# A. v. S. NARASIMHA RAO AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 115
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-03-28
- **Bench:** M. HlDAYATULLAH
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/a-v-s-narasimha-rao-and-others-v-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-another-4719
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

J. c. SHAH, v. RAMASWAMI,
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ:.J
Constitution of India, Art. 16(3 )-Requirement as to residence in a
part of a State-If valid.
Public Employment (Requirement. as to Residence) Act, 1957, s. 3App/icatio11 to Telengana Area-Validity.
Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence)
Rule, 1959, r. 3-Validity.
The Parliament enacted the Public Employment (Requirement as to
Residence) Act, 1957 in pursuance of cl. (3) of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India making special provisio!l for requirement as to residence in
l'ilblic employment. Section 3 of the Act gave the power to make rules
m respect of certain classes of employment in certain areas, and accordingly the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules were made prescribing the requirement,
as to
residence
prior to appointment to certain posts, within the Telengana area of the
State. The petitioners who were non-domicile persons appointed to the
posts reserved for the domiciles of Telengana under the rules, were by an
order relieved from their posts and employed in the other region of the
State. The petitioners, filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution
challenging the Act, the Rules and the order as ultra vires .the Constitntion. Quashing the order, this Court,
HELD : Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 in so far as it related to Telengana and Rule 3 of the
Rules under it were ultra vires the Constitution. [122 Al
Qause (3) of Art. 16 of the Constitution enables Parliament t<> make
a law in a special case prescribing any requirement as to residence within
a State or Union Territory prior to appointment, in the State or Union·
Territory. The provision speaks of a whole State as the venue tf.or residential qualification and it is impossible to think that the Constitue;it
Assembly was thinking of residence in Districts, Talukas, cities, towns or
villages. The fact that the clause is an exception and citme as an amendment must dictate that a narrow construction upon the exception should
be placed as indeed the debates in the Constituent Assembly also seem to
indicate. The words 'any law' and 'any requirement' cannot
be
given
wide and liberal construction. These words are controlled by the. words.
'residence within the State or Union Territory' which words mean what
they say neither more or less. [121 D-G]
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] l S.C.R.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 65 oi 1969.
A
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Lndia for enforcement of fundamental rig)lts.
S. V. Gupte, P. A. Choudhury and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri,
for the petitioners.
M. C. Setalvad,
P. Ramachandro Rao, Advocate-General,
8
Andhra Pradesh, A. Raghublr and }4, V. Rangam, for respondent No. 1.
M. C. Setalvad alld R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 2.
R. V. Pillai, H. S. Gurura/ Rao and Subodh Markandeya, for
reepondents Nos. 3 to 4S.
C
Sardar Ali Khan, P. N. Duda and J. B. Dadachanji, for respondent No. 46.
P.A. Choudhury, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and C. S. Sreenivasa
Rao, for the intcrveners.
D
-
The Judgment of the coun was delivered by
Hidayatullah, C.J. The petitioners are persons employed in
the ministerial services of the Andhra Pradesh Government. All
of them were working in various offices located in the cities of
Hyderabad and Secunderabad. On January 19, 1969, leaden. of
'all political parties in the Legislature of the Andhra Pradesh State
appeared to have met and reached the decision thatto ·implement
what arc called 'Telengana Safeguards', the following measures
should be taken :
M All non-domicile persons, who have been appointed either directly, by promotion or by transfer to posts
reserved under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959 for domiciles of Telengana region will be immediately relieved
from service. The posts so rendered vacant will be filled
by qualified candidates possessing domicile qualifications and i

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A. v. S. NARASIMHA RAO AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
March 28, 1969
[M. HlDAYATULLAH, C.J.,
J. c. SHAH, v. RAMASWAMI,
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ:.J
Constitution of India, Art. 16(3 )-Requirement as to residence in a
part of a State-If valid.
Public Employment (Requirement. as to Residence) Act, 1957, s. 3App/icatio11 to Telengana Area-Validity.
Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence)
Rule, 1959, r. 3-Validity.
The Parliament enacted the Public Employment (Requirement as to
Residence) Act, 1957 in pursuance of cl. (3) of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India making special provisio!l for requirement as to residence in
l'ilblic employment. Section 3 of the Act gave the power to make rules
m respect of certain classes of employment in certain areas, and accordingly the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules were made prescribing the requirement,
as to
residence
prior to appointment to certain posts, within the Telengana area of the
State. The petitioners who were non-domicile persons appointed to the
posts reserved for the domiciles of Telengana under the rules, were by an
order relieved from their posts and employed in the other region of the
State. The petitioners, filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution
challenging the Act, the Rules and the order as ultra vires .the Constitntion. Quashing the order, this Court,
HELD : Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 in so far as it related to Telengana and Rule 3 of the
Rules under it were ultra vires the Constitution. [122 Al
Qause (3) of Art. 16 of the Constitution enables Parliament t<> make
a law in a special case prescribing any requirement as to residence within
a State or Union Territory prior to appointment, in the State or Union·
Territory. The provision speaks of a whole State as the venue tf.or residential qualification and it is impossible to think that the Constitue;it
Assembly was thinking of residence in Districts, Talukas, cities, towns or
villages. The fact that the clause is an exception and citme as an amendment must dictate that a narrow construction upon the exception should
be placed as indeed the debates in the Constituent Assembly also seem to
indicate. The words 'any law' and 'any requirement' cannot
be
given
wide and liberal construction. These words are controlled by the. words.
'residence within the State or Union Territory' which words mean what
they say neither more or less. [121 D-G]
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] l S.C.R.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 65 oi 1969.
A
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Lndia for enforcement of fundamental rig)lts.
S. V. Gupte, P. A. Choudhury and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri,
for the petitioners.
M. C. Setalvad,
P. Ramachandro Rao, Advocate-General,
8
Andhra Pradesh, A. Raghublr and }4, V. Rangam, for respondent No. 1.
M. C. Setalvad alld R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 2.
R. V. Pillai, H. S. Gurura/ Rao and Subodh Markandeya, for
reepondents Nos. 3 to 4S.
C
Sardar Ali Khan, P. N. Duda and J. B. Dadachanji, for respondent No. 46.
P.A. Choudhury, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and C. S. Sreenivasa
Rao, for the intcrveners.
D
-
The Judgment of the coun was delivered by
Hidayatullah, C.J. The petitioners are persons employed in
the ministerial services of the Andhra Pradesh Government. All
of them were working in various offices located in the cities of
Hyderabad and Secunderabad. On January 19, 1969, leaden. of
'all political parties in the Legislature of the Andhra Pradesh State
appeared to have met and reached the decision thatto ·implement
what arc called 'Telengana Safeguards', the following measures
should be taken :
M All non-domicile persons, who have been appointed either directly, by promotion or by transfer to posts
reserved under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959 for domiciles of Telengana region will be immediately relieved
from service. The posts so rendered vacant will be filled
by qualified candidates possessing domicile qualifications and in cases where such candidates are not available the posts shall be left unfilled till qualified domicile
candidates become availabl~ Action on the above lines
will be taken immediately.
All non-domicile employees so relieved shall be provided employment in the Andhra region without break
in service and by creating supernumerary posts, if
necessary."
'
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
NARASIMHA RAO v. A. P. STAT!! (Hidayatul/ah, C.l.)
11 T
The Government of Andbra Pradesh then passed an order· '
(G.O.Ms. 36, G.A. (SR) Dept.) on January 21, 1969 relieving:
before February 28, 1969 all non-domicile persons appointed.
on or after November 1, 1956 to certain categories of posts r&--
served for domiciles of Telengana under the Andbra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959.
Names of such incumbents were to be shown in a proforma and
they were to be employed in the Andbra region without break in
service by creating supernumerary posts, if nece5sary.
Thesesupernumerary posts were to be treated as temporary addition to
the strength of the office concerned and were to be adjusted against
future vacancies in corresponding posts as they arose. The action
was based upon s. 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement asto Residence Act, 1957 ( 44 of 1957) which was an Act of Par-·
liament made in pursuance of cl. (3) of Art. 16 of the Constitution making special provision for requirement as to residence and'
brought into force on March 21, 1959. Section 3 of the Act
gave the power to make Rules in respect of certain classes off
employment in certain areas.
It provided :
"3. Power to make rules in respect of certain classes
of public employment in certain areas.-
( 1) The Central Government may, by notification
in the qmcial Gazette, make rules prescribing, in regard
to appointments to-
(a) any subordinate service or post under the State
Government of Andhra Pradesh, or
any requirement as to residence within the Telengana area or the said Union territory as the case may
be, prior to such appointment.
(2) In this section,-·
(a)
(b) "Telengana area" comprises all the territories
specified in sub-section ( 1) of section 3 of the States
/
Reorganisation Act, 1956."
Under s. 4, the Rules had to be laid before each House of
H
Parliament for a period of not less than 30' days and Parliament
could make sucli alterations as it liked. Under s. 5 the Rulea
had a life of 5 years but by snbsequent legislation' the period'
was extended to 10 years. It is said that the period
118
SUPRBMI! COURT REPORTS
[1970] I S CR.
is to be extended by another 5 years. The Rules were made on
March 21, 1959.
They are called the Andhra Pradesh Public
Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959. Rule 3
provides:
"3. Requirement as to residence Prior to Appointment:
A person shall not be eligible for appointment to
a post within the Telengana area under the State Government of Andhra Pradesh or to a post under a local
authority (other than a cantonment board) in the said
area unless--
(i) he has been continuously residing within the
said area for a period of not less than fifteen years immediately preceeding the prescribed date; and
(ii) he produces before the appointing authority
concerned, if so required by it, a certificate of eligibility granted under these rules;
Provided that in relation to posts in the Secretariat
Departments and the Offices of the Heads of Departments of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh situated in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, the
requirement as to resid~nce laid down in this rule shall
' apply to the filling of only the sccorid v~cy in every
unit of three vacancies which are to be filled by direct
recuriment;
Provided further that any period of temporary absence from Telengana area for the purpose of prosecuting
his studies or for undergoing medical treatment or any
period of such temporary absence not exceeding three
months for any other reason shall not be deemed to
constitute a break in the continuity of such residence,
but for purpose of calculating the said period of fifteen
years any such period of temporary absence shall be
excluded."
The petitioners were appointed between December 27, 1956
and July 4, 1968. They challenge the Act, the Rules and the
proposed action as ultra vires the Constitution.
Their case is that
Art. 16(3) under which the Act and the Rules purport to be
made has been misunderstood as conferring a power to make a
law prescribing requirement as to residence in a part of a State.
For this reason s. 3 of the Act is challanged as ultra vires the
Constitution.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
NARASIMHA RAO V. A. P. STATE (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
119
A
Article 16 on which the Act, the Rules and the present action
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
are all based, reads :
"16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public
employment.
(1) There shall be equality of opportunity -for. all
citizens in matters relating to employment or appomtment to any office under the State.
(2) No citizen shall, on ground only of religion,
race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any
of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in
respect of, any employment or office under the State.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament
from mak!ng any law prescribing, in regard to a class
or classes of employment or appointment to~ an office
under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement
as to residence within that State or Union territory prior
to such employment or appointment.
(4)
(5)
"
The question is one of construction of thiS artjcle, particularly of the first three clauses, to find out the ambit of the lawmaking power of Parliament. The first clause emphasises that
there shall be in India equality of opportunity for all citizens in
matters of employment or appointment to any office under the
State. The word 'State' here is to be understood in the extended
sense
given
to
it
by
the
definition
of that word
in Art. 12. The second clause then specifies a· proliibition against
discrimination only on the grounds of religion, race, sex, descent,
place of birth, residence or any of them.
The intention here is
to make every office or employment open and available to every
citizen, and inter alia to make offices or employment in one part
of India open to citizens in al~ other 'parts of India. t'fie- third
clause then makes an exception.
This clause was amended by
the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. For the original words of the clause 'under any State specified in the First
Schedule or any local or other authority within its territory any
requirement as to residence within· that State', the present words
from 'under the Government' to 'Union territory' have been substituted. Nothing turns upon the amendment whfoh seeks to apply
the exception in the clanse to Union territory and to remove
ambiguity in language.
120
SUPREME OOURT lBPOll.TS
(1970] 1 S.c.tl.
The clause thus enables Parliament to make a law in a special
A
case prescribing any requirement as to residence within a State
or Union territory prior te appointment, as a condition of cm·
ploymcnt in the State or Union territory. Under Art. 35(a) this
power is conferred upon Parliament but js denied to the Legisla·
tures of the States, notwithstanding anything in the Constiru·
tion, and under (b) any law in force immediately before the
B
commencement of the Constitution in respect to the matter shall
subject to the terms thereof and subject to such adaptations that
may be made under Art. 372 is to continue in force until altered or
repealed or amended by Parliament.
The legislative power to create residential qualification for c
employment is thus exclusively conferred on Parliament. ParJia.
ment can make any law which prescribes any requirement as to
residence within the State or Union territory prior to employment
or apJ><>inlment to an office in that State or Union territory. Two
questions arise here.
Firstly, whether Parliament, while pres·
cribing the requirement, may prescribe the requirement of resi·
dence in a particular part of the State and, secondly, whether Par·
D
liament can delegate this function by making a declaration and
leaving the details to be filled in by the rule making power of the
Central or State Governments.
Mr. S. V. Gupte, for the petitioners, points out that the
Constitution is speaking of State and Union territory.
It has ll
already made a declaration that no person shall be disqualified
for any office in the territory of India because of his residence in
any particular part of India. The exception, therefore, must be
viewed narrowly and not carried to excess by interpretation. The
article speaks of residence in a State and means only that. Il it
chose to speak of residence in parts of State such as DistriellJ, r
talauqas, cities, towns etc. more appropriate and specific language
could have been used such as 'any requirement as to residence
within that State or Union temtory or part of that State or Union
tmltory'.
Having used the word State, the unit State is only
meant and not any part thereof.
Refer~nce is made to the history
of the drafting of the Article a'nd the debates in the Constituent
G
Assembly which ~ar out this contention.
On the other hand, Mr. Setalvad bases his arguement on
two things. He contends that the power is given to J>ariiamcnt to
make any law and, therefore, Parliament is supreme and can mak&
any law on the subject as the article says. He v«y ingeniously
lhifts the emphasis to the words 'any requirement' and contends
dw the requirement may be allo as to residence in the State· or any
particular part ol mte.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
NARASIMHA RAO v. A. P. STATE (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.)
\21
The claim for supremacy of Parliament is misconceived. Parliament in this, as in other matters, is supreme only in so far as
the Constitution makes it. Where the Constitufion does not con•
cede supremacy, Parliament must act within its appointed functions and not transgress them.
What the. Constitntion says is a
matter for .construction of the language of the Constitution. Which
is the proper construction of the two suggested ? By the first
clause equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to
an office is guaranteed. By the second clause, there can be no
discrimination, among other things, pn the ground of residence.
Realising, however, that sometimes local sentiments may have
to be respected or sometimes an inroad from more advance States into Jess developed States may have to be prevented, and a
residential qualification may, therefore, have to be prescribed, the
exception in clause (3) was made. Even so, that clause spoke of
residence within the State. The claim of Mr. Setalvad that Parliament can make a provision regarding residence in any particular part of a State would render the general prohibition lose all
its meaning.
The words 'any requirement' cannot be read to
warrant something which could have been said more specifically.
These words bear upon the kind of residence or its duration rather
than its location within the State. We accept the argument of
Mr. Gupte that the Co:istitution, as it stands, speaks of a whole
State as the v.~nue for residential qualification and it is impossible
to think that the Constituent Assembly was thinking of residence
in Districts, Taluqas, cities,
towns or villages.
The fact that
this clause is an exception and came as an amendment must dictate that a narrow construction upon the exception should be
placed as indeed the debates in the Constituent Assembly also
seem to indicate.
We accordingly reject the contention of Mr.
Setalvad seeking to put a very wide and liberal construction upon
the words 'any law' and 'any requirement'. These words are obviously controlled by the words 'residence within the State or
Union territory' which words mean what they say, neither more
nor less. It follows, therefore, . that s. 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, in so' far as it
relates to Telengana (and we say nothing about the other parts)
and Ru!~ 3 of the Rules under it are ultra vires the Constitution.
In view of our conclusion on this point it is not necessary to
express any opinion whether delegation to the Central and/ or
State Governments to provide by rules for the further implementing of the law made by Parliament is valid or not.
It was argued that the Mulki Rules existing in the former
Hyderabad State must continue to operate by virtue of Art. 35(b) in
this area. This point is not raised by the petitions under consideration and no expression of opinion by us is desirable.
L12 Sup CI/69--9
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970]1 SCR.
For the reasons given above we quash the orders passed and
declare s. 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 as alo;o Rule 3 of the Rules
11/tra vi res the
Co".stitution. Tile petitions shall be allowed but there shall be no
order about co~ts.
yp_
Petitions alloweJ.
P