# THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR v. B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2022] 18 S.C.R. 351
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-09-14
- **Bench:** Indira Banerjee, V. Ramasubramanian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-telangana-anr-v-b-subba-rayudu-and-others-35830
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Service Law - Bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh -
Allocation of the respondent no.1 to the State of Telengana - By an
order dated 14.01.2016, the concerned Ministry, Government of
India allotted the respondent to the State of Andhra Pradesh - High
Court set aside the said order dated 14.01.2016 to allocate the
respondent to the State of Telangana with effect from 14.01.2016 -
On appeal, held: Admittedly, at the time of bifurcation of the State
of Andhra Pradesh, the respondent no.1 was posted in an area
which falls with Telangana - Respondent no.1 was required to
exercise an option, which he admittedly did and opted State of
Telangana - As per guidelines, allocable employees were to be
considered on the basis of seniority as on 01.06.2014 - Respondent
No.1 was senior most of the employees who opted for Telangana -
Spouse of respondent no.1 was also a local of Telangana - On a
possible interpretation of the Guidelines read with the Andhra
Pradesh Public Employment Order 1975 and, in particular,
paragraph 4 thereof, the High Court found that the Respondent
No.1 was local candidate of the State of Telangana - Admittedly,
respondent no.1 is a citizen of this country - As a citizen of India,
the respondent has a fundamental right u/Art. 19(1)(e) to reside
and settle in any part of the territory of India - The Andhra Pradesh
State Reorganisation Act, 2014 or any other guidelines framed
thereunder, including the guidelines circulated on 30.10.2014
cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any
part of the country - When a State is divided and the employees
and officers of the State Government have to be allotted to the two
states, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules and
Regulations and by guidelines - However, such rules, regulations
and guidelines have to be construed harmoniously with the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India -
On a liberal interpretation of the guidelines dated 30.10.2014 in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
the light of the philosophy of the Indian Constitution read with
Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order, 1975, which was in force
at the time of bifurcation is applicable to the respondent, the High
Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was a
local candidate of Telangana and was entitled to allocation as per
his seniority in terms of Paragraph 18(f) of the guidelines - Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 - Andhra Pradesh Public
Employment Order, 1975 - Constitution of India - Art. 19(1)(e).
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The Respondent No.1 was however, allocated to
the State of Andhra Pradesh, ignoring his option for the State of
Telangana and in violation of the Guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms
No. 312 dated 30th October 2014. The allocation was also in
contravention of the requirement of Clause (f) of Paragraph 18
directing that allocation shall be done in order of seniority as
available. On behalf of the Respondent No.1, it was rightly
contended that the spouse of the Respondent No.1 who had been
born and educated in the State of Telangana had to be treated as
a local candidate of the State of Telangana. As a spouse, the
Respondent No.1 ought to have been allocated to the State of
Telangana. [Paras 49-50][371-B, D-E]
2. Admittedly, at the time of bifurcation of the State of
Andhra Pradesh, the Petitioner was posted in an area which falls
with Telangana. The Petitioner was required to exercise an option,
which he admittedly did. It is not in dispute that 9 posts out of
total 23 posts were allocated to the State of Telangana and 14 to
the State of Andhra Pradesh. As per guidelines, allocable
employees were to be considered on the basis of seniority as on
1st June 2014. [Para 56][377-C]
3. As found by the High Court, the Petitioner's position
was 4th inseniority in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh as
on 1st June 2014. The 3 people, senior to him, were a

## Text

_Characters 0–39,381 of 62,890. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39381 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
351
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 351
351
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.
v.
B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS
(Special Leave Peittion (C) Nos. 1565-66 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Service Law - Bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh -
Allocation of the respondent no.1 to the State of Telengana - By an
order dated 14.01.2016, the concerned Ministry, Government of
India allotted the respondent to the State of Andhra Pradesh - High
Court set aside the said order dated 14.01.2016 to allocate the
respondent to the State of Telangana with effect from 14.01.2016 -
On appeal, held: Admittedly, at the time of bifurcation of the State
of Andhra Pradesh, the respondent no.1 was posted in an area
which falls with Telangana - Respondent no.1 was required to
exercise an option, which he admittedly did and opted State of
Telangana - As per guidelines, allocable employees were to be
considered on the basis of seniority as on 01.06.2014 - Respondent
No.1 was senior most of the employees who opted for Telangana -
Spouse of respondent no.1 was also a local of Telangana - On a
possible interpretation of the Guidelines read with the Andhra
Pradesh Public Employment Order 1975 and, in particular,
paragraph 4 thereof, the High Court found that the Respondent
No.1 was local candidate of the State of Telangana - Admittedly,
respondent no.1 is a citizen of this country - As a citizen of India,
the respondent has a fundamental right u/Art. 19(1)(e) to reside
and settle in any part of the territory of India - The Andhra Pradesh
State Reorganisation Act, 2014 or any other guidelines framed
thereunder, including the guidelines circulated on 30.10.2014
cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any
part of the country - When a State is divided and the employees
and officers of the State Government have to be allotted to the two
states, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules and
Regulations and by guidelines - However, such rules, regulations
and guidelines have to be construed harmoniously with the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India -
On a liberal interpretation of the guidelines dated 30.10.2014 in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
the light of the philosophy of the Indian Constitution read with
Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order, 1975, which was in force
at the time of bifurcation is applicable to the respondent, the High
Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was a
local candidate of Telangana and was entitled to allocation as per
his seniority in terms of Paragraph 18(f) of the guidelines - Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 - Andhra Pradesh Public
Employment Order, 1975 - Constitution of India - Art. 19(1)(e).
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The Respondent No.1 was however, allocated to
the State of Andhra Pradesh, ignoring his option for the State of
Telangana and in violation of the Guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms
No. 312 dated 30th October 2014. The allocation was also in
contravention of the requirement of Clause (f) of Paragraph 18
directing that allocation shall be done in order of seniority as
available. On behalf of the Respondent No.1, it was rightly
contended that the spouse of the Respondent No.1 who had been
born and educated in the State of Telangana had to be treated as
a local candidate of the State of Telangana. As a spouse, the
Respondent No.1 ought to have been allocated to the State of
Telangana. [Paras 49-50][371-B, D-E]
2. Admittedly, at the time of bifurcation of the State of
Andhra Pradesh, the Petitioner was posted in an area which falls
with Telangana. The Petitioner was required to exercise an option,
which he admittedly did. It is not in dispute that 9 posts out of
total 23 posts were allocated to the State of Telangana and 14 to
the State of Andhra Pradesh. As per guidelines, allocable
employees were to be considered on the basis of seniority as on
1st June 2014. [Para 56][377-C]
3. As found by the High Court, the Petitioner's position
was 4th inseniority in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh as
on 1st June 2014. The 3 people, senior to him, were all local
candidate of Andhra Pradesh, who had opted for Andhra Pradesh.
The Respondent No.1 was senior most of the employees who
opted for Telangana. The High Court found that the Respondent
No.1 had denied allocation to Telangana on a "strange
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
353
interpretation of Clause (f) of paragraph 18 of the Guidelines,
giving no weight to seniority. The High Court found on facts that
no importance at all had been given to the fact that the spouse of
the Respondent No.1 was a local of Telangana. [Para 57][377-DE]
4. On a possible interpretation of the Guidelines read with
the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order 1975 and, in
particular, paragraph 4 thereof, the High Court found that the
Respondent No.1 was local candidate of the State of Telangana.
Admittedly, he studied from Class VIII to X at Khammam which
is in the State of Telangana. He thereafter did his Bachelor of
Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry and Master of
Veterinary Science at the college of Veterinary Science, AP,
Agricultural University at Hyderabad. He studied in that
institution for 7 years from 1985 to 1992 being the year in which
he appeared in the qualifying examination. [Para 58][377-F-G]
5. Under the Constitution, India is a Union of States. Every
part of every State is an integral and inseverable part of India.
Admittedly, the Respondent was born in India. He has his domicile
in the territory of India. As held by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain
v. Union of India, under the Indian Constitution, there is only
one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate
domicile for a State. [Para 59][377-H; 378-A]
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent has his domicile
in the Territory of India and was born in the territory of India.
Admittedly, he is a citizen of this country. As a citizen of India,
the respondent has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) to
reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. [Para 63][378E-F]
7. Under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India prohibits
the State from making any law which takes away or infringes the
rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India and any
law made in contravention of Article 13(2), to the extent of the
contravention would be void. [Para 64][378-F-G]
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. v. B. SUBBA RAYUDU
AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
8. The Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 or
any other guidelines framed thereunder, including the guidelines
circulated on 30.10.2014 cannot take away from citizens, the right
to reside and settle in any part of the country. [Para 66][379-A]
9. It is true that when a State is divided and the employees
and officers of the State Government have to be allotted to the
two states, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the
Rules and Regulations and by guidelines. [Para 67][379-B]
10. However, such rules, regulations and guidelines have
to be construed harmoniously with the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is true that the
respondent may have been born in an area which now forms part
of Andhra Pradesh and may have received a substantial part of
his education in areas which now form part of the State of Andhra
Pradesh. However, admittedly, he cleared all Board and
University examinations from areas within the State of Telangana.
At the time of bifurcation, he was posted in Hyderabad, which is
now part of Telangana. [Para 68][379-C-D]
11. The guidelines circulated on 30.10.2014 for allocation
of employees and officers to the States of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh are directory and not inflexible. On a liberal
interpretation of the guidelines in the light of the philosophy of
the Indian Constitution read with Andhra Pradesh Public
Employment Order, 1975, which was in force at the time of
bifurcation, and is applicable to the respondent even under the
Guidelines referred to above, the High Court rightly arrived at
the conclusion that the respondent was a local candidate of
Telangana and was entitled to allocation as per his seniority in
terms of Paragraph 18(f) of the guidelines. Furthermore,
admittedly, the spouse of the respondent was a local candidate of
Telangana. [Para 69][379-D-F]
Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss and Ors (2007) 9 SCC
196 : [2007] 2 SCR 419 ; M/s Bengal Chemical and
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Their Employees AIR 1959
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
355
SC 633 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 136; Kunhayammed &
Ors. v. State of Kerala and Another (2000) 6 SCC 359
: [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538; State of Bombay v. Rusy
Mistry AIR 1960 SC 391; Municipal Board, Pratabgarh
and Another v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Others
(1982) 3 SCC 331; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan
AIR 2003 SC 2889 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 674; Dr.
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1420 :
[1984] 3 SCR 942 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 2 SCR 419
referred to
Para 32
[1959] Suppl. SCR 136
referred to
Para 33
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538
referred to
Para 34
[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 674
referred to
Para 34
[1984] 3 SCR 942
referred to
Para 59
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(C) Nos. 1565-66 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2020 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP (TR) No. 5482 of 2017
and WP 24820 of 2017.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, Ms. Shikha
Sandhu, P. Srinivas Reddy for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates,
Advs. for the Petitioners.
Ms. V. Mohana, K. M. Natraj, Sr. Advs., Sadineni Ravi Kumar,
Jayendra Balaji, M. V. Rama, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Mahfooz Ahsan
Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar
Reddy, Amitabh Sinha, K. V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. Sarupma Chaturvedi,
Ms. Neera Keddar Gokhle, Sachin Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
These Special Leave Petitions are against a final judgment and
order dated 8th December 2020 whereby the High Court for the State of
Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, allowed
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. v. B. SUBBA RAYUDU
AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
the Writ Petitions filed by the Respondent No.1 being Writ Petition (TR.)
No. 5482 of 2017 and Writ Petition No. 24820 of 2017, set aside an
order being F. No. 29/01/2016-SR(S) dated 14th January 2016 of the
Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions and directed the Ministry of
Personnel, PG and Pensions to allocate the Respondent to the State of
Telangana with effect from 14th January 2016. The State of Telangana
was directed to give a posting to the Respondent in the cadre of Joint
Director-Class A in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of
Telangana and also pay salary to the Respondent as Joint Director-Class
A in the Animal Husbandry Department within four weeks from the
date of the judgment and order.
2. The Respondent No.1, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, held
the State Cadre post of Joint Director-Class A in the Animal Husbandry
Department of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. Smt. B.
Shanthabai, wife of the Respondent No.1, was also a State Government
employee working as Assistant Registrar in the same State.
3. By a Notification No.S.O.655B dated 4th March 2014, the
Central Government notified the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,
2014 bifurcating the State of Andhra Pradesh into two States- the new
State of Telangana and the residue state of Andhra Pradesh with effect
from 2nd June 2014.
4. In terms of Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation
Act, 2014, the Central Government issued a Circular being F. No. 27/13/
213/SRS dated 29th October 2014 laying down guidelines for allocation
of employees to the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh,
respectively.
5. As per the said Guidelines and in particular Paragraph No. 12
Clause (vii) thereof, no allocable posts were to be omitted while distributing
the cadre strength between the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
6. By a Circular being G.O. Ms.312 dated 30th October 2014, the
Government of Andhra Pradesh circulated the approved Guidelines for
final allocation of State Government Employees to All India Services
under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. Some of the relevant
provisions of the Guidelines are set out hereinbelow for convenience:
"18. The following principles and procedure shall guide the
final allocation of personnel:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
357
a) Persons who immediately before the appointed day are
serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs
of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall be considered
for allocation, Employees holding posts on purely ad hoc
basis immediately before the 'appointed day' shall be
considered against substantive posts (or regular) held by
them on the 'appointed day' if any.
b) Allocation of employees would be based on final
distribution of posts including vacant posts proposed by
the Advisory Committee in consultation with the successor
States and after approval of the Central Government.
c) Allocable employees shall be considered for allotment
between the successor States on the basis of seniority list
as available on June 01, 2014.
d) ....There shall not be any case of an employee not being
allocated to either of the successor States.
e) State service employees who hold allocable posts shall
be allocated after seeking option from the employees
indicating their preference to serve in either of the
successor States after taking their option into
consideration.
f) The allocation shall be done in order of seniority as
available on June 01, 2014. Those who have opted, who
are 'local candidate's' relatable to the State to which they
have opted, shall, in order of their seniority, be considered
for allocation first. If allocable posts in that category
remain, then others who have opted to the state may be
allocated in order of seniority. If still posts remain
allocation will be made in reverse order of seniority.
...
h) Employees who are not local in relating to both States
will be allocated on the basis of place of birth or home
district, as the case may be, after due verification and
certification. Those originally from other States will be
allocated on a case by case basis after considering their
option.
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. v. B. SUBBA RAYUDU
AND OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
i) Employees who are members of the Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes shall be considered for allocation on the
basis of their option if they are local candidates. IN the
event an SC or ST employee has not exercised his option
or where he has not been so allocated he/she shall be
allocated to the State where his caste or tribe, as the case
may be, is included in the concerned schedule of the State.
...
k) Spouse of an All India Service (AIS) officer who belongs
to a State Cadre or is an employee of a State Government
institution shall be allocated, where so desired by the
spouse, to the State to which the AIS officer is allocated.
l) Spouses in State Cadre in Government or in the State
Government institutions, local bodies and those who are
deemed allocated as per the Act, shall as far as practicable,
be allotted to the same State, after considering options made
by them and their local candidature. Spouses who are local
candidates of a State Shall be allocated to that State. Spouses
who belong to different States may be allocated after
considering their options.
...
n) Local candidature shall be as defined under the Andhra
Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres
and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 as
certified by the competent authority, with strict reference
to the school records. While the committee may take into
consideration entry made in the service register as prima
facie proof of local candidature, it shall be open to either
government or the committee to subject the genuineness of
the employee's local candidature status to strict verification.
False claim of local candidature or production of false
certificate with the intent to mislead shall be punishable as
a criminal offence and also be subject to major disciplinary
proceedings.
...
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
359
s) Employees belonging to allocable categories of one
department working in another department or organisation
on deputation/tenure basis will be allotted by the parent
department of the officer.
x) The actual allocation of personnel to States shall be
guided by the public interest and the administrative needs
of the posts in the States.
19. The Committee shall follow the procedure hereinafter
mentioned for allocation of employees:
i. All employees would be asked to exercise their options
in the prescribed proforma annexed to these Guidelines,
and forward their duly filled option form to the Member
Secretary, Advisory Committee, G A State Reorganisation
Department. A P Secretariat electronically and through the
proper channel indicating their preference for either of
the States within two weeks from the date of public
notification calling for options.
ii. Letter calling for options shall be given wide publicity
through print and electronic media. A copy of the letter
shall also be placed in the public domain for wide publicity.
iii. The employees, who are eligible for allocation to either
of the successor States as specified above, will submit their
option form addressed to the Member Secretary, Advisory
Committee through the respective Administrative
Departments of the Government in which they are working,
to the Andhra Pradesh State General Administration State
Reorganisation Department.
iv. Scrutiny of statements made in the option forms shall
be done and factual accuracy of the statement made therein
certified by the head of the department under whom the
employee is working. The forms so certified shall be
delivered to the GA (SR) Department of the A P
Government.
v. If no option is received within the prescribed time, or
where an employee is willing to be allotted to either of the
two states such person shall be allotted based on the other
criteria.
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. v. B. SUBBA RAYUDU
AND OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
vi. Option once exercised cannot be changed under any
circumstance.
vii. After the distribution of posts is finalised, the Advisory
Committee will draw up, with the help of the departments
concerned and the G A State Reorganisation Department
of A P Government, a Tentative Allocation List for all
employees whether they have exercised option or not. The
Member Secretary of the Advisory Committee will circulate
the Tentative Allocation List to the respective successor
State Government for information of their employees and
for submission of representations, if any, by such
employees, within a period of two weeks from the date of
such communication. The GA State Reorganisation
Department of AP is required to issue the Tentative
Allocation List on behalf of the Advisory Committee. The
list shall be widely published and circulated inviting
representations of employees against their tentative
allocation.
20. Representations against tentative allocation may be
received and disposed off in the following manner:
i. An employees who feels aggrieved by his tentative
allocation, as prepared by the Advisory Committee would
be at liberty to submit his representations to the Chief
Secretary to the successor State in which he is serving,
with a copy to the State Reorganisation Department
constituted in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
ii. Representation of an employee should be self-contained,
clearly indicating the specific points of grievance and
should be addressed to the Advisory Committee. The
concerned administrative department will offer its views
on the representation and forward it to the G A State
Reorganisation Department of the Government of AP.
iii. The successor State of Andhra Pradesh shall furnish
its official comments in the light of the remarks of the
administrative department on the representations received
keeping in view of law, rules, and orders, and would
forward the same for further consideration of the Advisory
Committee.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
361
iv. The Advisory Committee will consider the representation
of the employees after taking the views of Administrative
Department concerned at a meeting attended by the
representatives of the two States and the Central
Government. The recommendations will thereafter be
forwarded to the Central Government with the
recommendations of the Advisory committee for taking a
final view in the matter.
v. Based on the recommendations of the Advisory
Committee, the Central Government shall issue final
allocation orders under Section 77 of the Act allocating
the employees to either of the State.
vi. The Central Government shall have the power to review
any of its orders issued under the Act.
vii. The Member Secretary of the Committee would be
responsible for guiding the Advisory Committee in this
regard."
7. The sanctioned strength of posts in the cadre of Joint DirectorClass A in the Animal Husbandry Department were 23, out of which, 13
posts were allotted to Andhra Pradesh and 10 posts were allotted to
Telangana. At the time of bifurcation, two out of the 23 posts were
vacant.
8. On 7th March 2015, the Respondent opted for allocation to the
State of Telangana. At the material point of time, the Respondent was
working as Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad
on deputation. However, by a Notification No. 21105-B/SRI/AI/2014-4
dated 12th June 2015, the Respondent was allotted to the State of Andhra
Pradesh tentatively. The Respondent submitted his objection against his
tentative allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh on 26th June 2015,
pursuant to the proceedings being GAD(SR), Department, Notification
No. 21105/B/SRI/2014-4.
9. On 26th June 2015, the Respondent made a representation that
he be considered a local candidate of the State of Telangana. The
representation was not considered. By an order No. 5(2)/2016 dated
14th January 2016 in the proceedings being F. No. 29/01/2016, the Ministry
of Personnel, PG and Pensions of the Department of Personnel and
Training, Government of India, allotted the Respondent to the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. v. B. SUBBA RAYUDU
AND OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
10. The Respondent filed an application being O.A No.209/2016
before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Andhra Pradesh, challenging
the aforesaid allocation order dated 14th January 2016 issued by the
Government of India. On 29th January 2016, the Administrative Tribunal
issued notice in the application and passed an interim order to the effect
that the final allocation of the Respondent to the State of Andhra Pradesh
would be subject to the final result of the Original Application.
11. By an order 4th February 2016, the Animal Husbandry, Dairy
Development and Fisheries Department of the Government of Telangana
relieved the Respondent. By an order dated 5th February 2016, the
Government of Telangana, Department of Animal Husbandry, directed
the Respondent No.1 to report to the Head of the Department, Andhra
Pradesh for further posting.
12. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.
4391 of 2016 in the High Court challenging the interim order dated 29th
January 2016 passed by the Administrative Tribunal. By an order dated
16th February 2016, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 4391
of 2016 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration and directed the Tribunal to pass a speaking order, after
hearing both the parties, within two weeks. It was also directed that the
Respondent No.1 should not be relieved from his present place of posting
till disposal of the Interlocutory Application.
13. By an Order being Memo No. 8356/Agri(1)/2016 dated 16th
January 2017, the Government of Telangana Agriculture and Cooperation
Department, repatriated the Respondent No.1 with instructions to report
to his parent Department with immediate effect.
14. On 7th March 2017, the Respondent informed the
Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Department and handed over
complete charge of the post of Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy
District to Shri Y. Sudhakar Reddy.
15. On the same date i.e. 7th March 2017, the Respondent was
relieved from the post of Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District
and a certificate of transfer of charge was issued to him.
16. In 2017, the Administrative Tribunal for the State of Telangana
was abolished and the case being O.A. No. 209/2016 filed by the
Respondent was transferred to the High Court for the State of Telangana
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
363
and for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and was renumbered
as Writ Petition (TR) No. 5482 of 2017.
17. By the impugned judgment and order dated 18th February 2017,
the High Court allowed both the Writ Petitions, setting aside the
proceedings being F. No. 29/01/2016-SR(S) dated 14th January 2016
(Final Allocation Order) of the Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions,
insofar as it concerned the Respondent No.1.
18. The Ministry was directed to allocate the Respondent No.1 to
the State of Telangana with effect from 14th January 2016 and the State
of Telangana was directed to forthwith give posting to the Respondent
in the cadre of Joint Director, Class-A in the Animal Husbandry
Department of the State of Telangana and also to release his salary
within four weeks.
19. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General,
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that allocation had been
made by the Respondent No.5, i.e., the Government of India in the manner
laid down by law, i.e., as per Sections 77(2) and 80 of the Andhra Pradesh
Reorganization Act, 2014, hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2014",
read with the Final Allocation Guidelines issued on 29/30th December
2014.
20. Mr. Lekhi submitted that Section 77(2) of the 2014 Act provides
that as soon as may be, after the appointed day, the Central Government
shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which
every person referred to in Section 77(1) shall be finally allotted for
service, after consideration of option received from the employees, and
the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be
deemed to have taken effect. The second and third proviso to the said
Section provides that "as far as local, district, zonal and multi-zonal
cadres are concerned, the employees shall continue to serve, on or
after the appointed day, in that cadre: provided also that the
employees of local, district, zonal and multi zonal cadres which fall
entirely in one of the successor States, shall be deemed to be allotted
to that successor State".
21. Mr. Lekhi further submitted that Section 80 of the 2014 Act
provides for the constitution of Advisory Committee (AC) and for the
issue of allocation guidelines by the Central Government. The Government
of Andhra Pradesh vide GOMs No. 312 dated 29/30th December, 2014
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. v. B. SUBBA RAYUDU
AND OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
notified the final allocation guidelines prepared under Section 80 of the
2014 Act. The allocation of personnel was to be made in the manner
provided under Guideline 14-17 and the allocation was to be made in
terms of the principles guiding allocation laid down in Guideline 18 of the
final allocation guidelines.
22. It is not in dispute that by virtue of Guideline 18(c) of the
Allocation Guidelines, the allocation from amongst allocable employees
was to be made between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
in order of seniority as available on 1st June, 2014.
23. Mr. Lekhi, however, submitted that the allocation was not to
be made solely on the basis of seniority. Local candidates of the State
for which they opt are to be considered in order of their seniority first. If
the allocable posts in that category still remain, then others who have
opted might be allocated in order of seniority.
24. Mr. Lekhi, argued that allocation was to be made first amongst
those local candidates of the State, who had opted for the State in order
of their seniority and thereafter, if allocable posts still remained, those
posts were to be filled up in the order of seniority from amongst nonlocal candidates who had opted for the State.
25. Mr. Lekhi argued that the respondent No.1 had submitted his
option on the ground that he was a State Cadre employee and his wife a
State Government employee in the State of Telangana. Mr. Lekhi
submitted that a tentative allocation list of the State Cadre employees
between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was prepared
and notified on 12th June, 2015 whereunder the Respondent No.1 was
tentatively allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
26. The employees were given 14 days for filing representations/
objections against the tentative allocation and the Respondent No.1 had
made a representation to be considered as local candidate of the State
of Telangana.
27. The representation was considered by the Allocation
Committee in consultation with the heads of the department at meeting
held on 16th November 2015, but the request of the Respondent No.1
for allocation to Telangana was not accepted for the following reasons :-
"(i)
He is a 'local candidate' of Andhra Pradesh.
(ii)
His request for allocation to Telangana on spouse
ground could not be accepted as his spouse was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
365
appointed to a Zonal Cadre, i.e., Zone-II of erstwhile
Andhra Pradesh which entirely fell under the Successor
State of Andhra Pradesh and she was deemed allocated
to Andhra Pradesh as per provisions of Section 77(2)
of the 2014 Act.
(iii)
There was no vacancy in the State of Telangana to
accommodate him."
28. Mr. Lekhi further submitted that the High Court erred in
describing the Respondent No.1 as a local candidate in the judgment
and order impugned ignoring the deemed appointment of his wife under
Section 77(2) of 2014 Act and disregarding the absence of vacancies.
29. Mr. Lekhi argued that the cadre strength in the category of
Joint director-Class A in Animal Husbandry Department was 23, of which
14 posts were allocated to Andhra Pradesh and 9 posts were allocated
to Telangana. However the number of allocable employees in the
category of Joint Director - Class A was 27 and out of 27 employees, 12
employees, who were local to the State of Telangana and had also opted
for the State of Telangana, were finally allocated to the State of Telangana
against the 9 posts as per provisions contained in Guideline 18(f).
30. Mr. Lekhi argued that the Respondent No.1 who was 'local
candidate' of the State of Andhra Pradesh was finally allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradesh on 14th January, 2016 by the Ministry of
Personnel, PG and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training vide
proceeding F No. 29/01/2016-SR(S).
31 Ms. Mohana appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1
submitted that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is
well reasoned and does not call for interference under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
32. Ms. Mohana argued that Article 136 of the Constitution of
India does not create a regular forum of Appeal. It is only a residual
provision which enables this Court to interfere with the judgment and
order of any Court or Tribunal in India, in its discretion, as observed by
this Court in Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss and Ors.1.
1 (2007) 9 SCC 196
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. v. B. SUBBA RAYUDU
AND OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
33. Citing M/s Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. v. Their Employees2, Ms. Mohana argued that since power under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India was discretionary, this Court was
not bound to set aside an order under Article 136, even if it was not in
conformity with law.
34. Ms. Mohana also cited Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of
Kerala and Another3, State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry4, Municipal
Board, Pratabgarh and Another v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and
Others5 and Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan6.
35. Ms. Mohana argued that the Respondent No.1 was a local
candidate of the State of Telangana. In any case, his spouse was a
native of Telangana and posted in Telangana. As such, the Respondent
No.1 was also eligible under paragraph 18(1) of the said Guidelines dated
30th October 2014 for allocation to the State of Telangana.
36. Ms. Mohana referred to the definition of 'Local Candidate'.
In the definition of local candidate in paragraph 7 of the Andhra Pradesh
Public Employment Order, 1975 which reads:
"1 A candidate for direct recruitment to any post shall be
regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area.
(a) in cases where a minimum educational qualification has
been prescribed for recruitment to the post.
(i) if he has studied in an educational institution or
educational institutions in such local area for a period of
not less then four consecutive academic years ending with
the academic year in which he appeared or, as the case
may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying
examination; or
(ii) where during the whole or any part of the four
consecutive academic years ending with the academic year
in which he appeared or as the case may be, first appeared
for the relevant qualifying examination he has not studied
2 AIR 1959 SC 633 (at 635)
3 (2000) 6 SCC 359
4 AIR 1960 SC 391 (at 395)
5 (1982) 3 SCC 331
6 AIR 2003 SC 2889
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
367
in any educational institution, if he has resided in that local
area for a period of not less than four years immediately
preceding the date of commencement of the qualifying
examination in which he appeared or as the case may be,
first appeared.
(b) In cases where no minimum educational qualification has
been prescribed for recruitment to the post, if he has resided
in that local area for a period of not less than resided in that
local area for a period of not less than four years immediately
proceeding the date on which the post in notified for
recruitment."
37. Ms. Mohana pointed out that the Respondent No.1 had studied
at Khammam in the State of Telangana from Class VIII to X. Thereafter
he did his Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry and
Master of Veterinary Science at the college of Veterinary Science, AP,
Agricultural University, Rajendernagar, Hyderabad (Telangana) from
1985 to 1992. Ms. Mohana argued that having studied in the State of
Telangana for 7 consecutive years ending with the academic year in
which he appeared for qualifying examination, the Respondent No.1
was a local candidate within the meaning ofAndhra Pradesh Public
Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct
Recruitment) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "Andhra Pradesh
Public Employment Order, 1975").
38. Ms. Mohana emphasised that the Respondent No.1 had initially
been appointed as Assistant Director in Chevella Ranga Reddy District,
Hyderabad in 1993 through an examination conducted in the unified State
of Andhra Pradesh vide Recruitment Notification issued in 1992 by the
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission.
39. The Petitioner had studied at educational institutions in the
State for a period of not less than 7 consecutive academic years ending
with the academic year in which he first appeared for the relevant
qualifying examination and was selected and appointed by direct
recruitment. The Respondent No.1 is therefore, to be regarded as a
local candidate to the zone in which the city of Hyderabad falls.
40. Referring to Clause 18(f) of the Andhra Pradesh State
Guidelines issued on 30th October 2014, the final allocation of the State
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. v. B. SUBBA RAYUDU
AND OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
Cadre Employees to the two states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
shall be done on the basis of seniority as available on 1st June 2014.
41. Ms. Mohana also referred to paragraph 18(i) of the State
Allocation Guidelines under which employees who are members of the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes are to be considered for
allocation on the basis of their option if they are local candidates. If an
SC or ST candidate has not exercised his option or where he has not
been so allocated, he/she shall be allocated to the State where his caste
or tribe, as the case may be, is included in the concerned schedule of the
State.
42. Ms. Mohana emphasized on Clause 18(f) of the Guidelines
dated 30th October 2014, which clearly states that allocable employees
shall be considered for allotment between the Successor States on the
basis of seniority list as on 1st June 2014. As per the seniority list, the
position of the Respondent No.1 was at Sr. NO.4. All the three employees
senior to the Respondent No.1 were allocated State of Andhra Pradesh
as per their preference. The Respondent No.1 was thus the senior most
in his cadre to opt for the State of Telangana. Ms. Mohana argued that
the Union of India gave no weight to seniority of the Respondent No.1
and filled up vacancies by persons who are native of Telangana, which
is patently contrary to clause 18 (f) of the Guidelines. Ms. Mohana argued
that the High Court had correctly held that denial of posting to the
Respondent No.1 from 8th March 2017 onwards and denying him salary
from that date onwards was illegal. The Respondent No.1 was entitled
to be paid salary from 8th March 2017 till date of posting by State of
Telangana with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
43. Ms. Mohana argued that the wife of the Respondent No.1
admittedly being a local candidate of Telangana allocated to Telangana,
the Respondent No.1 needs to be allocated to Telangana. Ms. Mohana
argued that in any case the Respondent No.1 ought not have been relieved
from service in the State of Telangana while order of stay was operating
in his favour.
44. Ms. Mohana argued that after the Respondent No.1 was
released from ATMA, Rangareddy District on 7th March 2017, he
reported to Animal Husbandry Department Telangana and requested
that he be given up the posting but to no avail.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
369
45. The contentions of the Petitioners and the Respondent No.1
have carefully and meticulously been dealt with by the High Court in its
impugned judgment and order. The High Court noted:-
"7. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner gave a representation
dt.26.06.2015 stating that though he was born in Kadapa
District of Andhra Pradesh, he had studied Classes VIII, IX
and X at Khammam in the State of Telangana and subsequent
education including Post Graduation was also in the
Telangana State and so he is to be considered as a local
candidate of State of Telangana; he was initially appointed
as Assistant Director in Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in
Telangana State through an examination conducted by the
A.P.