions of
\nthe Presidential Order,\t on the face of it,  are erroneous and
\ncannot be sustained.  We are unable to sustain the conclusion
\nthat the very principle on which Supreme Court struck down
\nthe subsequent notifications, purported to have been issued in
\nexercise of powers under paragraph 3(7)\t of the Order, would
\napply to the initial notification issued for organising various
\nlocal cadres.  We also fail to understand,  how by organising
\nlocal cadres under notifications issued by the State
\nGovernment, any requirement of the  Presidential Order has
\nbeen contravened.    The further conclusion of the tribunal
\nthat paragraph 3(7) only enables the State Government to
\nhave separate cadres for administrative convenience,  is
\nbased upon a misreading of the said provision and would be
\nrepugnant to the purpose for which the Presidential Order
\nwas issued in exercise of powers under Article 371-D,  and
\nthe State Government was conferred power for organising
\nsmaller cadres in different parts of the State to achieve
\nuniform development and to offer equal opportunities in the
\nmatter of employment.\tWe, therefore, unhesitatingly, set
\naside the conclusions arrived at,  by the tribunal in the
\nimpugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
  These appeals are allowed.  The applications filed
\nbefore the tribunal,  stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    ……………….J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t     (G.B.  PATTANAIK)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    ………………J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t   (RUMA PAL)<\/p>\n
August\t27, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 2001 Author: Pattanaik Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, Ruma Pal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1651-1652 of 1997 PETITIONER: GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: MOHD. GHOUSE MOHINUDDIN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/08\/2001 BENCH: G.B. Pattanaik […]<\/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-80757","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGovt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 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\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-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=\"2001-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-31T20:43:30+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T20:43:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001\"},\"wordCount\":4327,\"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\\\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001\",\"name\":\"Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T20:43:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 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":"Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 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\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-31T20:43:30+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 2001","datePublished":"2001-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T20:43:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001"},"wordCount":4327,"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\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001","name":"Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T20:43:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-vs-mohd-ghouse-mohinuddin-ors-on-27-august-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Mohd. Ghouse Mohinuddin & Ors on 27 August, 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\/80757","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=80757"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80757\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}